The Legal Argument to Benzine in the Workplace

The legal argument

Under occupational safety and health administration regulations,
Employers have the primary responsibility to

1.provide a   place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees;

When considering Benzine in a work environment the federal guidelines recommend a saturation of 10 parts per-million.   This is because there is a proven risk of death or serious bodily harm through continued exposure to this gas.

Although the New York state regulated guidelines on the saturation of this gas in the workplace do not explicitly adhere to this rule, the chemical company mentioned in the case study is about 100 times above the regulated guidelines. Because the spirit of the law in this instance advocates the protection of workers and the provision of a healthy and safe work environment, by having such a high saturation of a hazardous gas in the plant under ethical considerations of rights and justice, the chemical company is effectively denying their workers the right to life and the additionally the right to bodily integrity.

As above, the responsibility of employers is to provide a safe working environment indiscriminate of the role the worker plays in the organization. However in the said chemical company, the workers with the least bargaining power are placed in the most hazardous working environment. Again although the OSHA guidelines prohibit employers from discrimination of workers for filing safety and health complaints, there is no regulation per-se that prohibits this behaviour. Ethically under Rawls distributive justice, the workers with decisive power are placing the plant workers at risk even though they may be considered the “least” in the organization.

Additionally under OSHA guidelines, workers must

2. Not discriminate or retaliate against an employee for using their rights under the law.
However, in the cases study one of the...