Right to Occupational Safety

Right to Occupational Safety

The safety of employees is desirable at the workplace. However, various scholars have differing ideas about how to achieve occupational safety. Many argue about whether employees should have a right to occupational safety or not. This paper argues that employees should have a right to occupational safety. The paper debunks the arguments made by Machan against according employees this right. Additionally, the report uses the arguments made by Spurgin. The discussion shows occupational safety is a moral right, easy to implement, and organizations benefit by upholding occupational safety for its employees. Therefore, employees should have a right to occupational safety.               

Foremost, employees should have a right to organizational safety because it is a moral obligation of employers. It is normal for workplaces to have certain hazards which the employees are exposed to. However, organizations have a moral obligation to ensure that all employees are kept safe while at the workplace. Exposure to hazards has the potential to harm employees physically, mentally, and affect their health. Employers should ensure that employees are healthy at all times to ascertain that they remain productive. In this sense, employees have a right to occupational safety.             

Other scholars like Machan refute this argument. According to Machan (1987), employees do not have a right to occupational safety since this is a special right. Machan believes that employees only have the basic rights to life, liberty, and property. However, everyone possesses these rights. Therefore, Machan believes that employees have no special rights that accord them occupational safety (Machan, 1987). He views a right to occupational safety as a special right which should not be accorded to employees. Instead, they should enjoy the basic rights that everyone else has.             

The position taken by Machan is misleading. Machan assumes that employees should not have a right to occupational safety because this is a special right. Essentially, he argues that giving employees this right would make them special. Therefore, his conclusion is based on the wrong premise that employees are not special. Employees are special to every organization. It is the employees who help the organization to achieve its set goals and objectives. Additionally, it is the employees that determine organizational performance and profit margins. In this sense, employees are special. As such, if right to occupational safety is special, employees should have it because they are special.   

Additionally, employees should have a right to occupational safety because arguments against its implementation fail to hold. The argument by scholars like Machan assumes that the enforcement of such employee rights would impede the attainment of free trade in the market. According to Machan (1987), interference with free trade violates both rights of the employees and employers. Therefore, he argues that employees should not have the right occupational safety as implementing the rights would interfere with free trade. The attainment of free trade conditions is vital for such scholars. 

However, the argument holds in ideal situation while it crumbles in a real situation. For example, organizations may have a commitment to upholding their agreements in the contract between them and employees. However, the organizations may fail to uphold their commitment, violating the organizational safety of employees. There is therefore need for rights to organizational safety to ensure that employers do not take advantage of employees. The implementation of such rights is therefore necessary.   

Spurgin offers insights which expose the weakness in the argument by Machan concerning the free trade element. According to arguments made by other scholars, employers have a vulnerable position which makes them susceptible to exploitation by employers (Spurgin, 2006). Therefore, there is need for some sort of regulation to protect employees from exploitation. Having occupational safety rights ensures that employers cannot take advantage of employees and force them to wok in hazardous conditions. Therefore, there is indeed a need for these rights. Arguing that employees do not have right to occupational safety is the same as saying employers should feel free to exploit employers.   

The exploitation of employees is a serious issue. Naturally, employers have a higher power position than employees. As such, employees lack the power to act as free agents like employers unless they are backed up by occupational rights to leverage the power difference (Spurgin, 2006). The scholars like Machan fail to take this aspect into account in their arguments. Since employers have more power, there is need for using regulation to balance out the power play between employers and employees. Failure to do so leaves employees vulnerable to exploitation. One primary way of balancing the power positions is by according employees right to occupational safety. 

According employees a right to occupational safety increases the success of organizations. Machan argues that an employee right can only be enforced by preventing either employees or employers from making agreements they would wish to make concerning free exchange of labor and compensation (Machan, 1987). Using this argument leads to the conclusion that rights to employees are special and come at a cost to the organization. To eliminate this cost, Machan proposes that employees should have no right to occupational safety since it is costly to the organization. 

However, Machan has the wrong focus in this context. Occupational safety has benefits which by far outweigh the costs associated with implementing it. Occupational safety promotes the safety and health of employees at the workplace, thereby promoting effectiveness and performance (Çalış & Büyükakıncı, 2019). An organization that prioritizes occupational safety will therefore attract and retain top talent as the employees are assured of their safety at work. As such, employers should prioritize the safety of their employees. 

Employees perform better when they are safe. Safety of employees ensures that they are well equipped to achieve the quality standards set by organizations. For example, employees working in a mine will perform better when they have safety equipment than when they lack them. Additionally, occupational safety reduces the safety related incidents and accidents that occur at work. Therefore, employees are motivated to give their best at work. Also, there is less downtime that occurs when employees are injured. 

Following this argument, it is clear that organizations stand to benefit by upholding occupational safety. Consequently, organizations have an incentive to uphold occupational safety as opposed to focusing on the costs of implementing. Additionally, there are systems which ensure that occupational safety is easy and cost efficient to implement at the workplace (Çalış & Büyükakıncı, 2019). Such systems reduce the cost involved in ascertaining the safety of employees at all times. Therefore, implementing occupational safety is no longer burdensome for employers.    

Luckily, there are no arguments regarding the need for identifying hazardous work. Notably, all scholars agree that employees should have information regarding hazardous working conditions and have the right to refuse such working conditions (Machan, 1987). However, Machan has unrealistic assertions on this subject. Although he believes that employees should know about hazardous work, he affirms that employers can dismiss any employee who refuses hazardous work (Machan, 1987). The argument implies that employers are at liberty to fire employees who refused work that threatens their safety. Essentially, Machan believes that employers have the say on when it is right to dismiss employees. 

The argument by Machan is weak for two reasons. First, it implies that employees can know all hazards they may face at work before their employment. It is impossible to identify all hazards which one may face as the workplace environment is dynamic. Secondly, firing anyone who refuses hazardous work will eliminate the capacity to refuse such work. According to Spurgin (2006), dismissal for refusing hazardous work is bound to deny employees the right to refuse such work. As such, employees need protection to ensure they are not wrongfully dismissed. 

The discussion indicates the need for occupational safety is paramount. Some may argue that employees do not have a right to occupational safety, especially concerning job security. Proponents of employment at will belief that employers can employ and dismiss employees at will. However, the discussion indicates that employees should have right to occupational safety to protect them from exploitation and for the benefit of employers. Therefore, arguments against this right do not hold. 

There are various steps which employees can take should they get exploited by employers. For example, employees can use due process to contest unlawful dismissal. The due process can either be procedural or substantive. In serious cases, employees can go through a procedure to express their grievance or exercise their right to a hearing. However, such steps are usually not successful. According to Al-Haidar (2018), there are better laws for employers taking legal action against employees as opposed to employees taking legal action against employers. 

In most cases, employees rely on substantive process whereby they demand explanation for the decisions made by employers. Such procedures are effective in helping employees understand the decisions made against them. However, they do not help employees get justice when their occupational safety is violated. There is need to make changes to leverage the injustices existing when employees are wrongfully dismissed. The best change which should be implemented by policy makers is granting employees a right to occupational safety. Doing so will ensure that employees are protected from exposure to hazards and wrongful dismissals when they refuse dangerous work.   

The discussion indicates that employees should have a right to occupational safety. Occupational safety is easy and cost efficient to implement owing to systems dedicated to doing so. Additionally, organizations stand to benefit greatly from attaining occupational safety at the workplace. Lastly, occupational safety is a moral right of all employees. Arguments against offering employees this right are easily demystified. Employees have less power position than employees. As such, they need the support of legislation to ensure that they are not exploited. When regulation clearly states that employees have a right to occupational safety, employers will not find loopholes for exploiting employees. All working places have some degree of hazardous working conditions. Therefore, all employees should have a right to occupational safety.   

References 

Al-Haidar, F. (2018). Administrative disciplinary and grievance procedures for public employees in Kuwait and UK. International Journal of Law and Management, 60(3), 842-853. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijlma-04-2017-0081 

Machan, T. (1987). Human Rights, Workers’ Rights, and the ‘Right’ to Occupational Safety. I

n G. Ezorsky (Ed.), Moral Rights in the Workplace (pp. 45-50). State University of New York Press, Albany. Spurgin, E. W. (2006). Occupational safety and paternalism: Machan revisited. Journal of Business Ethics, 63(2), 155-173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-3326-y.

Çalış, S., & Büyükakıncı, B. Y. (2019). Occupational health and safety management systems applications and a system planning model. Procedia Computer Science, 158, 1058-1066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.147