Occupational Health and Safety - Risks in the Workplace - Essay Example

Occupational Health and Safety I. The Three Major Common Law Doctrines Dealing with Risk in the Workplace before the 1880s A. Contributory Negligence This doctrine is based on the issue of causation. The basic assumption in this doctrine is that the negligence of the employee is contributory to the accident. It is the employee who fully or partly caused the incident. The employer has no liability whatsoever in the occurrence of the accident. It is the employee who has caused harm on himself and no fault could be attributed to the employer or the physical working conditions. The major ambiguity of this doctrine is the degree of safety present in employment conditions which will establish if an employee is indeed liable for his or her own injury. There is no standard as to what elements or factors should be present for workplace or working conditions to be considered safe. The Contributory Negligence Doctrine puts the entire blame on the employee and frees the employer of any responsibility on the mishap that occurred. The relationship between the employers and the workers is one where their goals and the means of attaining them are segregated or are on totally opposite fields. There is no interdependence and cooperation in reaching a common goal. Employers are mainly concerned with production and are not involved in matters concerning the conditions and welfare of their workers or employees. This doctrine held on to the notion that employees are totally and solely responsible for their actions and management is a separate entity which is only accountable to itself and to the costs and profits of the business. Being a separate entity, employers are in no way part of the workers personal and individual concerns, even wile in the workplace or within the premises of the company structure, other than the giving of wage for service rendered. The basis of the relationship is only grounded on the exchange of services for wages. B. Voluntary Assumption of Risk This doctrine's main assumption is that if employees, prior to their acceptance of the job or prior to the commencement of their duties, are aware of the hazards involved in the job or of the presence of hazards in the workplace then they have accepted these hazards as part of the employment conditions. They cannot therefore sue their employees in the event that an accident happens, because their acceptance of the job meant that they have accepted the hazards that go with it. The court based this doctrine on the theory that if an employee sees that there are hazards involved in the job before even accepting the work, he would demand for a higher wage because of the possibility of getting injured. The employer on the other hand, as a reaction to this demand, would either do something to remove the risk or would pay the additional salary. This doctrine reflects again a boxed relationship between the employee and employer where the concern lies in the exchange of service for money. The concern does not extend to the physical or emotional welfare of the employee while working for the company. There is no initiative on the part of the employer in providing safe conditions for the workers. The reaction of eliminating the risk factors is just a response to the issue of additional wage demanded by the worker. The basis of this reaction again is the financial standing of the company or the cost that they would have to incur. It is in no way to afford additional benefits to workers like safe working conditions. The burden of protecting oneself from work hazards is again on the shoulders of the workers. By demanding for additional compensation in exchange for a future possibility of an accident occurring while at work, the worker will free the employer of any liability. C. Fellow-Servant Doctrine The basic idea of this doctrine is that an employee cannot seek compensation from the employer for damages if the accident was caused, either entirely or in part, by a co-worker. This doctrine is regarded as an extension of the voluntary assumption of risk doctrine. An employee upon acceptance of a job considered to be hazardous in nature is aware that accidents may be caused not only by the physical structures or the processes involved, but also by fellow workers who are either incompetent by nature or have committed a mistake. In the initial part of the hiring process where an employee will demand for a higher wage in exchange for the evident presence of hazards at work, the employee is in effect also including the possibility of hazards resulting from the negligence of fellow workers. This doctrine reflects a hands-off relationship between the employee and employer, which like the first two doctrines, depends on the trade of services for wages. The employer, by virtue of agreeing to a higher salary for the employee is freeing itself from any liability arising from future accidents at the workplace. The employer is either placing the burden on the employee or the other employees who might be instrumental to the occurrence of the accident. The relationship has not progressed to a point where employers extend the compensation they give to employees, to include the provision of safety at work and health benefits. The worker-employer relationship is based on monetary returns. II. Are the risks encountered by workers at the workplace not really voluntary To view the question as something to be answered from the top of my head, I would immediately say "YES!" with conviction. Although, of course I know I have to first look into facts and present basis for arguments before I could answer a resounding yes. But to use the common sense inherent to a person, I would again say yes without blinking. The ultimate purpose of getting a job is for most of us, monetary in nature. The idealism like the aims of contributing to society, promoting personal growth and being instrumental to national productivity is secondary. No person would voluntarily position himself in the line of fire without a valid reason. In the case of an employee, a person will not apply for a job expecting to be out of it in just a few weeks time because of an accident or an injury. No employee will wish that upon himself. Earning money to provide for his own needs or for the family is a major goal of a worker. An accident or a lifelong injury would mean a halt to this provision. The argument that workers voluntarily expose themselves to risks is a falsehood in its entirety, unless there is something wrong psychologically. The responsibility of the worker as far as his own personal safety at work is concerned will go as far as maintaining competence and alertness at work. Situations beyond his physical and mental control are not covered by the conditions present in his contract. Accidents, by its very nature are not planned and are therefore not written or described in the contract. While a person applying for a job is aware of the functions required of the position and knows the risks involved, that person is not agreeing to put himself susceptible to the risks by accepting the job. The person is conscious that his part in the deal is to increase his competence at work to protect himself from any risk, he is likewise aware that the employer should do its part in reducing the possible risks for the employees to work productively and effectively. Employment is a partnership. The level may be different, with the management occupying the top spot, but the dynamism and the direction of the relationship should be positive or should go the same way. Both have their own responsibilities in the partnership. Both have their own roles to play. It is not enough that companies pay the employees in exchange for their services. An effective employer-employee relationship goes beyond that. Employees when they go to work do not just sit at their desks and specifically do their tasks and when it is time to go home will just leave the office. The working experience is not as robotic as it seems. Employees interact with their fellow workers, they see to it that their workplaces are neat and in order, they follow company rules and procedures, they join in company activities and they do other duties beyond their assigned tasks to help the company achieve its goals. The employees do this for a variety of reasons, but the foremost motivation is reward. Rewards come in a variety of forms like money, commendations, additional benefits or perks, tenure, retention of position and so on. Additional benefits include safety at work, insurance and other health benefits. In the same way, employers have their own responsibilities aside from paying the employees. It is the duty of the company to provide safe and comfortable physical working conditions and to formulate programs and a system of rewards to boost the morale of the workers. While at the premises of the company and while serving official duty hours, employees should be kept safe and secure by the company. An employee's salary does not cover any harm befalling the employee. No amount of money may be deemed equal or enough for a future accident or injury. The government also has a role in safeguarding the health and safety of workers. Its job is to formulate laws, implement them and enforce when necessary. It is also their duty to penalize companies who refuse to abide by the laws and who continue to jeopardize the lives or well-being of their employees. The Occupational Health and Safety Act establishes the rights and duties of workers from different fields, in the workplace. Its primary aim is the protection of workers, while on the job, against hazards to their health and safety (Health and Safety). It lays down procedures for dealing with hazards at work and it supports enforcement of the law in necessary cases where it is not observed. There are several players involved in the issue of occupational health and safety. It includes the employees, the employers, the government, the families of the employees and the community. It is not just the employees, employers and the government who should work together, but the families of the employees and the communities play important roles in supporting the employees and in keeping vigilance over the implementations and enforcement of the laws. Work Cited "Health and Safety." Ontario Ministry of Labor. 27 July 2007 . Read More