The contribution of OSH legislature and standards - Essay Example

The contribution of OSH legislature and standards to organizational well-being Summary of the Essay The OSH Act is a formulation of the European countries that realized the need to institute this fundamental body of regulations to ensure the well-being of the employees. Britain and Canada use the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974to facilitate healthy working conditions within their jurisdictions. Britain adopted the conceptualization of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to foster the spirit of honest care and commitment to observing the rights of each for the citizens. Additionally, the Act facilitates elimination of hazards in working space and mitigation of costs incurred in facilitating health care. In Britain, Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 covers all workers except the legislature, hence its weakness. Similarly, in the Canadian OSH legislation and standards also factors the wellbeing of employees and facilitates the benefits comparable to those entailed in Britain. Thus, there is a high correlation of the OSH Act as implemented in both countries. The management has the significant role to enforce and ensure safe and healthy working conditions for the employees. The supervising role ensures the safety and wellbeing of the workers by enforcing the stated rules such as dressing and use of protective gear at work among other responsibilities. Thus in conclusion the management entities have a core responsibility to commit and foster Occupational Safety and Health. The two systems, Britain and Canada are very efficient in facilitating occupational safety and healthy wellbeing of the workers. Introduction The working place dynamics are a core concern within the structures of employment an element that requires the employees to have the plan to address work-related safety issues. Consequently, due to the need to have a clearly outlined regulatory approach to the dynamics of the rights of workers within the workplace. The Occupational Safety and Health Act is a core formulation established in the year 1970, to guarantee the course of promoting the security and human rights of the workers within the job (Alli& International Labour Office, 2008). The observed existence of many hazards that are harmful to the well-being of the people as they work mandated the institution of legislative approach and programs that guide the treatment of the employees as the engage in work. The OSH Act is a formulation of the European countries that realized the need to institute this fundamental body of regulations to ensure the well-being of the employees. The legislation covers a wide continuum of the community measures in the work and is based on the established Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, from Article 153. The member states in the union have to undertake the binding laws hence, the course for British to adopt the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Similarly, in Canada, the act is an essential formulation defining the workplace consequences on health and safety as the people entailed interact in the working space. Thus, occupational health hazards are the basis of the establishment of the OSH legislature and standards and the affiliate countries, such as British and Canada are using it accordingly to improve the working conditions for the employees within their jurisdictions. Analysis As a member of the European Union, Britain is subject to the Article 153 mandating the member states to enact the safety and health legislation within the workplace. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974dictates the course of engagement for the employees as well as the employers as they relate to the workplace. Terms of employment, as well as the measures taken for safety and health of the workers, are instituted as guided the by concerned legislation. The Britain adopted the conceptualization of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974to foster the spirit of honest care and commitment to observing the rights of each for the citizens. The Occupational Health and Safety in this construction base on the benchmarks that facilitate the best practices across the globe, especially on the impact on the wellbeing of the persons working. The core aspects entailed in defining the OSH practices include the course to facilitate and provide the improvement of safety in the structures of the workforce. The system factors these components in the endeavor to give the workers confidence and boost their morale as they consider their wellbeing (Sangaré, Gauthier & Abdul-Nour, 2012). These are essential development in the working frameworks, like each, the employer and employee commit to improving the workplace structures to ensure there are well-laid procedures for taking care of the people as they face the potential hazards. The additional formulation of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 as practiced and enforced in Britain entails the course of reducing the potential hazards that lead to the injuries as well as the ill health on the part of the employees. The occupational safety covers the fundamental aspects of the standards in employing the safety of the workers. For instance, in the working course, there are happenings that can easily lead to the occurrence of incidences and accidences that pose the threat to the wellbeing of the individuals (Bluff, Gunningham, &Johnstone, 2012). The illustration such as observed in the vast manufacturing industries indicates the significance observed towards employing the occupational safety standards. The imposition of practices such as warning signs of existent danger, as well as the possibility of engaging a flammable entity in the workplace, is a common illustration of the mitigations taken towards eliminating the potential injuries and hazards (Sangaré, Gauthier & Abdul-Nour, 2012). Similarly, in working within the confines of the industry, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 standards define the key factors considered including the directions on the expected course of undertakings as each of the employees engages their daily responsibilities. Thus, in this construction, the standard covers the key entities as these are elemental in preventing the occurrence of injuries which would necessitate the reaction of treatment, thus, in this conceptualization, Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 legislation is critical in factoring the essential developments in the workplace that would pose danger to the occupational well-being of the actors on the workplace settings. Another component of the system of the occupational health and safety standards is the course to mitigate the costs incurred in facilitating care to the casualties of workplace injuries and incidences. The cost of care in the country is notably very high and as such, it is essential to factor measures that aid in mitigating these litigation costs as they significantly weigh on the budget of healthcare in the country. The national relaxes the significant investments made towards establishing the best quality of healthcare among the European nations. Consequently, in formulating the healthcare that observes the commitment to ensuring safe and affordable care services, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 standards and legislation thus factor the need to observe the health care costs. The approach engages the workplace structures to factor safety and prevents the occurrence of the injuries that would be more costly to treat, compared to the spending incurred in preventing (Yarlagadda, Raju&Raju, 2010). Thus, in this endeavor, the British imposition of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974is a key development in the frameworks of the healthcare provision in the country. The OSH Act as established in 1970 grants the OSHA board the established authority that enables the course of practicing and promoting safety and health of the given employees at the workplace. The Act gives permission to the agency to institute and promulgate the varied occupational safety and health standards that audit in the enforcement of the varied regulations (Gibb, et. Al., 2010). The penalties such as proposing monetary fines as well as requiring the employers to engage in measures that abate the given hazards at the workplace are all factored in the established roles of the OSHA board. The OSHA authority is responsible for factoring the varied relations of the employers and employees towards preventing the dangers that occur while at work. The institution of consultative measures, educational platforms and voluntary programs that are designed and implemented in the endeavor to assist the workers and employers in the setting is a core feature of the British Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The Act as enforced in Britain also gives the country through the relevant authorities to conduct their specialized federally-approved safety and health programs within the working confines. The various jurisdictions in the country are currently engaging the Health and Safety at Work programs that aid in monitoring the varied activities and course of treatment of the employers as they relate to the employers (Fan, McLeod &Koehoorn, 2012). This forms the basis for achieving the core of the standards which entails observing successful management of health related concerns as well as the safety of the workers. Further, there are added sub-branches of the Act such as the Executive branch that engages in the protection of the employees of the government. The sub-branch of the Act is in section 19 of the Health and Safety at Work legislation. Additionally, the Executive order 12196 also aids in the course of outlining the diverse requirements as well as mandating the related governmental agencies to operate in measures that foster and comply with the health and safety programs in effect. However, in observing the implementation of the standards and legislation entailed in Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, there is a branch of the government not covered by the stipulations of occupational safety and health. The entity entails the Legislature arm of the government (Platkus, 2011). The branch is excluded accordingly from coverage by the Health and Safety at Work legislation. However, despite this exclusion, it is notable that there are many hazards that indicate occupational safety issues within the Congressional offices as well as related workplaces of the arm of Legislature. This aspect of the Act as enforced creates aspects of biased standards towards the Congress members concerning the provision of required safety and health programs. In previous studies by the General Accounting Office, on the issue of application of Health and Safety at Work, the report illuminated on the subject that there is uneven protection accorded to the employees of the Congress, a course that reflects some of the failures entailed in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974(Platkus, 2011). For instance, the existence of occupational hazards such as protection from excess noise, exposure to blades on power, poor ventilation and placement of equipment, are all key elements that can cause regular hurt to the individual (Bluff, Gunningham, &Johnstone, 2012). Additionally, although the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is applicable in the Executive arm of the government, the observed trend also reflects a negative progress to this effect. For instance the report on the same Health and Safety at Work legislation concerning the impact entailed in engaging the executive unit, occupational hazards identified include exposure to electrical dangers, indoor air problems, and inaccessibility of the fire extinguishers and the establishment of the required standards of the Act as enforced. These related occupational hazards identified in the Executive arm of the government create the course to necessitate the effective enforcement of the Act as well as the ask Hence, following this recommendation, the Legislative branch ought to employ due course to undertake hence engage in the successful implementation of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The Canadian occupational health and safety in the workplace also founded by the legislation detailing the terms of best provisions of reliable healthcare as well as best working practices for the citizens (Keith, 2011). In Canada, there are fourteen jurisdictions and on all these levels, from the federal, to provincial and territorial, each constituent has an own established health and safety legislation and standards that are applicable for most Canadians. In the formulation of the Canadian approach, takes into account key employees, especially those working with the central government as we like those in departments with the crown. Adoption of these strategic measures is key as it facilitates the conceptualized model of enforcing the legislation as dictated by the drop regulations, immediately charged with having broken the stipulated Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The Canadian duties concerning the given policy are subject to the terms of the agreement of the employers and the workers, alongside the management of the organization. In the special aspects of the legislation as outlined in the Act, it also contains a special “right-to-know” which is also applicable to the products considered as hazardous (Basok, Hall & Rivas, 2014). This section of the entire OSH is called the WHMIS to give a collective approach toward the provision of best care practices while at work. The comprehensive plan covers the improvement of the dissemination of information to the best knowledge of each Canadian worker. The component at the federal level, which entails occupational safety and health are also a part of the key established Canada Labor Code Part II, which outlines the guiding regulation (Keith, 2011). The code applies to all the workers within the private and public sectors such as airports, banks, agriculture, railways, engaging in line among other entities. Thus, in the application, the approximate statistics indicate that there is a noted 10% of the workers within the Federal government jurisdiction of the Occupational Health and Safety (Keith, 2011). The remaining about 90% of the workers in Canada are subject to the legislation enforced at the province or territorial levels. In review and comparison of the application of the OSH legislation within the different jurisdictions in Canada, there is observed harmonization of the rights and responsibilities of each of the concerned parties a factor that makes its simple to create a compliance as each stakeholder expects in the proceedings of relations. The responsibility of the government in case setting is similar to that outlined in the Britain system and covers the essentials in enforcing the OSH legislation and standards. The execution of inspection is helpful in relating the workers and employers in manageable perceptions despite differences such as workplace diversity that could otherwise impair the treatment the workers get while in the job. The OSH also aids in the dissolution of disputes that come with compensation enacted to facilitate treatment in the event of injury occurring. Moreover. Practices established including training, education, research, and information dissemination are all key considerations observed in the contribution of the OSH in the management of the stakeholders in the workplace. Similarly, in the Canadian OSH legislation and standards also engages the employees in an aspect of commitment that is the responsibilities of workers regarding the Occupational Health and Safety Acts and Regulations. The employees as they partake have the commitment to work in compliance with the guiding standards that help abate the hazards occurring to them (Alli& International Labour Office, 2008). The employees engage in means that facilitate their personal protection including wearing the expected protective equipment as well as the required clothing as the directions of safety at the workplace dictate. Consequently, this facilitates in the minimization of severe injuries occurring in the event of the accident, as well as, preventing the entire incidence of safety occurring. Using the prescribed equipment as the OSH dictates is also an elemental factor of the regulations and aids accordingly in reducing the challenge entailed as the workers engage in the workplace (Cloutier, et. Al. 2008). These are notable factors of consideration that are applied accordingly in the Canadian system for effective care and safety provision to the stakeholders. Thus, in the review of the contributions of the Occupational Safety and Health in the two settings, that is the Canadian and Britain approaches there is observed the high level of correspondence, with minimal differences that subject to the jurisdictional variations among the two settings. The outlining flyers in the management of the workplace dynamics are essential considerations added in considering the core components to incorporate in the legislation. The very existence of the OSH legislation and standards is evidence of the commitment to facilitate the best working places for the citizens, and this is in adherence with the rights and responsibilities outlined in the employers section of the varied OSH regulations. The Act on Occupational Safety and Health is notable in facilitating the core basis of the health sector in the two countries. The commitment to facilitate and achieve a competitive healthcare policy is a core consideration observed in the adopting of the Occupational Safety and Health and each of the federal determinants acts in the manner that ensures there is enough discipline to allow the proper care for the employees as well as other personnel in the working environment. The composition of the health and safety committees is also allowed within the workplace across the two jurisdictions to aid in imposing the given strategies as well as approaches to the healthcare of the workers. However, the variation in this aspect shows that in Britain, the jurisdiction stems from the central government where the power and institution of government services emanates. However, in Canada the three levels of governance that is the federal, provincial and territorial, are all considered as independent decision makers concerning the conceptualization of the given strategies. Thus, going from this perspective, each of the two countries presents a different level of commitment to the institution and imposition of the health and safety regulations at the workplace setting. The two systems, Canada and Britain, however, present notably strong healthcare policies and safety regulations that the employers ought to employ within the job setting to ensure the safety of the workers. The management is at the central concession of the given strategies as they are employed in the working continuum (Zeng, Tam & Tam, 2010). The weaknesses observed in each of the formulations entails that the Health and Safety committees be instituted accordingly to oversee the varied issues that affect the given workplace settings. The governing committees help in setting the workplace in a manner that observes the expected labor laws as well as the health facilitations that are elemental in the work setting. Investigations within the workplace help to identify the areas that require improvement with regards to safety as well as aid in resolving the differences as they occur between the stakeholders in the workplace. Moreover, the identification of threat or possible hazards as well as disseminating information about their existence aids in the smooth implementation of the given Health and Safety at Work legislation and standards (Gilbert, Burkett &McCaskill, 2012). Thus, the two systems are keen in implementing the OSH according to the acts in their jurisdictions which are in the course and procession of the standards for Occupational Safety and Health. Appraise influence of management on occupational health In the organizational framework, the managers have diverse responsibilities and a course that may present the difference in understanding the influence of the management ion the given occupational safety and health. The management is responsible for a vast composition of activities that in effect are causative in influencing the position the organization takes towards the treatment accorded to the workers. The size of the organization is the observable factor as the vast organizations can easily establish departmental managers Hence, assigning the Workplace Health and Safety responsibilities to a given supervisor to head the course (Pouliakas&Theodossiou, 2013). However, in the smaller organizations, where leadership structures are not well established, then the senior manager is also responsible, or the responsibilities entailed in securing the safety and health of the workers. The management has a key responsibility to ensure that each of the workers is by the prescribed preventive mechanisms of workplace hazards as they engage in their duties. For instance, employees working in a manufacturing industry need to wear certain protective garments as well as handle the equipment in the required manner (Lortie, Desmarais& Gravel, 2013). Thus, the supervisor in this role ensures the safety of the employees within the workplace, abating the possibility of such incidences occurring. Consequently, since the formulation of the OSH laws, there is observed the decrease in the possibility of workplace related hazards are occurring (Erickson, 2013). Secondly, there is the consideration that the managers take the role of the adviser while in the workplace with regards to the potentiality of hazards as well as the actual occurrences that are hazardous to the health and safety of each worker (Oughton, 2013). Thus, in this contribution, the management reports significant commitment to the command of establishing the safety and healthy living of the workers as they engage in the given industries. These substantial precautions are a significant contribution that the management is bringing in the field of the workplaces, hence, ensuring the compliance with the OSH legislation and standards. Consequently, the employees get to benefit accordingly as they work in the safe environments. Since the institution of the OSH legislation and standards, the rate of reduction of the work related incidences and injuries has tremendously gone down (Hart, 2015). The act is primary in the coverage of the issues that relate to related health and safety issues, and this requires the commitment to enforce. The management is at the liberty to facilitate the course of actions as regards the working terms within the private businesses compared to the governmental settings. The role of the standardization elements is also key to consider in the overall management of the entire legislation as the workers engage in matters that address the core competencies of the legislation. Further, the OSH programs require a leading figure in implementing while securing the course of the workplace atmosphere. Therefore, in this effect, technical growth in the consideration of the impact the management brings also factors the internal implementations. The staff in the work have to adapt to the given workplace dynamics a course that gives management the role to facilitate monitoring as well as conducting the revision of the established programs and that institute the legislation hence determining their influence (Nadeau, Fatisson, Badri&Emami-Mehrgani, 2013). The management through participating in the given OSH initiatives and projects also allows the users’ needs to be met as management aids in reviewing the guidelines laid down to bring the feedback required in the workplace safety and health for the employees. Conclusion The British system of the OSH Act enacted in 1974 is a key addition to the management of the workplace dynamics. A healthy team is more productive compared to a composition of injured and sickly workers. Therefore, in line with the mission and vision for growth, the British approach to the OSH Act legislation is essentially very effective concerning addressing the key concerns of the individuals with challenges that emanate while enacting a structured response to the workplace potential aid actual hazards (Olsen, 2012). The implementation of the measure of safety and health aids the country achieve its purpose on the occupational wellbeing. Similarly, Canada has a well-developed system in which the dynamics of safety and health are implemented, reviewed and enacted accordingly. This aspect of similarity between the two systems of OSH in Britain and Canada reflects the significant milestones achieved in facilitating effective workplace environments for optimum performance of the employees. The management entities have a core responsibility to commit and foster Occupational Safety and Health, and this is observed accordingly in their contribution to the system. Thus, the OSH legislation and standards are considerably very effective in improving the workplace wellbeing. References Alli, B. O., & International Labour Office. (2008). Fundamental principles of occupational health and safety. Geneva: International Labour Office. Bluff, E., Gunningham, N., &Johnstone, R. (2012). OHS regulation for a changing world of work. Annandale, N.S.W: Federation Press. Basok, T., Hall, A., & Rivas, E. (2014). Claiming Rights to Workplace Safety: Latin American Immigrant Workers in Southwestern Ontario. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 46(3), 35-53. Cloutier, E., David, H., Ledoux, É.,Bourdouxhe, M., Gagnon, I., &Ouellet, F. (2008). Effects of government policies on the work of home care personnel and their occupational health and safety. Work, 30(4), 389-402. Erickson, P. A. (2013). Practical guide to occupational health and safety. San Diego: Academic Press. Gilbert, D. G., Burkett, B. W., &McCaskill, M. K. (2012). Canadian labour and employment law for the U Fan, J., McLeod, C. B., &Koehoorn, M. (2012). Descriptive Epidemiology of Serious Work- Related Injuries in British Columbia, Canada. Plos ONE, 7(6), 1-7. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0038750.S. practitioner. Washington, D.C: Bureau of National Affairs. Gibb, J., Cameron, I. M., Hamilton, R., Murphy, E., &Naji, S. (2010). Mental health nurses and allied health professionals perceptions of the role of the Occupational Health Service in the management of work-related stress: how do they self-care?. Journal Of Psychiatric & Mental Health Nursing, 17(9), 838-845. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2850.2010.01599.x Hart, C. (2015). 2013 NEHA/UL Sabbatical Exchange Award to Canada: Comparing Undergraduate Environmental Health Education in Canada and the United States. Journal Of Environmental Health, 77(7), 30-33. Keith, N. (2011). Working Alone A look at legislation in Canada. Professional Safety, 56(2), 56- 59. Lortie, M., Desmarais, L., & Gravel, S. (2013). Occupational Health and Safety Issues and The Management of Human Resources. Proceedings Of The Northeast Business & Economics Association, 143-147. Nadeau, S., Fatisson, J., Badri, A., &Emami-Mehrgani, B. (2013). From Serious Shortage of Researchers to OHS Law Changes and Growing Industrial Needs: A Dynamic and Quiet Force. Relations Industrielles / Industrial Relations, 68(4), 608-622. Oughton, N. (2013). Managing Occupational Risk in Creative Practice: A New Perspective for Occupational Health and Safety. Archives Of Environmental & Occupational Health, 68(1), 47-54. doi:10.1080/19338244.2011.639818 Olsen, K. (2012). Occupational health and safety professionals strategies to improve working environment and their self-assessed impact. Work, 412625-2632. Platkus, W. (2011). Value-added auditing: Creating environmental and OHS management- system value through objectives, targets, and programs. Environmental Quality Management, 21(2), 37-49. doi:10.1002/tqem.20316 Pouliakas, K., &Theodossiou, I. (2013). The Economics Of Health And Safety At Work: An Interdiciplinary Review Of The Theory And Policy. Journal Of Economic Surveys, 27(1), 167-208. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6419.2011.00699.x Sangaré, A., Gauthier, F., & Abdul-Nour, G. (2012). Investigation Of The Adoption And Use Of Standards And Regulations By Machinery Manufacturers. International Journal Of Reliability, Quality & Safety Engineering,19(3), -1. doi:10.1142/S0218539312500155. Yarlagadda, M. B., Raju, U. B., &Raju, A. R. (2010). Occupational Safety and Health Policy - A tool for improving working conditions of an organization. CURIE Journal, 3(3/4), 1-9. Zeng, S. X., Tam, C. M., & Tam, V. Y. (2010). Integrating Safety, Environmental and Quality Risks for Project Management Using a FMEA Method. Engineering Economics, 21(1), 44-52. Read More