400 NUMBER OF PEOPLEKILLED CAUSED BY WORK ACIVITIES

MILLION

ARE LOST EVERY YEAR AS A RESULT OF WORK-RELATED ACCIDENTS AND

ILL-HEALTH25WORKING DAYS

12CHAPTER OCCUPATIONAL

HEALTHANDSAFETY

INTRODUCTION

AROUND ONE IN FIVE WORKERS HAVE BEEN PHYSICALLY ATTACKED OR THREATENED BY A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC.

COAL

MINESTRESSON THE JOB

RIGHT TO BE

PROTECTED

WORKERS HAVE A RIGHT TO BE PROTECTED FROM ANY EXCESSIVE CHEMICALS IN THE WORKPLACE. IT MAY BE ASKED, HOWEVER, WHETHER A REDUCTION TO THE LOWEST TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASIBLE LEVEL IS JUSTIFIED, ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE LACK OF CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF THE HAZARDS AT LOW LEVELS OF EXPOSURE.

HEALTH SAFETYLACK OF KNOWLEDGE ADDS TO THE DIFFICULTY OF ESTABLISHING CAUSAL CONNECTIONS.

REGULATION OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETYMOST COMPANIES FOCUS TO EDUCATE AND TRAIN THEIR EMPLOYEES RESULTING

TO RARE PROSECUTIONS OR ANY VIOLATIONS AND THAT THEY ARE HARDLY CONCERNED ABOUT SAFETY RATHER THAN HEALTH.

WEARGOGGLES

3000PEOPLE

DIE

ASBESTOS

EVERY YEARBECAUSE OF

RIGHT TO A SAFE AND HEALTHY WORKPLACE

“DANGEROUS WORKING CONDITIONS THREATEN THE VERY EXISTENCE OF EMPLOYEESAND CANNOT BE COUNTENANCEDWHEN THEY ARE AVOIDABLE.”

PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS THAT PROTECT THEM FROM OTHERS WHO WOULD ENSLAVETHEM OR OTHERWISE USE THEM FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES. IN BRINGING THIS IDEATO BEAR ON THE PROBLEM OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY, MANY PEOPLE HAVE THOUGHTTHAT WORKERS HAVE AN INALIENABLE RIGHT TO EARN THEIR LIVING FREE FROM THERAVAGES OF JOB-CAUSED DEATH, DISEASE, AND INJURY.

ERWORKERS

GET

INJUREDEVERYYEARA MILLION

OV

LACK OF CARE ON THE PART OF THE EMPLOYEE

THE NEGLIGENCE OF CO-WORKERS

THE TWO FACTORS THAT ENABLE

EMPLOYEES TO DENY THAT THEIR

ACTIONS ARE THE DIRECT CAUSE OF AN

ACCIDENT IN A WORKPLACE

THE CONCEPT

OF DIRECT

CAUSE

SECOND FACTOR IS THAT IT IS

NOT PRACTICAL TO REDUCE THE

PROBABILITY OF HARM ANY

FURTHER.

ONE FACTOR IS THAT

INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS ARE

TYPICALLY CAUSED BY

COMBINATION OF FACTORS,

FREQUENTLY INCLUDING THE

ACTIONS OF WORKERS

THEMSELVES.

CAUSES OF

WORKPLACE

ACCIDENT

COAL MINING, CONSTRUCTION,

LONGSHORING AND MEAT-PACKING ARE

WELL KNOW FOR HIGH ACCIDENT

RAITES. YET, SOME INDIVIDUALS FREELY

CHOOSE THESE LINE OF WORK EVEN

WHEN SAFER EMPLOYMENT IS

AVAILABLE.

MORE OFTEN, THE FACT THAT

HAZARDOUS JOBS OFFER A WAGE

PREMIUM IN ORDER TO COMPENSATE FOR

THE GREATER RISK LEADS WORKERS TO

PREFER THEM TO LESS HAZARDOUS,

LESS WELL-PAYING JOBS.

THE VOLUNTARY ASSUMPTION OF RISK

ANDRISK AND COERCION

“YOUR

MONEY

OR

YOUR

LIFE.”

“DO THIS

HAZARDO

US WORK

OR BE

FIRED!”

“ACCEPT

THIS

DANGEROU

S JOB OR

STAY

UNEMPOYE

D!”

FEAUTURES OF

THE RIGHT TO

KNOW AND

REFUSE

DUTY TO REVEAL

INFORMATION

ALREADY

POSSESSED.

DUTY TO COMMUNICATE

INFORMATION ABOUT

HAZARDS THROUGH

LABELING, WRITTEN

COMMUNICATIONS AND

TRAINING PROGRAMS.

DUTY TO SEEK OUT

EXISTING INFORMATION

FROM THE SCIENTIFIC

LITERATURE AND

OTHER SOURCES.

DUTY TO PRODUCE

NEW INFORMATION

RELEVANT TO

EMPLOYEE HEALTH.

WORKER

NOTIFICATIONRIGHT TO KNOW CONTROVERSY

WORKPLACE SAFETY

PROGRAMS

DECREASE INJURY BY

50%

TWO FACTORS AS RELEVANT FORJUSTIFYING REFUSAL TO WORK:

• EMPLOYEE REASONABLYBELIEVES THAT THE WORKINGCONDITIONS POSE AN IMMINENTRISK OF DEATH OR SERIOUSINJURY

• EMPLOYEE HAS A REASON TOBELIEVE THAT THE RISK CANNOTBE AVOIDED BY ANY LESSDISRUPTIVE COURSE OF ACTION.

THREE STANDARDS FOR

REASONABLE BELIEF:

1. SUBJECTIVE

2. OBJECTIVE

3. REASONABLE PERSON

JUSTIFICATI

ON OF A

RIGHT TO

KNOW

THE ARGUMENT FROM

AUTONOMY

ARGUMENT FROM AUTONOMY BEGINS WITH THE

PREMISE THAT AUTONOMOUS INDIVIDUALS ARE THOSE

WHO ARE ABLE TO EXERCISE FREE CHOICE IN MATTERS

THAT AFFECT THEIR WELFARE MOST DEEPLY.

BECAUSE ACQUIRING INFORMATION COSTS MONEY, EMPLOYEES DESIRING INFORMATION ABOUT WORKPLACE RISKS SHOULD BE

WILLING TO PAY THE EMPLOYER OR SOMEONE ELSE TO PRODUCE OR GATHER THE RELEVANT INFORMATION.

BARGAINING

OVER

INFORMATION

ARGUMENT BASED ON PLAUSIBLE ASSUMPTION THAT WORKERS WHO ARE AWARE OF HAZARDS IN THE WORKPLACE WILL BE BETTER EQUIPPED TO PROTECT THEMSELVES.

INFORMATION ABOUT THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE SUBSTANCES USED IN INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES CANNOT BE DICLOSED TO WORKERS WITHOUT COMPROMISING THE ABILITY OF A COMPANY TO MAINTAIN A LEGALLY PROTECTED TRADE SECRETS.

THE PROBLEM OF TRADE SECRETS

ARGUMENT OFFERED BY ECONOMISTS WHO HOLD THAT OVERALL WELFARE IS BEST ACHIEVED BY ALLOWING MARKET FORCES TO DETERMINE THE LEVEL OF ACCEPTABLE RISK.

WARNING LABELS OR

RULES REQUIRING

PROTECTING

CLOTHINGA AND

RESPIRATORS ARE

MORE LIKELY TO BE

EFFECTIVE WHEN

WORKERS FULLY

APPRECIATE THE

NATURE AND EXTENT OF

THE RISK THEY’RE

TAKING.

UTILITARIAN

ARGUMENTS FOR A

RIGHT TO KNOW

FETAL-

PROTECTION

POLICIES

DISCRIMINATORY

FETUS-PROTECTION POLICIES ARE DISCRIMINATORY IF THEY ARE APPLIED ONLY TO WOMEN WHO OCCUPY TRADITIONALLY MALE JOBS AND NOT TO WOMEN IN FEMALE-DOMINATED LINES OF WORK WHERE THE HAZARD IS JUST AS GREAT.

SUBSTANCES

HARMFUL TO

FETUS:

FETOTOXINS

TERATOGENS

MUTAGENS

THIS SUBSTANCES INCLUDE SPONTANEOUS ABORTION, MISCARRIAGE, STILLBIRTH AND CONGENITAL EFFECTS. SOME DEFECTS LIKE DEFORMITIES ARE VISIBLE AT BIRTH, WHEREAS OTHERS MAY BE LATENT CONDITIONS THAT MANIFEST THEMSELVES LATER, AS IN THE CASE OF CHILDHOOD CANCER.S

ABORTION

DISCRIMINATORYNOT ALWAYSDISTINCTIONS BASED ON SEX

THERE IS

SUBSTANCIAL RISK

TO FETUS

THERE IS NO

LESS

DISCRIMINATORY

ALTERNATIVE

RISK OCCURS

ONLY TO WOMEN

REMOTE

AT BEST.

NO ONE CAN

DISREGARD

THE

POSSIBILITY OF

INJURY TO

FUTURE

CHILDREN.

DEFENSES OF

THE CHARGE OF

SEX

DISCRIMINATION