Home Insulation Program Workers Safety and Health Responsibility - Essay Example

Running Head: Home Insulation Program Workers Safety and Health Responsibility Name Institution Course Professor Date Home Insulation Program Workers Safety and Health Responsibility Government and business are the two primary institutions that inherently have complex relationships in society. Complex interactions between business and government occur at different levels; local, national as well as at international level. Government has much influence in the society and in most cases dictates how businesses are to be conducted through creation and implementation of various regulatory laws. Government and business interacts in various aspects such as economic, political and social in any country including Australia. They are both active communicators and they communicate and exchange information about business activities, government programs and regulations. Government has influence over business through forms such as regulation and taxation (Carrol and Buchholtz 331). Government and business both has various responsibilities in the society. This essay will discuss whether the government or business was responsible for safety and health of workers in the Home Insulation Program. Home Insulation Program was funded by the Australian government in an aim of reducing greenhouse gases production by the households and promoting economic activity. The houses of the householders who previously had no insulation were to be insulated by the program. The scheme was initiated by the government of former Prime Minister Rudd together with Peter Garrett-the then environment minister which was worth $2.5 billion in February 2009 (Head). It was meant to stimulate business activities to counter the global crisis effects. It provided rebates to homeowners as part of economic stimulus package in insulating 2.7 million houses ceilings. The government claimed the initiative would create jobs and led to reduction of home energy bills. Home Insulation Program did caused undesired effects as four men died in the process of installing insulation. In addition, fires broke out in hundreds of houses mainly in ceilings where installation of foil insulation were incorrectly done. Consequently, Environment Minister Peter Garrett was demoted and the Home Insulation Program was altogether scrapped. Government has a responsibility of protecting its citizens and it should put in place measures towards achieving this responsibility. Government pass and implement laws meant to streamline the business activities and encourage competition (Carrol and Buchholtz 334). It also regulates how businesses are conducted and regularly intervenes in promoting economic activities. In contrast, businesses are required to conduct their activities by following the laid down policies. They are to provide goods and services needed by consumers at competitive prices in an effective and efficient manner. Government and business at times collaborates in providing a good or service to consumers and one such initiative is the Home Insulation Program. Home Insulation Program was funded by Australian government in an effort to mitigate global financial crisis in 2009. Government intervenes more often to ensure that efficient allocation of resources and goods is achieved otherwise not possible had market been left on its own mechanisms (Korrt and Dollery 71). Undesirable effects can occur when government borrows at an increased level in financing increased expenditure like the Home Insulation Scheme. This reduces funds available to the private sector hence causing interest rates to go up. Government failure in instituting effective programs that spurs economic growth is equivalent to a market failure. The intervention of government that results in more inefficient resources and goods allocation is one government failure example. Home insulation program did not achieve its intended purposes fully and it was subsequently scrapped owing to a number of factors. Nonetheless, the main reasons were the deaths of four insulation workers and poor safety regulations and framework in place. Government and business has various responsibilities in the society. Business is required to provide goods and services while the government regulates and intervenes to ensure effective resource use (Carrol and Buchholtz 335). Government had responsibility in ensuring the safety and health of workers that were involved in the government funded Home Insulation Program. As a funding authority, it was its responsibility to ensure workers who will be working under this program are well trained before they can undertake insulation work. The safety and lives of citizens is the government responsibility. Contractors in the Home Insulation program recruited young and inexperienced people to undertake dangerous and technical insulation work in scrambling for $ 1200 ($1600 initially) offer by the government for each installation (Head). These contractors did not have any regard for safety and health of these insulation installers. In this case, it might be argued that it was business responsibility to ensure health and safety of workers they recruited. There is always competition among various businesses and their major concern is profit sometimes regrettably achieved at the expense of safety and health of the workers. In this program, contractors recruited young people who were never given any training neither did they posses any insulation installation experience. They were thus exposed to many hazards during installation. The process of accrediting around 7,500 employers who emerged to seize the opportunity of providing the insulation work was inadequate (Head). Accreditation process could be completed over the phone or on the internet which is not enough to capture and select the most suitable employment contractors or individuals. It was the government responsibility to put in place measures that would ensure accreditation process for those who will be undertaking insulation installers are tough but it did no institute those measures. Government is a regulatory institution overseeing all what is conducted by the industry players such as business and individuals (Davis). The safety and lives of the insulation installers were therefore compromised because of the government failure to put in place enough mechanisms for conducting accreditation process for Home insulation Program employers. Operators in this program installed insulation because of lack of training and experience too close to ceiling fans, electric cables, lights and transformers which caused serious fire hazards. Insulation regulations in place at the time were inadequate to warrant the kind of standards needed for the program. Furthermore, safety framework could not have worked owing to the speedy manner in which the program was rolled out. Government was responsible for ensuring insulations regulations and standards required before the program commenced has been firmly instituted because it acts as a regulator in the insulation industry. Safety framework for the insulation installers was also the responsibility of the government as it is a policy maker (Kortt and Dollery 70). It was thus its function to ensure those who will be working in the Home Insulation Program are safe when installing insulation equipment in homes. Business has no role in making of safety framework for its employees; it only follows safety and health procedures that the government has put in place. The government was advised to first tighten the safety procedures for workers in the insulation industry before the program could begin. It did not heed to this advice and hurriedly roll out this stimulus package arguing that the jobs that would be created by the program were long overdue. Government therefore did jeopardise both health and safety of the insulation installers together with homeowners by allowing industry insulation players to conduct their businesses unscrupulously. In a statement cancelling the Home Insulation Program by then Environment minister Peter Garrett, he was quoted saying “unscrupulous and at times shonky and illegal operators” were to blame for the problems experienced in the program (Department of Industry). This shows that the government did not put enough measures as well as tightened the insulation laws before the program was started which is its function. It was therefore its responsibility to ensure safety and health of workers are not compromised by the hired contractors in the program. In addition, because of the way the program was hurriedly started, there was no enough staff to adequately monitor and implement Home Insulation Program (Davis). Since the Australian government was both employer and funding authority in the scheme, it had a responsibility of ensuring that enough staff was hired to supervised and monitor the program. Enough supervision of the program would have ensured contractors hired competent and experienced people to undertake insulation work. Moreover, the five day training that the workers in the program needed would have been guaranteed if government had hired more people to monitor and supervised the program. Subsequently, averting the loss of four insulation workers would have materialised. The government has a responsibility of protecting the lives of its citizens, their health, safety and property (Carrol & Buchholtz 337). In the Home Insulation Program, it was no exception. Therefore, it was government responsibility and not business to ensure that the safety and health of workers that were involved in the program was guaranteed. The government ignored several warnings in April 2009 before the program was fully operational by its regulatory agencies that houses could burn down and people could die, because there was none to carry out quality or safety inspections hence will be effectively unregulated (Davis). Despite these warnings, the program was not halted until later when the damage had been already done through loss of lives of four workers and several houses burned down. Installation of foil insulation was anticipated to be risky and could lead to loss of lives but the four workers who died were never well trained. It was the government duty to make sure contractors and individuals they selected for the program hired people who are well trained for the job. Existing occupational health and safety regulations had no capacity to gather for Home Insulation Program but the government did continued with the program despite this (Head). Business has no role in making of occupational health and safety laws hence government was responsible for safety and health of workers involved in the scheme. The $2.5 Home Insulation Program was intended to cushion the citizens against global economic crisis in 2009 by paying roof insulation installers or homeowners rebates. The anticipated results were stimulation of the economy through provision of work to low-skilled employees and also to achieve improved energy efficiency. The program tragically led to loss of lives of four workers and several houses burned. It was government responsibility to ensure safety and health of workers involved in the program because it was the funding authority. Moreover, government is task with the role of ensuring people’s lives, safety, health and property are safeguarded. Occupational health and safety regulations are made and implemented by the government hence it was its role to safeguard the safety and health of the workers in the Home Insulation Program. Works Cited Carroll, Archie B, and Ann K. Buchholtz. Business & Society: Ethics, Sustainability, and Stakeholder Management. , 2014. Print. Davis, Mark. “Insulation bungle a case study in bad management.” The Sydney Morning Herald. The Sydney Morning Herald., 22 Apr. 2010. Web. 2 May 2014. Department of Industry. “Home Insulation Safety plan-update.” Australian Government Department of Industry. Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.,18 Oct. 2010. Web. 2 May 2014. Head, Mark. “Australian government scraps home insulation program.” World Socialist Web Site. International Committee of the Fourth International., 22 Feb.2010. Web. 2 May 2014. Kortt, Michael A., and Brian Dollery. "The Home Insulation Program: an example of Australian government failure." Australian Journal of Public Administration 71.1 (2012): 65-75. Read More