Workplace Health and Safety
Summary and Reflection
Before modern factories, hazardous tasks or work conditions were negotiated by the individual on a case by case basis. Before physical science advanced in research, problems posed by “sick buildings”, secondhand smoke, or “WMSD” were not calculable. Much of workplace health is indebted to scientific studies of the matching of human bodies and capabilities to labor tasks. In a parallel vein, until human rights became legitimized in the workplace, demands for employee safety fell on deaf ears. Convergence of these three trends has created the need and demand for laws to guarantee workplace health and safety.
As with other HR matters we have explored, it is when we consider a law’s application that the thorny issues appear. In considering work environment safety and health what can be reasonably expected of an employer? How much accommodation is considered too much? Too costly?
If workers can refuse to work in unsafe conditions due to “reasonable fear of death or injury,” what does “reasonable” mean in that context? When employers believe OSHA proposes an unrealistic standard for the industry, what does “reasonable standard“ mean? When is a standard for an industry considered feasible and when does “technology forcing” begin? The answers to these questions are fluid at the moment.
For now, let’s consider the case of second-hand smoke in the workplace. Do you agree with the recommendations of EPA’s Guide to Workplace Smoking Policies? How strong does the science need to be to establish risk or danger? Are you convinced? Whether or not you are persuaded by the scientific basis for smoking policies, can you determine how costly, inconvenient or unreasonable it is to expect employers’ compliance in these matters?
Several pages should prove sufficient to address these questions fully.