Keep a close eye on your health

When computers were first installed in UK offices, the trade unions raised issues such as repetitive strain injury, failing eyesight and low-level radiation from monitors.

Some companies wilfully ignored their concerns. PCs were often installed on standard writing desks and lighting was not adjusted.

A few landmark court cases forced many employers to pull their socks up and there was a brief boom in the market for ergonomic office furniture, but sadly this was curtailed by the amount of spending required.

Some companies are still up to mischief, but in the US things are changing.

The latest trend Stateside is 'wellness models', where the aim is for the employer to help the employee make 'choices towards a more successful existence'.

In a nutshell, they have to ensure that staff are encouraged to lead a healthy and happy lifestyle, the principle being that the bonhomie of the individual influences the well-being of the entire organisation. It turns on its head the mechanistic approach to employees that employers have held since the Industrial Revolution.

As far as UK law is concerned, you are a VDU user even if you look at your computer just once or twice a day. But are employers trying to dodge their responsibilities?

Ask yourself when, in the past six months, you had your eyes tested. Who paid for it? In 15 years' working at a VDU, the only time my employer paid for my eye test was when I became self-employed.

In 1992, a European Community directive came into force, which affected everyone who used a monitor or VDU.

The directive turned a concern into a health and safety issue and meant employers could be taken to court for allowing staff to work in dangerous environments.

Employers had to ensure that workstations met the correct safety standards by 1996 and that users received appropriate training in the use of monitors.

They also had to enforce five to 10-minute breaks every hour, pay for staff to have regular eye tests and also pay for glasses if eyesight had deteriorated.

The only get-out clause for employers is that health and safety rules only require them to tell staff about eye tests - they don't have to set up their own screening operations. So they tell you when you join - it's probably in the small print in your contract - and hope you will forget about it.

One memo, sent to me by a source in a government agency, reveals the agency's personnel department considers eye tests to be an employee perk that can be taken away at will. The memo orders staff to pay for their own eye tests. The agency says it will only pay for the test if an employee's eyesight is shown to have degraded as a result of using a VDU.

The memo has found its way into the offices of Unison, the union for public sector employees, and it is unlikely the agency will get away with it. But it does raise concerns - if this government agency is trying to get out of paying for health and safety changes, what will small private companies be up to?

US companies where a 'wellness model' has been instituted have shown marked increases in productivity and higher staff retention. It has been especially significant for companies that had not been able to effect increases in salaries and bonuses.

Even if employers don't swallow the whole well-being package, maybe its success is a good enough reason for them to place their IT employees higher up their list of priorities, rather than seeing them as an area where they can cut costs.