Job Safety Response - Essay Example

Case Studies Case Study Three: Job Safety Response Sue’s action to sue Valley Printing for their negligence is justified. According to Safe@Work (2), Sue or any other employee has the responsibility of managing health and safety at work by spotting any hazard, that is the missing guards, evaluate risk assessment like temporary absence, and voice her opinion needed changes or push for risk control. Valley Printing’s treatment of Sue through the paid six weeks of absence and reinstatement to work was justified.

Sue did not take advantage of the employers because she understands the hazards associated with the machine with missing safety guards from her experience and on-job training. Consequently, Sue understands her responsibility in looking at her own health and safety and that of other employees. Instead of taking advantage, Sue’s actions focus on ensuring that the company follows agreed safe work regulations, and that no other employee would end up getting hurt like she did. Valley Printing took advantage of Sue since nothing was done to improve her working environment.

Sue returns to notice that the missing safety guards yet have to use the same machine. Without the safety guards, the machine should remain defective and unsuitable for use hence no employee should use it (Singh, Hinze and Coble 524). Employers should not ask employees to work with hazardous equipment. All machines with moving parts should have strong and securely mounted safety guards. Additionally, the employers should promote a work environment that prevents machinery accidents through adequate safeguards provisions, regular checks, and provision of safe work system.

Case Study Four: Who Owns the Field Notes? Jerry Vuaghn must understand that the field notes belong to the federal agency provided there is an advance knowledge that that data belongs to the agency (Casell and Jacobs n.p). First, Jerry acquired a job from the federal agency implying that the area of research is not his own doing and will be considered as unethical to use it for his personal work. Second, the participants in the interviews and observations during the survey would not have presented themselves to him without identifying that he is working with the Federal Agency which they could identify with because of its projects or proposed projects amongst them.

His presentation to participants as working on behalf of the agency makes the information gathered from the interview the agency’s property unconditionally. Being a representative of the agency means that no participant provided any information to belong to him but to the agency hence eliminating any breach of information security and confidentiality (Casell and Jacobs n.p). Although it is unethical for the agency to manipulate survey findings to suit its expectations, it is ethical to request the opinion of a different consultant for comparison.

Vaughn should be expected to turn over all the interview materials, notes, and photographs despite their sensitive information on with any binding terms on data ownership. Since there was no binding stipulation concerning data ownership, and by arguing that his work was conducted in good faith makes him eligible for full salary without any threats or turning over the materials, notes, and photos to the agency. As an anthropologist, he has the right to retain data collected under these conditions.

Works Cited Casell, Joan and Sue-Ellen Jacobs. Handbook on Ethical Issues. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association, 2006.Web. Safe@Work. The General Module of Safe@Work. Government document. Western Australia: WorkSafe, 2014. Print Singh, Amarjit, Jimmie Hinze and Richard Coble. Implementation of Safety and Health On Construction Sites. Rotterdam, Netherlands: A. A. Balkema Publishers, 1999. Print.