Зиянды еңбек жағдайларында жұмыс істейтін қызметкерлерге арналған әлеуметтік кепілдіктердегі бөлу әділдігі

Зиянды және қауіпті еңбек жағдайларында жұмыс істейтін қызметкерлерге берілетін әлеуметтік кепілдіктер жүйесі әлеуметтік қорғаудың маңызды элементі болып қала береді. Зерттеудің мақсаты – Қазақстандағы қолданыстағы әлеуметтік кепілдіктер жүйесінің бөлу әділдігін бағалау, оны шетелдік модельдермен салыстыру және кепілдіктерді ұсынудың тізімдік тетігінен тәуекелге бағдарланған тетікке көшу мүмкіндіктерін айқындау. Зерттеу әдістері салыстырмалы институционалдық-құқықтық талдауды, заңнаманың бағытталған контент-талдауын, сипаттамалық статистикалық талдауды, сондай-ақ ұсынылып отырған реформаның қаржылық және ынталандырушы әсерлерін бағалауды қамтиды. Бастапқы деректер 11 елдің — ТМД- ның алты елінің (Қазақстан, Ресей, Беларусь, Өзбекстан, Қырғызстан, Армения) және ЭЫДҰ-ның бес елінің (АҚШ, Германия, Ұлыбритания, Франция, Канада) заңнамасын, сондай-ақ Қазақстан Республикасы Ұлттық статистика бюросының 2021–2025 жылдарға арналған нысан деректерін қамтиды. Нәтижелер кемінде бір әлеуметтік кепілдік алатын қызметкерлер саны іс жүзінде өзгермегенін, ал кепілдіктермен қамтылғандардың үлесі 41,54%-дан 38,75%-ға дейін төмендегенін (– 2,79 т.п.) көрсетті. Жұмыс берушілердің шығыстары 167,9-дан 341,9 млрд теңгеге дейін өсті, яғни номиналды мәнде 2.04 есе және нақты мәнде 26.4%-ға артты. Бір алушыға шаққандағы шығыстар 246,2-ден 501,4 мың теңгеге дейін ұлғайды. Кепілдіктерді өлшенген тәуекел деңгейіне және 3–9% жарна шкаласына сәйкес саралауға ұсынылатын көшу фискалдық бейтараптықты сақтауға және сонымен бірге жұмыс берушінің кәсіптік тәуекелді төмендетуіне экономикалық ынталандыру қалыптастыруға мүмкіндік береді.

1. Aleksanyan, A., & Aleksanyan, A. (2022). Rethinking the non-resilience of trade unions in Armenia: How to protect social rights and freedoms of workers? Journal of Political Science: Bulletin of Yerevan University, 1(1), 78-106. https://doi.org/10.46991/JOPS/2022.1.1.078

2. Almond, P., & Esbester, M. (2018). Regulatory inspection and the changing legitimacy of health and safety. Regulation & Governance, 12(1), 46-63. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12155

3. Almond, P., & Esbester, M. (2023). Towards a more effective health and safety regime for UK workplaces post COVID-19. Industrial Law Journal, 52(3), 665-693. https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwac034

4. Bekmagambetov, A.B., Kaziev, T.A., Adilov, M.T., & Yagmussova, A.F. (2024).[Normative-legal analysis of regulatory norms in the provision of guarantees to workers engaged in heavy work and work with harmful and (or) hazardous working conditions in the Republic of Kazakhstan]. Sotsialnaya politika i innovatsii. https://doi.org/10.70842/3079-0670-2024-2-18-35 (In Russ.)

5. Benach, J., Vives, A., Amable, M., Vanroelen, C., Tarafa, G., & Muntaner, C. (2014). Precarious employment: Understanding an emerging social determinant of health. Annual Review of Public Health, 35(1), 229-253. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182500

6. Bukhtiyarov, I.V., Kuzmina, L.P., Golovkova, N.P., Chebotarev, A.G., Leskina, L.M., & Khelkovskiy-Sergeev, N.A. (2021). [Justification of the platform of standards based on risk assessment of health disorders of employees of leading economic sectors]. Meditsina truda i promyshlennaya ekologiya, 61(3), 155-160. https://doi.org/10.31089/1026-9428-2021-61-3-155-160 (In Russ.)

7. Bukhtiyarov, I.V., Kuzmina, L.P., Golovkova, N.P., Izmerova, N.I., Leskina, L.M., Kotova, N.I., & Sobolev, V.P. (2022). [Development of a complex of priority measures for integrating working conditions assessment tools for forming occupational risk levels]. Meditsina truda i promyshlennaya ekologiya. 62(9), 558-565. https://doi.org/10.31089/1026-9428-2022-62-9-558-565 (In Russ.)

8. Bureau of National Statistics. (2025). Official statistical data. Retrieved April 15, 2026, from https://stat.gov.kz/enChen, H., Hou, C., Zhang, L., & Li, S. (2020). Comparative study on the strands of research on the governance model of international occupational safety and health issues. Safety Science, 122, 104513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.104513

9. Cherevko A.N., Lomat L.N., Kunitskaya S.V., Girko I.N., Liakh M.A. [Working conditions of the population employed in the economy of the Republic of Belarus]. Meditsinskii zhurnal. 4, 57-62. https://doi.org/10.51922/1818-426X.2024.4.57 (In Russ.)

10. Clayton, A. (2012). Economic incentives in the prevention and compensation of work injury and illness. Policy and Practice in Health and Safety, 10(1), 27-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/14774003.2012.11667767

11. Dorman, P., & Boden, L. (2021). Risk without reward: The myth of wage compensation for hazardous work. Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/unequalpower/publications/risk-without-reward-the-myth-of-wagecompensation-for-hazardous-work/

12. Dorman, P., & Hagstrom, P. (1998). Wage compensation for dangerous work revisited. ILR Review, 52(1), 116-135. https://doi.org/10.1177/001979399805200107

13. Dzhusupov, K. O., Sulaimanova, C. T., Toguzbayeva, K. K., Tabibi, R., Serik, B., Chonbasheva, C. K., Egamnazarov, K., & Kainarbayeva, M. S. (2018). The state of higher education in occupational health and safety in Central Asian countries. Annals of Global Health, 84(3), 397-407. https://doi.org/10.29024/aogh.2322

14. Elsler, D., Treutlein, D., Rydlewska, I., Frusteri, L., Krüger, H., Veerman, T., Eeckelaert, L., Roskams, N., Van Den Broek, K., & Taylor, T. N. (2010). A review of case studies evaluating economic incentives to promote occupational safety and health. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 36(4), 289-298. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3018

15. Endicott, O. (2025). Perverse outcomes: Notes from the field on how financial incentives in Ontarios workers compensation cause harm to a public institution and create a new occupational hazard. New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy, 35(1), 73-80. https://doi.org/10.1177/10482911251314183

16. Eurofound. (2026). European Working Conditions Survey 2024: Overview report. Publications Office of the European Union. https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/en/publications/all/european-working-conditions-survey-2024-overview-report

17. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. (2019). The value of occupational safety and health and the societal costs of work-related injuries and diseases. EU-OSHA. https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/valueoccupational-safety-and-health-and-societal-costs-work-related-injuries-and

18. Imankulova, B. N., & Dzhusupov, K. O. (2018). Some issues of occupational health of health care workers in Central Asia (Review). Annals of Global Health, 84(3), 459-464. https://doi.org/10.29024/aogh.2329

19. International Labour Organization. (2019). Safety and health at the heart of the future of work: Building on 100 years of experience. ILO. https://www.ilo.org/publications/safety-and-health-heart-future-work-building-100-years-experience-0

20. International Labour Organization. (2024). World Social Protection Report 2024-26: Universal social protection for climate action and a just transition. ILO. https://www.ilo.org/publications/flagship-reports/world-socialprotection-report-2024-26-universal-social-protection-climate

21. International Labour Organization. (2026). Financing occupational safety and health prevention: A comparative analysis of six case studies (ILO Working Paper No. 173). ILO. https://webapps.ilo.org/static/english/intserv/working-papers/wp173/index.html

22. Ison, T.G. (2015). Reflections on the State of Workers’ Compensation and Occupational Health & Safety in the United States and Canada. Compensation & Benefits Review, 47, 27 - 38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886368715572530

23. Jolivet, A. (2011). Pénibilité du travail : la loi de 2010 et ses usages par les acteurs sociaux. La Revue de l'Ires, 70(3), 33-60. https://doi.org/10.3917/rdli.070.0033

24. Kankaanpää, E. (2010). Economic incentives as a policy tool to promote safety and health at work. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 36(4), 319-324. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3048

25. Kathayat, A., Baharudin, M. R., Lee, W. W. S., & Mohd Tohir, M. Z. (2025). OSH risk management policies between North America and Southeast Asia-a comparative review. Front. Public Health, 13, 1642941. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1642941

26. Kerbrat, J., Descatha, A. (2018). Pénibilité au travail en France et utilisation de loutil matrice emplois-expositions pour son évaluation The recognition of health consequences of difficult working conditions in France and its evaluation with the use of a job-exposure matrix. Archives des Maladies Professionnelles et de lEnvironnement, 79(4), 493-500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.admp.2017.12.001

27. Lengagne, P. (2016). Experience rating and work-related health and safety. Journal of Labor Research, 37(1), 69-97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12122-015-9216-x

28. MacEachen, E., Lippel, K., Saunders, R., Kosny, A., Mansfield, L., Carrasco, C., & Pugliese, D. (2012). Workers compensation experience-rating rules and the danger to workers safety in the temporary work agency sector. Policy and Practice in Health and Safety, 10(1), 77-95. https://doi.org/10.1080/14774003.2012.11667770

29. Michalski, M.-C. (2009). Specific molecular and colloidal structures of milk fat affecting lipolysis, absorption and postprandial lipemia. European Journal of Lipid Science and Technology, 111(5), 413-431. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejlt.200800254

30. Mischke, C., Verbeek, J. H., Job, J., Morata, T. C., Alvesalo-Kuusi, A., Neuvonen, K., Clarke, S., & Pedlow, R. I. (2013). Occupational safety and health enforcement tools for preventing occupational diseases and injuries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2013(8), CD010183. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010183.pub2

31. Natali, D., Spasova, S., & Vanhercke, B. (2016). Retirement regimes for workers in arduous or hazardous jobs in Europe: A study of national policies. European Social Policy Network (ESPN), European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2767/978434

32. Paridon, H. M., Paridon, C. M., & Bindzius, F. A. (2007). The German Berufsgenossenschaften (institutions for statutory accident insurance and prevention): Organisation, mandate and activities. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 30(4-5), 400-415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2007.06.011

33. Ruser, J. W. (1985). Workers compensation insurance, experience-rating, and occupational injuries. The RAND Journal of Economics, 16(4), 487-503. https://ideas.repec.org/a/rje/randje/v16y1985iwinterp487-503.html

34. Russ, K. (2010). Risk assessment in the UK health and safety system: Theory and practice. Safety and Health at Work, 1(1), 11-18. https://doi.org/10.5491/SHAW.2010.1.1.11

35. Thomason, T., & Pozzebon, S. (2002). Determinants of firm workplace health and safety and claims management practices. ILR Review, 55(2), 286-307. https://doi.org/10.1177/001979390205500205

36. Tompa, E., Trevithick, S., & McLeod, C. (2007). Systematic review of the prevention incentives of insurance and regulatory mechanisms for occupational health and safety. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 33(2), 85-95. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.1111

37. Viscusi, W. K., & Aldy, J. E. (2003). The value of a statistical life: A critical review of market estimates throughout the world. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 27(1), 5-76. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025598106257

38. Vitrano, G., & Micheli, G. J. L. (2024). Effectiveness of occupational safety and health interventions: A long way to go. Frontiers in Public Health, 12, 1292692. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1292692

39. Yensebayeva, A., Yagmussova, A., & Baiterekova, K. (2025). International practices for assessing working conditions and social guarantees at occupational risks. Bulletin of L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University. Law Series, 151(2), 198-228. https://doi.org/10.32523/2616-6844-2025-151-2-198-228