Reproductive hazards in the workplace By KERRY McCUAIG Joanne Clifton was among 100 women who fought the Steel Company of Canada’s discriminatory hiring prac- tices and won. Her reasons for entering this ‘‘male domain’’ were the same as most women like her — true the job was dirty and tiring but at least it was challenging and the pay was much better. Today Joanne no longer works at Stelco. She took a medical leave last week after being forced to choose between her job or having a healthy baby. Joanne worked near the blast furnaces and feared that the carbon monoxide emissions would affect her baby’s development. Her family doctor and the doctors at the United Steelworker’s health clinic agreed. The carbon monoxide coming off the furnaces would be equivalent to Clifton smoking two packs of cigarettes a day, a definite danger to fetal development. Workers have come to realize that most work environments present hazards or strains on their own health. We have more recently been faced with the harm it can do to our reproductive rights. But hazards to reproduction should not be viewed as solely a problem for women workers. Any substance which will harm a fetus will certainly affect the adult worker over time — male or female. Reproductive hazards are also not limited to the gesta- tion period. Some chemicals can cause genetic mutation in both men and women. This occurs from damage either to the male sperm or the female ovum resulting in birth defects. Reduced fertility or even sterility has been documented in workers exposed to chloroprene (used in the production of synthetic rubber), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) used in the electronics industry or DBCP used in agricultural products. This exposure doesn’t have to be prolonged. In 1976 a fertilizer plant in southern California was found responsible for the steril- ity in 90% of its male workforce in one department. Many of these men were young, some had only worked there for three years. _ Carcinogens (cancer producing) substances can cer- tainly affect reproductive capacity, particularly when they hit the reproductive organs. Cancer of the prostate gland (manufactures semen) has been linked to work- place substances. Cutting and lubricating oils have caused cancer of the scrotum. Radiation can also cause genetic damage to the sperm. Women Barred from Jobs Yet the most frequent response from industry and governments has been to exclude women from occupa- tions where they can be exposed to known hazards. Dow Chemical and Exxon keep women out of jobs where they might come in contact with benzene, radiation, methoxy fluorance, halothane or organic dyes. In 1976, General Motors in Oshawa transferred all women of childbearing age out of their battery plant because of lead exposure. Provincial statutes prevent women from working underground in mines. Inco at Sudbury bars women from the nickel and precious metal refining processes. Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting also restricts women’s employment. Regulations set by the federal Atomic Energy Control Act effectively bar women from over 2,000 jobs at On- tario Hydro’s nuclear plants, Radiation exposure limits for men are higher than those set for pregnant women. Rather than lowering emissions at their plants hydro — all women as potentially pregnant and will not hire em. On the surface this may sound fair. After all what woman wants to expose her unborn child to possible birth defects? But the concern for unborn children PACIFIC TRIBUNE—MAY 8, 1981—Page 8 smacks a trifle hollow to workers who have been fighting for better health and safety protection over the years. Workmen’s Compensation Acts prevent workers from suing an employer for injuries or illnesses related to the workplace. It does not absolve the company from responsibility for children of workers who suffered dam- age while in the womb. To date there have been no suits by parents initiated on behalf of their defective children. Yet companies remain very sensitive to this possibility. For women this protective paternalism on their behalf usually means a substantial loss in pay. When Rachel Barriault was told she could not work in the IPC unit of Inco’s nickel refinery in Sudbury it meant a $2 an hour pay reduction and a transfer to a tedious, taxing job shovelling onto a conveyer. Men with less seniority than her were being transferred to better jobs. -In Barriault’s case the antidote which would have to be administered if there was a leak of poisonous nickel carbonyl gas is believed to cause birth defects. In the case of the women at GM’s battery plant the United Auto Workers appealed their case to the Ontario Labor Relations Board. They cited evidence which indi- cated lead could also cause sterility in men; in addition to liver and kidney damage. The LRB wasn’t moved. It backed up the company’s exclusionary decision rather than ordering a lowering of lead emissions in the plant. They currently meet government guidelines. But these women too were transferred to jobs where their earning capacity was reduced. One woman even went so far as to have herself sterilized to maintain her pay. Female Job Ghettos This concern for women’s and fetal health seems to be prevalent only in areas where women have broken out of the female job ghettos into higher paying jobs. What is a soul wrenching problem when a woman makes $10 an hour doesn’t seem so vital when she’s earning $4.50. Women exposed to hazards in the office, in the elec- tronic and textile industries, as hairdressers or in dry cleaning plants do not evoke the same concerns from their employers as those in the foundries, mills and mines. The push of technology into the office, particularly with the introduction of cathode ray tubes (usually re- ferred to as VDTs), raises a serious reproductive hazard. Four women working at the Toronto Star gave birth to defective babies in 1979, raising the possibility that these machines pose a far more serious health threat than ‘anyone had previously suspected. With their introduction into almost every type of office across the country also come reports of more birth de- fects, spontaneous abortions and other health problems. All of these babies’ deformities can be linked to radia- tion. But when the Ministry of Labor tested the ma- chines, after much pressure from the union, they didn’t find any ‘measurable radiation’. However the Southern Ontario Newspaper Guild later discovered that the equipment used was not capable of detecting the full spectrum of radiation. Based on its original findings the ministry now refuses to test any more machines. The Communication Workers of Canada won a vic- tory when Bell Canada.agreed to transfer pregnant women off these machines. This may help other or- ganized workers, however it still must be recognized that the embryo is most susceptible during the first 18 to 60 days of gestation. A|\time when most women don’t realize they are pregnant. The electronics industry, which is the largest employer of factory women, also presents its workers with a number of hazards. Cadmium, lead-zinc, alloys, PCBs are all used in the production process and have been linked to birth defects. _up, noise and heat causes increased blood press' ‘while four more opened. calf Textile workers are exposed to many substances the refining and production of materials. Recent inform® jj tion has shown that a nursing mother in a single visit to? dry cleaning plant accumulated enoug!r trichloroethylene in her milk to cause jaundice in hé child. ‘ Yet none of these companies has ever considered barring women. The reason is obvious; they wouldn’t be able to hire men for the paltry wages they pay. Pregnant Women Susceptible However, pregnant women do need special protectio? on the job. Changes take place in a woman’s body whet pregnant which make her more susceptible to h substances. She breathes in a greater volume of air tha! other workers. This increased need for oxygen can I sult in the inhalation of a greater proportion of tom! substances and in deeper penetration of harmful dusts These toxins can also cross the placenta and affect thé fetus. Towards the end of her pregnancy a woman’s bloo® volume increases by 30-40%, placing greater pressure 0 her heart and circulatory system. Stress caused by s under normal circumstances but puts greater stress the pregnant woman. ; Greater weight and the change in the centre of gravil) can make heavy lifting or stretching more difficult fo! these women. ~ When Joanne Clifton found that she was pregnant st asked for a transfer to a lighter job. The company stalle! see someone quit and replace them.” But ‘pregnancy isn’t an illness. Workers, men as women, have a right to produce children. They als? should have the right to a job which will not impair the! health or the health of their offspring. Real. Issue Obscured But arguments which support barring women fro? toxic substances on the job obscure the real issv@ Reproductive hazards affect both men and women. Th? workplace must be made safe for all workers so no life#} put in jeopardy. : This is not an easy task. Industry’s view of toxi substances is that they are innocent until proven guilt¥] That guilt is totalled in body counts. Control systems a expensive and many workers, when bargaining for stn” ter controls, are face with the age old argument thi! things must remain as they are or their jobs will go. Thi is not the case, however. When the oil and che icd industry was forced to tighten up its standards in th? U.S. only one small company in the south went und@ Until the workplace becomes a safe place, howevelt workers must fight both at the bargaining table through legislation for the right of pregnant women to bf transferred to less strenuous jobs with no loss of pay of seniority. Research'on toxic chemicals must be indepe™” dent, not conducted and/or financed by the indust?) concermed. When government standards are set they must cove all workers, men and women, pregnant or not and | new substances must be tested with reproductiv! hazards in mind. : Labor is faced with a monumental task on this issU“ one which affects not only this generation of worker but generations to come.