39 LPPM - Universitas Narotama ISSN : 2594 - 4777 (Online) 2597 - 4742 (Print) https://jurnal.narotama.ac.id/index.php/scj/index The Spirit of Society Journal International Journal of Society Development and Engagement The Spirit of Society Journal Volume 6, Number 1 September 2022 Effect of Occupational Safety and Health (K3) Policy on Employee Performance Sugiyanto1* and Sulfiani2 Civil Engineering Study Program, Faculty of Engineering, Sunan Bonang University Tuban, East Java, Indonesia Corresponding author: irsugianto6@gmail.com1 Abstract: Occupational safety and health policies differ from one company to another, depending on the level of concern of top management with protecting workers from hazards in the workplace. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of occupational safety and health policies on employee performance in the company under study. Measurement of variables using a Likert scale with a scale of 1 to 5, to measure the attitudes, opinions and perceptions of workers about the implementation of the K3 program in their place of work. The technique of collecting data using a questionnaire method contains a number of questions distributed to workers (respondents). The results of the respondent's assessment were processed using the partial least square method. Based on the evaluation of the outer model, it shows that the indicators used to measure the latent variables (independent variables and dependent variables) have met the validity and reliability tests. Based on the inner model evaluation, it can be proven that there is a real correlation to employee performance, namely work environment 55%, employee competence 52%, top management commitment 47% and worker communication 39%. As for the K3 regulations and procedures as well as the involvement of workers, it was found quite small, respectively, 10% and 9% of the effect on employee performance and the magnitude of this influence was not significant. Keywords: Employee Performance, Correlation, Inner Model and Outer Model INTRODUCTION In the implementation of construction projects, it is always related to the goals and objectives of the project which are the main targets of project management in making this happen (Ervianto, 2019). In other conditions, the hope of implementing zero accidents in project implementation should also not be neglected. This is related to the occupational safety and health (K3) of employees involved in project activities. The occurrence of work accidents in a project will have serious and fatal consequences for the smooth implementation of the project itself. In this condition, if a work accident occurs with a fairly frequent frequency and is fatal, causing fatalities, it will have an impact on the company's financial condition and the sustainability of the project. Concerning occupational safety and health (K3) has been regulated in the regulations of the Government of the Republic of Indonesia for companies that involve workers in order to create compliance with labor laws (Jati, 2010). Based on the Manpower Law No. 13 of 2003 article 87 it is stated that every company is required to implement an occupational safety and health (K3) management system that is integrated with the company's management system (Ramli, 2018). Furthermore, Husen (2011) added that integration is needed to ensure that the task of running the OHS program can be achieved according to the goals and objectives set. Roro (2019) states that occupational safety and health (K3) is a protective effort aimed at ensuring that workers and other people in the workplace/company are always safe and healthy, and so that every source of production can be used safely and efficiently. Another definition according to OHSAS 18001, it is stated that occupational safety and health (K3) are conditions and factors that affect occupational https://jurnal.narotama.ac.id/index.php/scj/index mailto:irsugianto6@gmail.com Sugiyanto & Sulfiani, Effect of Occupational Safety and Health (K3) Policy on Employee Performance, (p. 39 – 51) 40 The Spirit of Society Journal Volume 6, Number 1 September 2022 safety and health as well as other people in the workplace (Ramli, 2018). Sangadji et al. (2018) emphasized that managing occupational safety and health is a must by creating a safe and healthy workplace and minimizing the hazards to occupational safety and health to the maximum. This is also related to the notion of K3 as stated by Armstrong (2014) in Sangadji et al. (2018) that work safety is a condition that is safe and secure from suffering and damage and loss in the workplace, both when using tools, materials, machines in processing, packing techniques, storage, as well as maintaining and securing the place and the environment work. While occupational health is a condition of a worker who is free from physical and mental disorders as a result of the influence of work interactions and the environment. A good company is a company that truly maintains the safety and health of its employees by making policies (rules) on occupational safety and health (K3) implemented by all employees and company leaders (Supriyadi, 2018). Protection of workers from hazards and accidents due to work or the consequences of the work environment is needed by employees so that employees are comfortable and do not feel anxious in completing their work (Hasibuan, 2019). Thus, the workforce will feel safe and calm in working productively so that they are expected to have productivity that will result in increased employee work performance to support the company's business success in building and growing its business (Mangkunegara, 2017). PT. Nur Aini Rahma Mandiri as the company under study is a company engaged in the construction industry which aims to meet the needs for construction project development in Tuban Regency. One of the construction projects currently being carried out by the company is the construction of an access road in the coal storage and WWTP pond owned by the cement factory PT. Solusi Bangun Indonesia Tuban. In the implementation of the project development, PT. Nur Aini Rahma Mandiri has implemented the Occupational Health and Safety (K3) program as part of the company's commitments and policies. By implementing the program within the company's scope of construction projects that are being worked on, the management of PT. Nur Aini Rahma Mandiri hopes that there will be an increase in employee productivity because it is supported by increased employee performance and the incidence of work accidents can be avoided. Improving employee work performance is very necessary because it can support the success of the construction project that is being worked on. The problem faced by the company under study is how the influence of occupational safety and health (K3) policy factors on employee performance in relation to compliance with labor law number 13 of 2003. Based on previous research, there are 6 (six) factors of Occupational Safety and Health policy (K3) which can affect the performance of construction employees. These six factors consist of: 1) Top management policies, 2) K3 regulations and procedures, 3) Employee communication, 4) Worker competence, 5) Work environment and 6) Employee involvement. Based on this research, it can be seen from the six factors that the most dominant policy in influencing employee performance is the top management policy (Christina et al., 2012). As we know that the policy of occupational safety and health (K3) will certainly be different between a certain companies compared to other companies. This thinking is based on the phenomenon of the level of concern of the company's top management for the protection of workers from hazards in the workplace. This is reinforced by the statement of Armstrong (2014) in Sangadji et al. (2018) that the policy contains 3 (three) things, namely a statement of intention, formulating how that intention will be realized and a statement that becomes a guideline that must be followed by everyone involved. Therefore, through this research, it is hoped that there will be a belief whether the role of the occupational safety and health (K3) policy will still be dominant or vice versa if the research is carried out in other companies. Thus, it is necessary to carry out further research to examine the role of occupational safety and health (K3) policies in their influence on employee performance on the project to be studied. Therefore, this is the background of the need to conduct this research on the influence of occupational safety and health (K3) policy factors on employee performance at the company under study. Sugiyanto & Sulfiani, Effect of Occupational Safety and Health (K3) Policy on Employee Performance, (p. 39 – 51) 41 The Spirit of Society Journal Volume 6, Number 1 September 2022 METHODOLOGY In research on the effect of K3 policies on employee performance in relation to compliance with the labor law number 13 of 2003, the research variables were determined to consist of 1) Top Management Commitment, 2) K3 Rules and Procedures, 3) Worker Communication, 4) Competence Workers, 5) Work Environment, 6) Employee Involvement, 7) Employee Performance. The relationship between independent variables and variables can be observed in Figure 1 as follows: Figure 1. The relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable (Sugiyono, 2018) In this study, the measurement of variables was carried out using a Likert scale which has an interval of 1 (strongly not supporting), 2 (not supporting), 3 (undecided), 4 (supporting) and 5 (strongly supporting); to measure the attitudes, opinions and perceptions of workers about the implementation of the occupational safety and health (K3) program in the researched company environment (Sugiyono, 2018). Respondents will give an assessment of the questions posed in the questionnaire according to their choice according to their hearts and there is no intervention either by the management of the company being studied or from the researchers themselves. In this study, the number of respondents was determined by the number of 100 workers involved in providing an assessment of the implementation of the OSH program at the company studied (Arikunto, 2012). Based on the results of the respondents' assessment of the questionnaire on the indicators mentioned above, input will be carried out into the data tabulation for further processing of data using the partial least square method with the application of the WarpPLS version 6.0 program (Ghozali, 2014). In the results of data processing (output) using the program, it can be used to evaluate the designed model consisting of the following: 1. Evaluation of Outer model (measurement model) The outer model is to explain the relationship between the indicators used in the study and the measured latent variables. In the evaluation of this model, a parameter known as the loading factor value or the outer factor (correlation value) is used to measure the relationship between construct indicators and latent variables by conducting validity and reliability tests. 2. Evaluation of Inner model (structural model) The inner model is to explain the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable. In the evaluation of this model, a parameter known as the value of (regression coefficient) is used to test the effect of the independent variable in influencing the dependent variable and the p value to test the significance of this effect. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 1. Overview of Research Subjects (Respondents) Before discussing the results of the respondent's assessment, it is first described the respondent's data as subjects in the study as shown in Table 1 as follows: Table 1. Respondent data as research subjects No Respondent data Respondent characteristics Quantity Percentage 1 Gender Man 97 people 97% 2 Woman 3 people 3% K3 Policy factor (Independent variable) Employee performance (Dependent variable) Sugiyanto & Sulfiani, Effect of Occupational Safety and Health (K3) Policy on Employee Performance, (p. 39 – 51) 42 The Spirit of Society Journal Volume 6, Number 1 September 2022 Total 100 people 100% 1 Age 20 – 25 year 56 people 56% 2 26 – 30 year 22 people 22% 3 31 - 40 year 14 people 14% 4 ≥ 40 year 8 people 8% Total 100 people 100% 1 Work experience 1 year 43 people 43% 2 2 year 18 people 18% 3 3 year 23 people 23% 4 4 year 16 people 16% Total 100 people 100% 1 Eduction Elementary school 15 people 15% 2 Junior high school 27 people 27% 3 High school 46 people 46% 4 Diploma 0 people 0% 5 Undergraduate 12 people 12% Total 100 people 100% Source: Data processing (2021) Based on the information in Table 1 above, the characteristics of the majority of respondents consist of gender 97% male, 56% age in the range of 25-30 years, 43% working experience 1 year and education 46% SMA/MA/ SMK. Furthermore, to better describe the position position data information from respondents in the company under study, the data can be displayed in Figure 2 below: Figure 2. Position data of respondent In Figure 2 above, the respondent's position is dominated by executor (executors) as many as 61 people (61%), followed by carpenters (carpenters) and bricklayers (masons) each (10%), then supervisors ( foreman) 6 people (6%), administration (administration) 5 people (5%) and at least the positions of safety officer (security guard) and driver (driver) each are 4 people (4%). 2. Indicators and Variables and Respondent Data Output Ghozali (2014) explains that the partial least square method is a powerful analytical method because it does not assume the data must be with a certain scale measurement, distribution free (does not assume a certain distributed data), and the data can be in the form of nominal, category, ordination, 5% 4% 6% 10% 10% 4% 61% Respondent position Administration Safety Officer Supervisor Bricklayer Carpenter Driver Sugiyanto & Sulfiani, Effect of Occupational Safety and Health (K3) Policy on Employee Performance, (p. 39 – 51) 43 The Spirit of Society Journal Volume 6, Number 1 September 2022 interval or ratio. To be able to work using the software, the tabulation of respondent data is coded in Table 2 as follows: Table 2. Research indicator codes Research variable Research indicators Code Management top comitment (KTM) Implementation of written K3 policies by top management KTM1 The company gives priority to K3 issues KTM2 Supervision of the implementation of K3 in the company KTM3 Efforts to improve K3 performance on the project have been carried out KTM4 The company provides K3 equipment KTM5 The company provides OHS training to project staff KTM6 Worker regulations and procedures (PPK) OHS regulations and procedures are required PPK1 OHS procedures are easy to apply consistently PPK2 There are sanctions for violations of K3 procedures PPK3 OHS regulations and procedures are periodically revised PPK4 K3 rules and procedures are easy to understand PPK5 Worker communication (KP) Workers receive information about the K3 program KP1 Employees are satisfied with the delivery of job information KP2 Workers receive information about work accidents KP3 Good communication between workers and management KP4 Good communication between fellow workers KP5 Worker competence (KPJ) Workers understand responsibility for K3 KPJ1 Workers understand the fulfillment of the risks of their work KPJ2 Workers do their jobs in a safe manner KPJ3 Workers do not do work outside their responsibilities KPJ4 Workers are able to understand K3 rules and procedures KPJ5 Work environment (LK) Workers have prioritized K3 LK1 Workers don't do their jobs over and over LK2 Workers are motivated because of the K3 work program LK3 Workers are satisfied with the safety of the work environment LK4 Workers don't blame each other when an accident occurs LK5 Worker engagement (KeP) Workers are involved in the planning of the OHS program KeP1 Workers report when a dangerous situation occurs KeP2 Workers are asked to remind other workers about the dangers KeP3 Workers are involved in delivering information about K3 KeP4 Employee performance (KK) Workers are able to work according to targets K1 The project is completed in accordance with the specified time K2 There are no work accidents in the work environment K3 Workers pay attention to safety at work K4 No mistakes in doing work K5 Workers attend or enter according to work schedules K6 Based on the coding in Table 2, there are 7 latent variables, consisting of 6 independent variables and 1 dependent variable involving a total of 36 research indicators. The results of data processing using the partial least square method with the smartpls software application are shown in Figure 4 below: Sugiyanto & Sulfiani, Effect of Occupational Safety and Health (K3) Policy on Employee Performance, (p. 39 – 51) 44 The Spirit of Society Journal Volume 6, Number 1 September 2022 Figure 3. Output results of respondents' assessment In Figure 3, a measurement model (outer model) is shown which explains the relationship between indicators and variables marked with a connecting line equipped with the correlation value (loading factor or outer factor) and a structural model (inner model) explaining the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable marked with a line. Linker equipped with the value of (regression coefficient) and the value of p value. 3. Evaluation of Outer Model Using Smart Partial Least Square Based on the results of data processing from 100 respondents involved in this study, it can be presented in Table 3 below: Table 3. Evaluation of the outer model of the relationship between latent variables and construct indicators Latent Variables Construct Indicatots Loading Factor p Value Cronbach’s Alpha Composite Reliability AVE Management top comitment (KTM) KTM1 0,848 ≤0,001 0,931 0,946 0,744 KTM2 0,891 ≤0,001 KTM3 0,857 ≤0,001 KTM4 0,846 ≤0,001 KTM5 0,867 ≤0,001 KTM6 0,867 ≤0,001 Worker regulations and procedures (PPK) PPK1 0,899 ≤0,001 0,919 0,939 0,756 PPK2 0,885 ≤0,001 PPK3 0,864 ≤0,001 PPK4 0,871 ≤0,001 Sugiyanto & Sulfiani, Effect of Occupational Safety and Health (K3) Policy on Employee Performance, (p. 39 – 51) 45 The Spirit of Society Journal Volume 6, Number 1 September 2022 PPK5 0,828 ≤0,001 Worker communication (KP) KP1 0,883 ≤0,001 0,930 0,947 0,781 KP2 0,887 ≤0,001 KP3 0,859 ≤0,001 KP4 0,910 ≤0,001 KP5 0,878 ≤0,001 Worker competence (KPJ) KPJ1 0,834 ≤0,001 0,912 0,935 0,741 KPJ2 0,832 ≤0,001 KPJ3 0,898 ≤0,001 KPJ4 0,864 ≤0,001 KPJ5 0,873 ≤0,001 Work environment (LK) LK1 0,866 ≤0,001 0,917 0,938 0,751 LK2 0,855 ≤0,001 LK3 0,874 ≤0,001 LK4 0,888 ≤0,001 LK5 0,851 ≤0,001 Worker engagement (KeP) KeP1 0,876 ≤0,001 0,909 0,936 0,785 KeP2 0,871 ≤0,001 KeP3 0,902 ≤0,001 KeP4 0,895 ≤0,001 Employee performance (KK) K1 0,823 ≤0,001 0,934 0,948 0,751 K2 0,883 ≤0,001 K3 0,887 ≤0,001 K4 0,868 ≤0,001 K5 0,876 ≤0,001 Source: Data processing (2021) In Table 3 it can be observed that the values of the construct indicators for the latent variables consist of loading factor parameters, p value, conbrach's alpha, composite reliability and average variance extracted (AVE). Ghozali (2014) provides guidelines that in the partial least square method, covergent validity (test validity) of the measurement model with reflective indicators is assessed based on the correlation value between the item score and the construct score which is calculated with a high correlation benchmark if it is above 0.700. The following shows the results of the validity test as shown in Table 4 below: Table 4. Outer model validity test Latent Variables Construct Indicatots Benchmark based on the value of loading factor Benchmark based on p-value Loading factor Ghozali (2014) Validity test p-value Solimun et al (2017) Validity test Management top comitment (KTM) KTM1 0,848 0,700 Valid ≤0,001 ≤0,01 Valid KTM2 0,891 0,700 Valid ≤0,001 ≤0,01 Valid KTM3 0,857 0,700 Valid ≤0,001 ≤0,01 Valid KTM4 0,846 0,700 Valid ≤0,001 ≤0,01 Valid KTM5 0,867 0,700 Valid ≤0,001 ≤0,01 Valid KTM6 0,867 0,700 Valid ≤0,001 ≤0,01 Valid Worker regulations PPK1 0,899 0,700 Valid ≤0,001 ≤0,01 Valid PPK2 0,885 0,700 Valid ≤0,001 ≤0,01 Valid PPK3 0,864 0,700 Valid ≤0,001 ≤0,01 Valid Sugiyanto & Sulfiani, Effect of Occupational Safety and Health (K3) Policy on Employee Performance, (p. 39 – 51) 46 The Spirit of Society Journal Volume 6, Number 1 September 2022 and procedures (PPK) PPK4 0,871 0,700 Valid ≤0,001 ≤0,01 Valid PPK5 0,828 0,700 Valid ≤0,001 ≤0,01 Valid Worker communication (KP) KP1 0,883 0,700 Valid ≤0,001 ≤0,01 Valid KP2 0,887 0,700 Valid ≤0,001 ≤0,01 Valid KP3 0,859 0,700 Valid ≤0,001 ≤0,01 Valid KP4 0,910 0,700 Valid ≤0,001 ≤0,01 Valid KP5 0,878 0,700 Valid ≤0,001 ≤0,01 Valid Worker competence (KPJ) KPJ1 0,834 0,700 Valid ≤0,001 ≤0,01 Valid KPJ2 0,832 0,700 Valid ≤0,001 ≤0,01 Valid KPJ3 0,898 0,700 Valid ≤0,001 ≤0,01 Valid KPJ4 0,864 0,700 Valid ≤0,001 ≤0,01 Valid KPJ5 0,873 0,700 Valid ≤0,001 ≤0,01 Valid Work environment (LK) LK1 0,866 0,700 Valid ≤0,001 ≤0,01 Valid LK2 0,855 0,700 Valid ≤0,001 ≤0,01 Valid LK3 0,874 0,700 Valid ≤0,001 ≤0,01 Valid LK4 0,888 0,700 Valid ≤0,001 ≤0,01 Valid LK5 0,851 0,700 Valid ≤0,001 ≤0,01 Valid Worker engagement (KeP) KeP1 0,876 0,700 Valid ≤0,001 ≤0,01 Valid KeP2 0,871 0,700 Valid ≤0,001 ≤0,01 Valid KeP3 0,902 0,700 Valid ≤0,001 ≤0,01 Valid KeP4 0,895 0,700 Valid ≤0,001 ≤0,01 Valid Employee performance (KK) K1 0,823 0,700 Valid ≤0,001 ≤0,01 Valid K2 0,883 0,700 Valid ≤0,001 ≤0,01 Valid K3 0,887 0,700 Valid ≤0,001 ≤0,01 Valid K4 0,868 0,700 Valid ≤0,001 ≤0,01 Valid K5 0,876 0,700 Valid ≤0,001 ≤0,01 Valid Source: Data processing (2021) In Table 4, based on the results of the validity test using the benchmark loading factor value (Ghozali, 2014) and the p value at the test level of 1% (Solimun et al., 2017) has shown valid validity test results. The interpretation is that the questions contained in the questionnaire are able to explain the measurement of variables. In Ghozali (2014) it is explained that the reliability test on the outer model needs to be carried out with the aim of testing whether the latent variable is reliable or not based on a decision consisting of: 1. Cronbach's alpha value with a benchmark above 0.7 is in the reliable category. 2. The composite reliability value with a benchmark above 0.6 is in the reliable category. 3. The average variance extracted (AVE) value with a benchmark above 0.7 is in the reliable category. Table 5. Outer model reliability test Latent variables Reliability test parameters Reliability test Cronbach’s Alpha Composite Reliability AVE Value Standard Value Standard Value Standard Management top comitment 0,931 0,700 0,946 0,600 0,744 0,700 Reliabel Worker regulations and procedures 0,919 0,700 0,939 0,600 0,756 0,700 Reliabel Worker communication 0,930 0,700 0,947 0,600 0,781 0,700 Reliabel Worker competence 0,912 0,700 0,935 0,600 0,741 0,700 Reliabel Sugiyanto & Sulfiani, Effect of Occupational Safety and Health (K3) Policy on Employee Performance, (p. 39 – 51) 47 The Spirit of Society Journal Volume 6, Number 1 September 2022 Work environment 0,917 0,700 0,938 0,600 0,751 0,700 Reliabel Worker engagement 0,909 0,700 0,936 0,600 0,785 0,700 Reliabel Employee performance 0,934 0,700 0,948 0,600 0,751 0,700 Reliabel Source: Data processing (2021) In Table 5, based on the values and standards for Cronbach's alpha, composite reliability and average variance extracted (AVE) parameters, all of them have shown reliable reliability test results for all latent variables. The interpretation is as follows: 1. Cronbach's alpha above 0.7 indicates the level of consistency of respondents' answers. There is a good understanding of the questions posed in the questionnaire, there are no random answers and there is no cross-contradictory answer between one question and another. 2. Composite reliability above 0.6 indicates that the latent variables used have reliable reliability to test the research hypotheses that will be discussed in the evaluation of the inner model. 3. Average variance extracted above 0.7 indicates that the latent variables used have met the mutually exclusive criteria for discriminant validity, in the sense that if certain indicators are included in the grouping of certain latent variables, then the indicator may not also be a member of other groups of latent variables. 4. Evaluation of the Inner Model Using Smart Partial Least Square In the evaluation of the inner model, an influence test is carried out which shows how strong the relationship between exogenous variables (independent variables) is in influencing the endogenous variable (dependent variable). Based on the output results, it will show the effect test value indicated by the symbol (regression coefficient) and test its significance by looking at the p value shown in Table 6: Table 6. Test of the Effect of Exogenous Variables on Endogenous Variable No Excogenous variable Effect test Significance test regression coefficient t table α 5% Test results p value Test rate α 1% Test results 1 Management top comitment 0,470 0,196 Take effect ≤ 0,01 0,01 Significant 2 Worker regulations and procedures 0,100 0,196 Take effect ≤ 0,15 0,01 Not significant 3 Worker communication 0,390 0,196 Take effect ≤ 0,01 0,01 Significant 4 Worker competence 0,520 0,196 Take effect ≤ 0,01 0,01 Significant 5 Work environment 0,550 0,196 Take effect ≤ 0,01 0,01 Significant 6 Worker engagement 0,090 0,196 Take effect ≤ 0,17 0,01 Not significant Source: Data processing (2021) In Table 6, the correlation coefficient is compared with the t table value at the 5% test level (Ghozali, 2014), it can be seen that the exogenous variable shows an influence on the endogenous variable because the value is above the t table value at the 5% test level. The analysis is continued by looking at the p value compared to the table p value at the test level of 1% (Solimun et al., 2017), the results are significant for top management commitment, worker communication, worker competence and worker environment and not significant for regulations and procedures K3 and worker involvement. The analysis was continued to test the research hypotheses as shown in Table 7 below: Sugiyanto & Sulfiani, Effect of Occupational Safety and Health (K3) Policy on Employee Performance, (p. 39 – 51) 48 The Spirit of Society Journal Volume 6, Number 1 September 2022 Table 7. Research Hypothesis Test Results Research hypothesis Influence test Accepted/rejected Top management commitment has a significant effect on employee performance Significant effect Accepted OHS regulations and procedures have a significant effect on employee performance No significant effect Rejected Employee communication has a significant effect on employee performance Significant effect Accepted Competence of workers has a significant effect on employee performance Significant effect Accepted The work environment has a significant effect on employee performance Significant effect Accepted Employee involvement has a significant effect on employee performance No significant effect Rejected Source: Data processing (2021) In Table 7, it can be proven that there are 4 hypotheses consisting of H1, H3, H4 and H5 accepted and the rest consisting of hypotheses H2 and H6 being rejected. The understanding is that top management commitment, employee communication, employee competence and work environment show a significant influence on employee performance and OHS regulations and procedures as well as employee involvement show insignificant results. Based on the acquisition of , the regression equation can be written as follows: Where: KK = Employee Performance KTM= Top Management Commitment K3 = OHS Rules and Procedures KP = Worker Communication KPJ = Worker Competence LK = Work Environment KeP = Worker Involvement Based on the regression equation above, the interpretation is that employee performance is influenced by 47% top management commitment, 10% K3 rules and procedures, 39% worker communication, 52% worker competence, 55% work environment and 9% worker involvement. The description is as follows: 1. Work environment Work environment factors are very dominant influence on employee performance. A bad work environment that is not conducive to the implementation of the K3 program results in a decrease in performance because they feel unsafe and always feel anxious about the possibility of work accidents. This is supported by the opinion of Malthis et al. (2010) which states that strategies to improve employee performance can be through an organizational approach, a technical engineering approach and an individual approach. 2. Competence of workers In this factor, it seems that respondents think that the competence of workers is also very dominant in influencing performance. This becomes a benchmark and becomes the main demand in performance measures, where employees who have competence will have a great chance of success in meeting employee performance standards. This is in line with the opinion of Riadi (2014) KK = 0,47 KTM + 0,10 PPK +0,39 KP + 0,52 KPJ + 0,55 LK + 0,09 KeP + Konstanta Sugiyanto & Sulfiani, Effect of Occupational Safety and Health (K3) Policy on Employee Performance, (p. 39 – 51) 49 The Spirit of Society Journal Volume 6, Number 1 September 2022 which states that there are factors that affect employee performance, consisting of effectiveness and efficiency, authorization (authority), competence, discipline and initiative. 3. Top management commitment On this factor, it seems that the respondents' assessment results show different results from the results of previous studies in other companies. In this study, top management commitment has the 3rd highest influence on performance and is different for each company studied, depending on the implementation of the K3 program. 4. Worker communication In this factor, respondents considered that worker communication has a very important and influential role in realizing performance. This is understandable because in every work activity, especially on construction projects, there must be team work to achieve optimal results compared to working individually. 5. OSH regulations and procedures In this factor, respondents seem to think that K3 regulations and procedures have no significant effect on performance. It is possible that the OSH regulations and procedures are only passive. 6. Employee involvement. In this factor, respondents seem to think that the involvement of workers has no significant effect on performance. This can be explained because the relationship between workers in the company studied is horizontal (colleagues) and not vertical (hierarchical). Based on the description above, the most dominant K3 policy factor influencing performance is the work environment. This is different from the research conducted by Christina et al. (2012) that in the companies he studied, the most dominant factor influencing employee performance was worker competence. This gives a belief that the influence of the dominance of OHS policy factors on employee performance for each company is not always the same, depending on the situation and condition of the company concerned. This is reinforced by the results of previous studies, where there are differences as can be observed in Table 8 below: Table 8. Effect of OHS Policy on Employee Performance No OHS Policy factors Employee performance at the company under study Christina et al. (2012) Sugiyanto & Sulfiani (2020) Correlation Significance Correlation Significance 1 Management top comitment 33,3% Real 47% Real 2 Worker regulations and procedures 43,9% Real 10% Not real 3 Worker communication 28,2% Real 39% Real 4 Worker competence 54,6% Real 52% Real 5 Work environment 49,9% Real 55% Real 6 Worker engagement 50,8% Real 9% Not real Source: Data processing (2020) Table 8 shows the K3 policy factors in the research of Christina et al. (2012) showed a significant correlation for all factors with the order of the largest correlation to employee performance being worker competence, worker involvement, work environment, K3 rules and procedures, top management policies and the smallest correlation of worker communication. Meanwhile, in this study, only 4 factors were found with significant correlation values consisting of the work environment, worker competence, top management policies and worker communication; while the K3 regulations and procedures as well as the involvement of workers are quite small and not real (pseudo) on the performance of employees in the companies studied. Sugiyanto & Sulfiani, Effect of Occupational Safety and Health (K3) Policy on Employee Performance, (p. 39 – 51) 50 The Spirit of Society Journal Volume 6, Number 1 September 2022 CONCLUSION Based on the results of the research entitled The Effect of Occupational Safety and Health (K3) Policies on Employee Performance in Relation to Compliance with Manpower Law Number 13 of 2003, it can be concluded several important things which include the following: 1. Based on the evaluation of the outer model (measurement model) it shows that the indicators used to measure the latent variables (independent variables and dependent variables) have met the validity and reliability tests. With the test results, it indicates that all question items used in the questionnaire have met the eligibility requirements (valid) and reliable (reliable) to be used in testing research hypotheses. 2. Based on the evaluation of the inner model (structural model) it can be proven that there is a significant (real) effect (correlation) on employee performance in the company studied from the work environment by 55%, work competence by 52%, top management commitment by 47% and worker communication by 39%. As for the K3 regulations and procedures as well as the involvement of workers, the effect is quite small, respectively 10% and 9%, the effect on employee performance and the magnitude of the influence shows that it is not significant (not real). REFERENCES Arikunto and Suharsimi. (2012). Prosedur Penelitian. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta. Christina, Wieke Yuni; Ludfi Djakfar; and Amanu Thoyib. (2012). Pengaruh Budaya Keselamatan dan Kesehatan Kerja (K3) terhadap Kinerja Proyek Konstruksi. Jurnal Rekayasa Sipil Faculty of Engineering, Brawijaya University, Malang, 6 (1), 83-95. Decree of the Minister of Manpower Number KEP. 463/MEN/1993 concerning Patterns of the National Movement to Cultivate Health and Safety, Jakarta. Ervianto, Wulfram I. (2019). Manajemen Proyek Konstruksi (Revised edition). Yogjakarta: Andi Offset. Ghozali, I. (2014). Structural Equation Modeling: Alternative Method with Partial Least Square (PLS). 4 edition. Semarang: Badan Penerbit Diponegoro University. Hasibuan, & Malayu S.P. (2019). Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia. Bandung: Bumi Aksara. Husen, Abrar. (2011). Manajemen Proyek. Yogjakarta: Andi Offset. Jati, Ibrahim Kusuma and Ismi Darmastuti. (2010). Pelaksanaan Program K3 Karyawan PT. Bitratex, Industries Semarang. Journal studi manajemen dan organisasi, 7 (1): 37-60. Malthis, L, R., & Jhon H. Jackson. (2010). Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia. Jakarta: Salemba Empat. Mangkunegara, Prabu. (2017). Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia. Bandung: PT. Remaja Rosdakarya. Pastiarsa, Made. (2015). Manajemen Proyek Kontruksi Bangunan Industri: Perspektif Pemilik Proyek. Yogjakarta: Garaha Ilmu. Ramli, Soehatman. (2018). Sistem Manajemen Keselamatan dan Kesehatan Kerja. Jakarta: Dian Rakyat. Riadi, Muchlisin. (2014). Pengertian, Indikator dan Faktor yang Mempengaruhi Kinerja. Retrieved Maret 22, 2021, from google website: http://www.kajianpustaka.com/2014/01/pengertian-indikatorfaktor- mempengaruhi-kinerja.html Roro. (2019). Keselamatan dan Kesehatan Kerja (K3). Retrieved Maret 22, 2021, from google website: https://voi.co.id/k3-adalah/ Sangadji, Mamang and Sopiah. (2018). Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia Strategik. Yogjakarta: Andi Offset. Solimun, Achmad Reinaldo Fernandes and Nurjannah. (2017). Metode Statistika Multivariat: Pemodelan Persamaan Struktural (SEM)-Pendekatan WarpPLS (1st ed.). Malang: Brawijaya Univesity Press. Sugiyono. (2018). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D. Bandung: Alfa Beta. https://voi.co.id/k3-adalah/ Sugiyanto & Sulfiani, Effect of Occupational Safety and Health (K3) Policy on Employee Performance, (p. 39 – 51) 51 The Spirit of Society Journal Volume 6, Number 1 September 2022 Supriyadi, Agung. (2018). Statistik Angka Kecelakaan Kerja tahun 2018 Tertinggi Sejak 2001. Retrieved Februari 10, 2021 from google wesite: https://katigaku.top/2019/02/21/statistik-angka-kecelakaan- kerja-tahun-2018-tertinggi-sejak-2001/ © 2022 by the authors. Submitted for possible open access publication under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY SA) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/).