16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Datos y evidencias del teletrabajo, antes y durante la pandemia por COVID-19 Translated title: Telework: Data and evidence before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Resumen Este breve ensayo parte de la hipótesis de que el teletrabajo no es nada más, y nada menos, que la manifestación de un anunciado cambio de época, del cual la pandemia está actuando como acelerador. Un cambio de época definida por un nuevo espacio económico y laboral, además de social, que es el ciberespacio, que profundiza en la digitalización de la economía y la flexibilización del mercado de trabajo. El teletrabajo es un resultado esperado en esta nueva realidad. La pandemia ha incrementado exponencialmente esta nueva forma de organización del trabajo, definida como el trabajo realizado en domicilio utilizando equipos electrónicos. Desde una perspectiva global, la OIT ha estimado, en base a las encuestas de hogares de 31 países realizadas en el segundo trimestre de 2020, que el 17,4% de las personas ocupadas de todo el mundo, unos 557 millones, trabajaron en ese periodo en sus domicilios, oscilando entre el 25,4% en los países de renta alta y el 13,6% en los países de renta baja. Para América Latina, el teletrabajo se elevó entre a un 25-30% en el segundo trimestre de 2020, y en Europa, Eurofound, en el mes de abril de 2020, estimó que el 37% de los participantes había empezado a trabajar en el domicilio con el inicio de la pandemia. Todo lo cual ha permitido mantener cierta actividad económica y la relación laboral de estas personas durante la pandemia. Asimismo, no hay que olvidar que la pandemia ha provocado también enormes pérdidas de empleo, especialmente durante el segundo trimestre de 2020, en que según las estimaciones de la OIT se perdieron más de 300 millones de empleos a jornada completa. Unas pérdidas de empleos que en el segundo trimestre de 2021 aún no se han recuperado respecto a los niveles anteriores a la pandemia. En este sentido, no hay que olvidar que el teletrabajo no crea nuevas ocupaciones, solo proporciona una nueva forma de organizar el trabajo para aquellas ocupaciones cuyas tareas pueden realizarse virtualmente. En el momento de elaboración de este artículo, después de un año de restricciones en la actividad económica, la movilidad y la interacción social, las encuestas que ha continuado realizando Eurofound muestran que el teletrabajo exclusivo, todos los días de la semana, está disminuyendo en el conjunto de la Unión europea, desde el 34% en verano de 2020 al 24% en la primavera de 2021. Dado que la pandemia aún no ha finalizado, y que no sabemos cómo acabará este "experimento", debemos continuar monitorizando estos cambios en la manera de trabajar, y cómo afectan al mercado de trabajo y a las condiciones de empleo y trabajo. Hasta donde sabemos, el teletrabajo ofrece grandes ventajas, pero también importantes inconvenientes, respecto a las condiciones de trabajo y empleo, las cuales pueden afectar a la salud de la persona que teletrabaja, positiva o negativamente. La regulación del teletrabajo es un elemento clave de la regulación de la economía digital basada en el ciberespacio, y debe tener un alcance global.

          Translated abstract

          Abstract This short essay starts from the hypothesis that teleworking is nothing more, and nothing less, than the manifestation of an announced change of time, of which the pandemic is acting as an accelerator. A change of era defined by a new economic and labor space that is cyberspace, which deepens the digitization of the economy and the flexibilization of the labor market. Teleworking is an expected result in this new reality. The pandemic has exponentially increased this new form of work organization, defined as work done at home using electronic equipment. From a global perspective, the ILO has estimated, based on household surveys of 31 countries carried out in the second quarter of 2020, that 17.4% of the employed people worldwide, some 557 million, worked in that sector. period in their homes, ranging from 25.4% in high-income countries to 13.6% in low-income countries. For Latin America, teleworking rose between 25-30% in the second quarter of 2020, and in Europe, Eurofound, in April 2020, estimated that 37% of participants had started working at home with the onset of the pandemic. All of which has made it possible to maintain certain economic activity and the employment relationship of these people during the pandemic. Likewise, it should not be forgotten that the pandemic has also caused huge job losses, especially during the second quarter of 2020, when, according to ILO estimates, more than 300 million full-time jobs were lost. Job losses that as of the 2nd quarter of 2021 have not yet recovered from pre-pandemic levels. In this sense, it should not be forgotten that teleworking does not create new occupations, it only provides a new way of organizing work for those occupations whose tasks can be performed virtually. At the time of writing this article, after a year of restrictions on economic activity, mobility and social interaction, the surveys that Eurofound has continued to carry out show that exclusive teleworking, every day of the week, is decreasing in the whole of the European Union, from 34% in summer 2020 (second round) to 24% in spring 2021 (third round). Given that the pandemic has not yet ended, and we do not know how the "experiment" will end, we must continue to monitor these changes in the way of working, and how they affect the labor market and employment and working conditions. As far as we know, teleworking offers great advantages, but also important disadvantages, with respect to working and employment conditions, which can, positively or negatively, affect the health of the teleworker. Telework regulation is a key element of cyberspace-based regulation of the digital economy, and it must be a global issue.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Offline: COVID-19 is not a pandemic

          As the world approaches 1 million deaths from COVID-19, we must confront the fact that we are taking a far too narrow approach to managing this outbreak of a new coronavirus. We have viewed the cause of this crisis as an infectious disease. All of our interventions have focused on cutting lines of viral transmission, thereby controlling the spread of the pathogen. The “science” that has guided governments has been driven mostly by epidemic modellers and infectious disease specialists, who understandably frame the present health emergency in centuries-old terms of plague. But what we have learned so far tells us that the story of COVID-19 is not so simple. Two categories of disease are interacting within specific populations—infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and an array of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). These conditions are clustering within social groups according to patterns of inequality deeply embedded in our societies. The aggregation of these diseases on a background of social and economic disparity exacerbates the adverse effects of each separate disease. COVID-19 is not a pandemic. It is a syndemic. The syndemic nature of the threat we face means that a more nuanced approach is needed if we are to protect the health of our communities. © 2020 Peter Scholey Partnership/Getty Images 2020 Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active. The notion of a syndemic was first conceived by Merrill Singer, an American medical anthropologist, in the 1990s. Writing in The Lancet in 2017, together with Emily Mendenhall and colleagues, Singer argued that a syndemic approach reveals biological and social interactions that are important for prognosis, treatment, and health policy. Limiting the harm caused by SARS-CoV-2 will demand far greater attention to NCDs and socioeconomic inequality than has hitherto been admitted. A syndemic is not merely a comorbidity. Syndemics are characterised by biological and social interactions between conditions and states, interactions that increase a person's susceptibility to harm or worsen their health outcomes. In the case of COVID-19, attacking NCDs will be a prerequisite for successful containment. As our recently published NCD Countdown 2030 showed, although premature mortality from NCDs is falling, the pace of change is too slow. The total number of people living with chronic diseases is growing. Addressing COVID-19 means addressing hypertension, obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases, and cancer. Paying greater attention to NCDs is not an agenda only for richer nations. NCDs are a neglected cause of ill-health in poorer countries too. In their Lancet Commission, published last week, Gene Bukhman and Ana Mocumbi described an entity they called NCDI Poverty, adding injuries to a range of NCDs—conditions such as snake bites, epilepsy, renal disease, and sickle cell disease. For the poorest billion people in the world today, NCDIs make up over a third of their burden of disease. The Commission described how the availability of affordable, cost-effective interventions over the next decade could avert almost 5 million deaths among the world's poorest people. And that is without considering the reduced risks of dying from COVID-19. © 2020 Allison Michael Orenstein/Getty Images 2020 Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active. The most important consequence of seeing COVID-19 as a syndemic is to underline its social origins. The vulnerability of older citizens; Black, Asian, and minority ethnic communities; and key workers who are commonly poorly paid with fewer welfare protections points to a truth so far barely acknowledged—namely, that no matter how effective a treatment or protective a vaccine, the pursuit of a purely biomedical solution to COVID-19 will fail. Unless governments devise policies and programmes to reverse profound disparities, our societies will never be truly COVID-19 secure. As Singer and colleagues wrote in 2017, “A syndemic approach provides a very different orientation to clinical medicine and public health by showing how an integrated approach to understanding and treating diseases can be far more successful than simply controlling epidemic disease or treating individual patients.” I would add one further advantage. Our societies need hope. The economic crisis that is advancing towards us will not be solved by a drug or a vaccine. Nothing less than national revival is needed. Approaching COVID-19 as a syndemic will invite a larger vision, one encompassing education, employment, housing, food, and environment. Viewing COVID-19 only as a pandemic excludes such a broader but necessary prospectus. © 2020 xavierarnau/Getty Images 2020 Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Report: not found

            COVID-19 and Remote Work: An Early Look at US Data

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The relationship between telework from home and employee health: a systematic review

              Background Globalization and technological progress have made telework arrangements such as telework from home (TWFH) well-established in modern economies. TWFH was rapidly and widely implemented to reduce virus spread during the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, and will probably be widespread also post-pandemic. How such work arrangements affect employee health is largely unknown. Main objective of this review was to assess the evidence on the relationship between TWFH and employee health. Methods We conducted electronic searches in MEDLINE, Embase, Amed, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Scopus for peer-reviewed, original research with quantitative design published from January 2010 to February 2021. Our aim was to assess the evidence for associations between TWFH and health-related outcomes in employed office workers. Risk of bias in each study was evaluated by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the collected body of evidence was evaluated using the the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results We included 14 relevant studies (22,919 participants) reporting on 28 outcomes, which were sorted into six outcome categories (general health, pain, well-being, stress, exhaustion & burnout, and satisfaction with overall life & leisure). Few studies, with many having suboptimal designs and/or other methodological issues, investigating a limited number of outcomes, resulted in the body of evidence for the detected outcome categories being GRADED either as low or very low. Conclusions The consisting evidence on the relationship between TWFH and employee health is scarce. The non-existence of studies on many relevant and important health outcomes indicates a vast knowledge gap that is crucial to fill when determining how to implement TWFH in the future working life. Systematic review registration number PROSPERO registration ID # CRD42021233796 . Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-021-12481-2.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                aprl
                Archivos de Prevención de Riesgos Laborales
                Arch Prev Riesgos Labor
                Societat Catalana de Salut Laboral y Asociación de Medicina del Trabajo de la Comunidad Valenciana (Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain )
                1578-2549
                June 2022
                : 25
                : 2
                : 133-146
                Affiliations
                [1] Barcelona orgnameCentro de Investigación en Salud Laboral, UPF-IMIM/PSMar España
                [2] Madrid orgnameCIBERESP España
                [3] Madrid orgnameObservatorio Iberoamericano de Seguridad y Salud en el Trabajo, OISS España
                Article
                S1578-25492022000200133 S1578-2549(22)02500200133
                10.12961/aprl.2022.25.02.06
                dadf276f-12e8-4ba3-a30f-e3798446bf2c

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 25 March 2022
                : 21 January 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 40, Pages: 14
                Product

                SciELO Spain

                Categories
                Foro UNIA de Teletrabajo

                teleworking,salud laboral,condiciones de trabajo,COVID-19,teletrabajo,working conditions,occupational health

                Comments

                Comment on this article