Abstract
How to promote workplace safety is a continued debate. Organizations invest millions of dollars in workplace safety training. Nevertheless, the current state of safety leaves sufficient room for improvements.
This paper discusses and evaluates OSHA recommendations regarding workplace safety in the meat packaging industry. Cultural and language issues in workplace safety training are discussed. The duty to guarantee workplace safety is reconsidered from the deontological and utilitarian perspectives.
How to protect employee safety in the workplace is a continued debate. Academic literature and OSHA provide safety recommendations for organizations in different industries. Unfortunately, the current state of workplace safety leaves much room for improvements.
Organizations fail to meet even the basic demands for employee safety in the workplace. Immigrant workers are particularly susceptible to various workplace safety risks. In this situation, organizations are morally obliged to engage immigrant employees in workplace safety training that fits in their cultural conditions and teaches them the basic safety rules in their native language.
Manufacturing organizations invest millions of dollars in workplace safety initiatives. Throughout the 20th century, the number of workplace-related deaths dramatically decreased (Anonymous, 1999). Nevertheless, the level of safety in the workplace leaves much to be desired. In 2005, OSHA investigated workplace conditions in meat packaging enterprises in Nebraska (Gonzalez, 2005).
The organization reported numerous, severe human rights and safety violations in the meat industry (Gonzalez, 2005).
Some of the recommendations provided by the Human Rights Watch organization included (a) stronger laws to stop underreporting of workplace incidents and injuries; (b) stronger enforcement of worker compensation laws; and (c) new laws to guarantee safety of employees, irrespective of their immigration status (Gonzalez, 2005).
Despite the seriousness of the situation, the recommendations provided by the Human Rights Watch are incomplete.
I fully agree to OSHA and Human Rights Watch in that organizations are morally obliged to guarantee workplace safety for all employees, irrespective of their immigrant status (Gonzalez, 2005). OSHA obligates employers to furnish places of employment that are free from the risks of physical injury or death (Eckhardt, 2001).
The logic behind this duty is simple: from the utilitarian perspective, employee injuries and deaths cause heavy financial consequences on enterprises (Eckhardt, 2001). From the deontological standpoint, employers are socially responsible for promoting employee wellness (Eckhardt, 2001). In this situation, developing and implementing sound and fair standards of workplace safety is a must.
Unfortunately, OSHA and Human Rights Watch forget about the role of culture in developing workplace safety initiatives for immigrant employees. Achieving the desired level of workplace safety is impossible, unless employees have sufficient level of literacy and proficiency to understand safety policies in the workplace (Johnson & Ostendorf, 2010).
The lack of literacy and language proficiency is a serious impediment to the development of effective workplace safety policies: for example, individuals who use English as a second language face considerable difficulties with using hearing protection in the workplace (Rabinnowitz & Duran, 2001).
Therefore, organizations in the meat packing industry cannot improve their workplace conditions, until they incorporate a cultural and language element in their safety policies and training programs. Gaddis (2007) writes that investing in people is paramount to organizational success.
The number of immigrant workers in the American enterprises constantly increases. Therefore, organizations are morally obliged to engage immigrant employees in workplace safety training that meets their cultural needs and teaches them the basic safety rules in their native language.
Conclusion
Manufacturing enterprises invest millions of dollars in workplace safety initiatives. Nevertheless, the current state of workplace safety leaves sufficient room for improvements. OSHA and Human Rights Watch forget that safety training in the workplace cannot be effective, unless it corresponds to the level of language and cultural proficiency in immigrant workers.
The number of immigrant workers in American enterprises constantly increases. Therefore, organizations are morally obliged to engage immigrant employees in workplace safety training that meets their cultural demands and teaches them the basic safety rules in their native language.
References
Anonymous. (1999, 11 June). Improvements in workplace safety: United States 1900-1999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Web.
Eckhardt, R.F. (2001). The moral duty to provide workplace safety. Professional Safety, 46(8), 36-38.
Gaddis, S. (2007). Establish a safety-based culture: Creating an injury/ illness-free workplace starts at the top. ISHN, 41(6), 69-70.
Gonzalez, C. (2005, January 26). Group criticizes packers; Meat industry officials dismiss Human Rights Watch report; recommendations. Omaha World – Herald, 01B.
Johnson, S. & Ostendorf, J. (2010). Hispanic employees in the workplace: Higher rates of fatalities. American Association of Occupational Health Nurses Journal, 58(1), 11-17.
Rabinowitz, P.M. & Duran, R. (2001). Is acculturation related to use of hearing protection? American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 62, 611-614.