Health and Safety Legislation into the University Sector - Essay Example

INTRODUCTION OF HEALTH AND SAFETY LEGISLATION INTO THE SECTOR Health and safety provisions and practicesin universities and industries have been faced with many drawbacks over the past years. For instance, by the late 1960s, the traditional health and safety model setbacks were overhauled leading to the emergence of new legislations. The traditionally based health and safety provisions were put into use following the British models. These British models were overly coupled with economic and political developments, which structurally came up with a policy environment. In relation to the university and industrial health and safety provisions, both of these institutions were to collectively follow the environmental health and safety recommendations stated in Robens Report. Robens Report eminently proposed modifications of the regulatory ancient models. These modifications were largely based on principle objectives of health and safety acts. Additionally, Roben’s recommendations responded swiftly to the criticisms of traditional health and safety models. This paper, therefore, analyzes the controversy of implementing Robens Report on health and safety into the university sector. This is because this controversy is believed to oppose university and industrial health and safety practices. The introduction of health and safety legislation into the university sector was not a significant and beneficial move. This is because the universities should have been given the freedom and monopoly of structuring their own health and safety laws owing to the fact that these institutions have capable and culpable brains when it comes to making laws. Additionally, as opposed to the industries, the universities are directly linked to the government hence they can be directly answerable to the government as opposed to what Roben recommended in his findings. The first provision, as per Roben’s findings, was based on the stringent streamlining of the State’s role in the traditionally linked regulatory system (Bohle & Quinlan 2000, p.121). Ideologically, the streamlining approach in the health and safety regulations was to be done through the creation of a more integrated and unified system. All the legislation relating to work health and safety was henceforth required to be brought together under one structure. The recommended health and safety umbrella was to contain broadly defined and identified general duties, which aim at covering a wide range of factors affecting every workplace health and safety including employers, employees, self-employed individuals, occupiers, designers, manufacturers and suppliers (Satō 2009, p.149). For this reason, this recommendation was a technical one owing to the fact that in each and every society there are the crème De la crème hence every individual in the society was never going to enjoy the health and safety provisions equally. To some degree, Roben’s provisions were thematically beneficial though, in practicality, they appeared autocratic in nature. In this provision, the skeleton provisional general functions were to be firmly fleshed out with impervious standards in regulations and practicing codes of conducts (Roach 2012, p.157). A unified health and safety corporate, therefore, transformed into a vineyard-kind of structure with an uttermost unification of all the fields of employments. The unification mechanism regrouped all the sectors of the economy in the society including the universities that are also corporate members of the society. A unified health and safety inspectorates were cordially legitimized to develop a tentatively newly initiated administrative sanctions to supplement prosecutions to the defiant corporate groups (Hartley 2000, p.176). The improvement and prohibition notices, according to Roben’s act, were to be brought against both the corporate employers as well as corporate offices. The autocratic nature of the regulations and codes of practice of health and safety acts seemingly undermined the nature and purpose of work conducted in the universities. This spearheaded the fundamental differences in the application of this law in the universities and factories (Makuch & Pereira 2012, p.123). The second reform was based on the recognition of the practical limitations of external State regulations through the creation of a more efficient and effective self-regulating systems. One of the entities of external State regulations asserted that the universities were not expected to go easy on this report as they were beyond any reasonable doubts standing for their interests. Self-regulation, therefore, was misunderstood by the universities in Roben’s health and safety reforms. Instead of understanding the self-regulatory notion as a liberal law-enforcement terminology, the universities confused this term with deregulation (Bohle & Quinlan 2000, p.127). The universities described self-regulation as the deviation from the specified operational standards in allowance of the duty holders to the adherence to the means by which they will comply with the general regulatory terms. Roben’s reforms systematically believed in a self-regulatory measure in health and safety that aimed at the reduction of soldering. In his vision, Roben views self-regulation as an insolvent process collectively involving workers and management, and the workplace carrying out their activities together aimed at improving the health and safety standards as prescribed by the State (Johnstone 2003, p.67). Therefore, the universities should embrace self-regulation as a statutory aspect of the consultation between employers and employees (Makuch & Pereira 2012, p.111). In conclusion, Roben’s models have been adopted in various health and safety guidelines. Various countries beginning with South Australia in 1972, Tasmania in 1977, and in the New South Wales have also adopted Roben’s reforms. In the late years, a considerable progress has been made in relation to the harmonization of health and safety legislation, specifically in the jurisdiction that has squarely adopted the national brand image model act and regulations. Wherein the pre-existing legislation continues to function in various parts of the world, universities have vehemently refuted these provisional reforms as baseless in relation to health and safety regulations. Separate work health and safety legislations, as a result of defiance in the application of these laws by the universities, have been enacted for the mining industries in some States. The only difference is stipulated in the duty holders, obligation nature, provisions relating to worker participation and representation, and the sanctions for the non-compliance. Additionally, apart from the development of enforcement and compliance policies, the other bearable initiatives by health and safety authorities have increased the inspection and law enforcement as well as improved consistency of administration. Lastly, there has also been increased need for work health and safety guidelines to ensure consistency in all corporates. Reference List Bohle, P., & Quinlan, M., 2000, Managing Occupational Health And Safety: A Multidisciplinary Approach. South Yarra, Vic, Macmillan. Hartley, H. J., 2001, Exploring Sport And Leisure Disasters A Socio-Legal Perspective. London, Cavendish. Johnstone, R., 2003, Occupational Health and Safety, Courts and Crime: The Legal Construction of Occupational Health and Safety Offences in Victoria. Sydney, Federation Press. Makuch, K. E., & Pereira, R., 2012, Environmental and Energy Law. Chicester, Wiley. Roach, L., 2012, Card & James Business Law for Business, Accounting & Finance Students. Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press. Satō, H., 2009, Management of Health Risks from Environment and Food Policy and Politics of Health Risk Management in Five Countries--Asbestos and BSE. Dordrecht, Springer. Read More