Judicial Observation and Analysis - Case Study Example

Court Analysis This paper is concerned with a case which was presented to Congress officials for action. The complainant in the case was Beatrice Norton, a lady whose mother was working in a cotton firm. Very many years later, she also began working in the same cotton firm only to stop working due to health related causes. She was diagnosed with a chronic condition in the respiratory system called brown lung. This disease is very much similar to emphysema and asthma. Upon thorough diagnosis, it was discovered that this disease is related to many years of exposure to cotton dust (Arthur & Ronald 18). In her case, her aim was to seek government intervention in drafting legislation which will make it compulsory for companies to compensate their staff who work in cotton industries and who develop this disease in the course of their employment. Her point of argument relies on the bare fact that employees are compensated when they suffer from several diseases related to employment (Arthur & Ronald 20). Since brown lung is also related to exposure to cotton dust especially long term exposure in a cotton industry, it is important that it is included in the list of diseases which must be compensated in case an employee develops the disease in the course of employment. To proof that she was sick due to exposure at work place, she testified that anytime she became sick and left work she recovered. Thinking that she had recovered from the illness, she went back to work and resumed herb normal duties. No sooner she went back to work than she became ill again. Medical history also attributed this disease to her work place where she is exposed to cotton dust. She therefore demanded to be compensated by her employer who had willingly exposed her to a situation which compromised her health and made her completely poor since she became disabled completely and could not be productive in her job. Furthermore her employer dismissed her without any benefits (Arthur & Ronald 21). Why did she decide to present her case to Congress leaders? It is because she had presented it severally before state officers but after successive sessions there was no intervention to help these workers who are more likely to suffer permanent disability due to their employment. Presenting her case as a representative of other employees before the Congress she hoped she will get assistance which will also spill down to all other victims of brown ling who were there. It is a very sad case on how the state government had turned a blind eye to poor workers and left them with a promise to help them but no help has ever come their way till some of them have died waiting for help. She thought before she dies like other colleagues, Congress would help her get justice. Working in cotton industries was a very great opportunity for some of the poor farmers in some countries. As the industry continued to expand in several regions within a country, many more people were needed to work. As the demand for finished products of cotton increased, so was the need to have more workers exposed to cotton dust. Due to the high number of people exposed some companies found it too expensive to provide safety kits to all of them. As such many people were exposed to this dangerous substance (Manuel et al. 17). In some instances they had no choice since they were already too poor and death was inevitable. They were hence ready and well prepared to perform any assignment provided they make enough for their daily bread as they await their fate. Moreover, ignorance as to how to take care of one’s health especially safety precautions in the course of employment prevailed a great deal. People did not know that cotton dust can make them develop a disease. Some were not even willing to be advised to demand for their right in the country (Manuel et al. 15). Moreover, cotton industry contributed heavily to the economy of a nation and it was very hard for states that depended heavily on this industry to come up with legislation which will compromise production in this industry. This is one of the reasons workers found very difficult to be compensated. In many instances the government at state level could only promise workers of help but in the real sense they were sure they were not ready to do anything to change the situation. This led to many people losing their lives while in the waiting list to justice. There is need for a change of the current situation, putting health of workers as priority that is above economic gains which can be obtained out of a risky exposure (Manuel et al. 19). Beatrice was not the only one who had been denied of justice by state authorities whose mandate is to protect the people they govern. Mr. Ellison had been rudely treated by his employer when he developed this disease while in his employment. Since he was in his early sixties the employer associated his disease with old age and could not compensate him. Instead of supporting him to recover or live a decent life after, he was dismissed on reasons of inability to work. He was simply told that though he had been a good employee, the company no longer needed the employee since he couldn’t do any economically productive work for the company. He was fired and somebody else took his place. He went home and lives a poor life till his death since there was no pension and other benefits given to him. It would have been good for the company to recognize his hard work of so many years and give him support for recovery or provide him with a source of livelihood as he begun a new life after he was not productive in his employment. The company should have been ready to accept its failure to have safety measures in place to safeguard its workers or even help them deal with the health problems upon occurrence, especially those related to work. However, so many workers had their efforts lost due to lack of legislation to protect their health and needs. It could appear that there were conflict of interests between the people and the government. There are some governments employees who made it very difficult for any legislation to go through no matter how helpful it will be to the people who gave them power. This is especially what happened when some of these people in government had huge shares in those industries, and the decision would have a negative effect economically on the company profits (Arthur & Ronald 22). It can be argued that the companies in both cases had the responsibility of giving compensation in terms of medical support for the sickness and pension in case of disability and early retirement. This is because it was the failure of the company to put in place appropriate safety measures that led to the exposure that caused the disease. It however, became difficult for the employees to hold the companies responsible since it was hard to obtain the evidence that the disease occurred during the employment and not before. Moreover, there was no legal framework under which relevant law enforcement authorities to work together to help these people. The lack of legislation framework was a fault of the government. The case was reported to court and it was ruled that it’s the government’s responsibility to provide legislation which can give directives to employers on how to treat their workers when such a matter arises. However, the government was not responding appropriately despite the many deaths which had occurred due to such harmful exposures. This is a very important case as its resolve will help so many workers who are exposed to dangerous substances in their work places and have no choice than to work there due to poverty. In as much as much as people are poor, they do not deserve to be hurried to early graves because of their present condition. Instead, it is the responsibility of both sectors to make sure that the needs of every person are provided for in a manner that can enable them enjoy those benefits for a long period of time. Health should be a first consideration in any enterprise that can potentially affect human life (Arthur & Ronald 25). Works Cited Arthur, MacIvor, & Ronald Johnston. Miners Lung: A History of Dust Disease in British Coal Mining. England: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2007. Print. Manuel, Velasguez, Claire, Andre, Thomas, Shanks, & Michael Meyer. “Justice and Fairness.” Issues in Ethics 3. 2 (1990). Print. Read More