Optimal Workplace Safety

Assignment Three

Industrial Relations (308)

Occupational Health and Safety

Sept 21, 2005



Optimal Workplace Safety

Occupational safety and health has evolved from contracted employer liability in the mid-nineteenth century to the development of legislature in the last decades of the nineteenth century. Schneiderman and Viscusi share conflicting views with regards to how occupational health and safety should be regulated. The following discussion explores both of these approaches to the procedures used for the setting of occupational health and safety standards.

Viscusi supports a cost benefit approach with no government involvement. “We cannot provide jobs of equal safety for all any more easily than we can ensure that all individuals will be productive on a particular job irrespective of their strength, diligence or intelligence. Indeed, attempts to promote such equalization undermine a beneficial feature of all market allocations” (Viscusi, 1982). Viscusi believes that the onus of safety is on the individual worker with little government involvement. The cost benefit process is based primarily on value of safety. The question of whether it is beneficial or profitable to increase safety in the workplace versus paying for the healthcare of those affected by the hazards.

Conversely, Schneiderman supports government influence for the setting of standards focusing on workplace safety. “I suggest that we attempt to set as our standard for all male workers the level of survival reached by school teachers. After all, if teachers can achieve that perhaps we ought to do as well for all occupations” (Schneiderman, 1982). With the use of a third party, the government, a less biased view and analysis of occupational health and safety legislation is possible. Schneiderman’s goal is to equalize the health and safety risks among all occupations for all individuals. The government in Canada is elected by the people and therefore representative of the working / voting population. The government is challenged with creating legislation that pleases both the employers and the employees.

Schneiderman is not alone; there are others that are apposed to the cost benefit analysis method. Heinzerling & Frank refer to the cost-benefit analysis as being “…a deeply flawed method that repeatedly leads to biased and misleading results”. Tucker describes the use of a cost-benefit basis for “…occupational health and safety standards in Ontario would be a serious mistake which could leave thousands of workers legally exposed to hazardous conditions” Tucker, 1984, p 263). The main issue with the cost benefit method is that of assigning value to the benefits versus cost. If it is financially beneficial to pay for the healthcare of affected workers rather than fixing a workplace hazard the cost benefit process would allow employers to leave the risk and the potential for workplace mishaps or illnesses.

The cost benefit method requires that all elements have monetary values in order to be analysed. This in itself is very biased and produces ethical dilemmas such as deciding on the value of life and health. The ”…cost-benefit analysis cannot produce more efficient decisions because the process of reducing life, health, and the natural world to monetary values is inherently flawed” (Heinzerling & Frank, 2002, p 3). When monetary values are in use there are many possible problems. The value of life cannot be ethically defined monetarily. As well as the cost estimates the benefits are estimated with the cost benefit method. With the cost benefit analysis “…we are required to quantify the value of lives saved and health improved” (Tucker, 1984, p 298). Tucker further describes how this allows for biased results, as misrepresentation is common with the process of measuring the value of benefits. All of these elements given values are subjective. To one person an injury will heal to another an injury is very damaging both physically and mentally.

Risk itself is subjective. “Risk perception is the subjective assessment of the probability of a specified type of accident happening and how concerned we are with the consequences. To perceive risk includes evaluations of the probability as well as the consequences of a negative outcome.” (Sjöberg & Moen & Rundmo, 2004, p.8). Virtually every element of occupational health and safety is subjective. How do we ethically assign monetary values for subjective perceptions? Risks in the workplace are not only subjective but also unknown. The long-term risks of many chemicals and other workplace elements are still unknown. There is “incomplete information on the impact of work-related contaminants on human health” (Law Reform Commission of Canada, 2002, p 12). Workplace pollution is impossible to eliminate and the impact is unknown therefore what value would workplace pollution have with the cost benefit process. Would workplace pollution be written off because of the high prices associated with improving the environment?

Schneiderman’s goal is to equalize the health and safety risks among all occupations by setting a standard for all men and women. This standard setting process with the goal of universal equality would be ideal. Unfortunately reality dictates that such a high universal safety standard is unattainable because of the variable unknowns and variations in workplaces. Perfect safety is unattainable. The multiple variables contributing to worker risk is vastly different from workplace to workplace. There is no similarity of the atmosphere in which a teacher or politician works to that of a factory worker or miner. There is also workplace pollution of which the ill effects are not yet known. Even the office worker is affected by air and noise pollution.

The standard setting process is as Tucker describes a political one, but “it operates under the influence of a legally sanctioned, but largely uncontrolled, exercise of economic power” (Tucker, 1984, p 310). There is no perfect process in determining occupational health and safety standards. Tucker states that “trade offs between productivity and safety will still be necessary” (Tucker, 1984, p 311) even with the implementation of a socialist approach to risk with those directly affected given the democratic ability to decide on what levels of risk they are willing to incur. The main difference is in who makes the decisions between increased productivity and occupational risks. With the standard setting process the individuals directly affected have the ability to sway the decisions whereas with the cost benefit process they do not. The people elect the government officials. With the cost benefit process the decision lies with the values associated with lives and the value of improved health.

The ultimate goal of universal safety is not realistic; the goal may never be achieved however working towards such a goal would gradually improve safety and decrease the risk of injury or death in the workplace. Tossing the ideal because the goal is out of reach should not be an option; the overall improvements of occupational conditions are possible. The standard setting process is also dependant on politics and that in itself is flawed, however the political world is ultimately controlled by the voting population and therefore in my opinion has a more ethical voice compared to that of the cost benefit approach.

Given the choice between these two views the most persuasive in my opinion is that of Schneiderman. Neither view is flawless, however from an ethical point of view the standard setting process is favoured over the cost benefit process. The cost-benefit view does not fit into my set of morals and ethically I could never choose a view that requires quantifying life or risk or workplace pollution. The standard setting method is preferred since it has a positive outlook. It requires positive changes to occupational health and safety. There is no ethical flaw in striving to make health and safety equal for all.





Bibliography

Heinzerling, L., Frank, A. (2002) Pricing the priceless: Cost-benefit Analysis of Environmental Protection. Retrieved September 05 2005 from http://www.law.georgetown.edu/gelpi/papers/pricefnl.pdf

Law Reform Commision of Canada. (2002). Excerpt 1 of Workplace Pollution. Working Paper 53-Protection of Life, 6-15. Ottawa: Law Reform Commission of Canada.

Schneiderman, M. (1982). Cost-Benefit, Social Values and the Setting of Occupational Health Standards, Legal and Ethical Dilemmas in Occupational Health, 191-206

Sjöberg, L., Moen, B., Rundmo, T. (2004). Explaining risk perception. An evaluation of the sychometric paradigm in risk perception research. Retreived August 15, 2005 from http://www.svt.ntnu.no/psy/Torbjorn.Rundmo/

Psychometric_paradigm.pdf

Tucker, E. (1990). Administering Danger in the Workplace: The Law and Politics of Occupational Health and Safety Regulation in Ontario, 1859-1914, 13-32, 237-246. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Tucker, E. (1984). The Determination of Occupational Health and Safety Standards in Ontario, 1860-1982: From the Market to Politics to…? McGill Law Journal 29: 260-311.

Viscusi, W. (1982). Setting Efficient Standards for Occupational Hazards, Journal of Occupational Medicine 24: 967-976.