EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The restoration from personnel management to human resource management has always been a vital sphere of an organization. The significance of employees to an organization is immense, as they are the driving force of the establishment and therefore, their welfare should be utmost substance. But are employers doing so? Since 1970, government initiatives have crafted the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OHSA), which monitors the employers weld with the legislations imposed. However, recent statistics have revealed that employers are undaunted about the health and safety standards in the workplace. This repudiation has lead to several circumstances where employees have been wounded and moreover, encountered death. This paper highlights a brief opening on health and safety issues in the workplace followed the sources of accidents. An international comparison is also incorporated to distinguish global practices and finally the role that management should undertake, which will determine the various implications on whether managers should be held criminally liable to charges that infringe health and safety legislations?

INTRODUCTION

Organizations in the present day have been disrupted by many issues that concern the welfare of their personnel. Providing health and safety to its employees is not just a moral concern, rather a legal reliability. According to Bernardin (2008), health and safety issues associated to the workplace are emerging interests within organization. Employers in particular are considerably more responsible according to the Health and Safety at Work (HSW) Act, than the employees (Hughes and Ferrett, 2009). The figure below represents the chain of responsibility to communicate Health and Safety at Work regulations.

Source: Hughes and Ferrett, 2009

The obligation of the management and moreover, the employer is the key perspective of discussion in this paper. The likelihood of accidents occurring in the workplace is to be

anticipated, as they record for more than 6,000 work-related deaths and roughly 5 million injuries and illnesses across the USA per year (Decenzo and Robbins, 2009).

The astounding figures do not solely reflect the consequences encumbered by the employers. According to Dessler (2010), the echoes of workplace security are shunned by employers rather than imparting attention on such stern issues. For example a cast-iron business was cited to have violated more than 400 safety violations since 1995. Moreover, the managers of the organization asserted employees to be dismissed, who would object to the hazardous working environment (Barstow and Bergman, 2003 cited in Dessler, 2010).

In regards to various predicaments reported for workplace health and safety, the US Congress officiated the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970. This law was initiated to assure every working man and women in the United States to experience a safe and healthy working condition. Furthermore, it also pledged to protect the human resources of the nation (Wang, 1993). This act assisted in the formation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), within the Department of Labor.

The fundamental purpose of OSHA is to govern the OSH Act and enforce organizations to adhere to the set standards (Bernardin, 2008). In the United Kingdom, this role of regulator is conducted by the Health and Safety Executives (HSE) (www.hse.gov.uk). Likewise, the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) was inducted in 1995 to assist the regulations followed by organizations across the UK.

The HSE and OSHA identify several key indicators as accident and incident for the workplace, which are illustrated below. There is a general conformity regarding an accident, which is classified as an unexpected, undesired event that leads to injury, ill-health or damage; while an incident perpetuate to an undesired and spontaneous event that impedes conclusion of a task, which may root to injury (Doytchev and Hibberdb, 2009).

Source: Ridley and hazards. They report to more than 30 million recent concern for todays business is chemical Channing, 2007 workers being affected per year (Bernardin, 2009). Another major fatality is repetitive strain injury (RSI), which accounted for $20 million in costs incurred by employees (Kay, 2005). Nevertheless, chronic stress suffered on the job has been underlined as job burnout, which exhausted a cost of $90 billion by injured employees (Maslach, Schaufeli and Leiter, 2001).

Despite several work related injuries, illnesses and deaths, organizations have failed to oblige to accountability and therefore, are liable for such incidents. It is noted that the US has developed the rate of occupational safety, since the implementation of the act and are regarded superior than other developed nations in upholding workplace health and safety (Hughes and Ferrett, 2009).

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

CAUSES OF WORK ACCIDENTS & WORK RELATED ILLNESSES

In order to identify the various sources of workplace related accidents, it is befitting to comprehend on the shifts in job trends and the nature of the tasks undertaken. According to Gunderson and Hyatt (1998), the fundamental transformations that is altercating the nature of work and the workplace is leading the path to understanding the causes of occupational accidents. Shifts in the economy have laid implications towards workplace injuries. The recent economic meltdown has resulted in employees substituting from declining sectors of work, to expanding sectors. This thereby, has fueled exposure to unfamiliar hazards and risk of injury (Cole et al., 1998 cited in Sullivan, 2001).

Other changes have been identified in the workforce that has piloted the increase in work-related injuries and accidents. According to Grover (1998, cited in Sullivan, 2001), the ageing populations contribution to the workforce has entangled the causes of occupational accidents. The probability of older workers being injury prone is more apparent, and moreover, long term claims can be expected due to long latency phases incurred by occupational diseases. However, in contrast, Sullivan (2001) argues that senior employees are less probable to accidents, as they are inclined to take precautions. Furthermore, their brief life expectancy may well moderate claims duration.

Transformation in workplace due to the revolution of information technology has been unabated. This has lead to the decline of physical injuries associated with the workplace. However, it has set in motion non-traditional syndromes, such as burnout. Drucker (2002) identifies outsourcing as transformation of workplace structures, which accumulate to stress incurred in IT sector jobs.

For example Honda Motor Companys drive for lean production has taken an incline, as it accounted for a startling figure of injuries (www.coshnetwork.org).

The enlargement and enrichment of job responsibilities have instigated work related ailments, due to allocation of work overload (Brown, 2009). Organizational structures are being reengineered, making them flatter with vertical hierarchies. The intensified significance on pay for performance could direct to enhanced strain (Sullivan, 2001). For example - Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service compensated the family of a deceased fish processing company worker, as they acknowledged that the workers diseases, cause of death, had originated from the emotional stress endured from being notified of excess duties associated with the job (www.koilaf.org).

Dessler (2010) identifies two focal grounds of workplace accidents. The list below outlines the foundations of occupational disaster drivers. Additional frequent workplace accident sources have been elaborated by toolboxtopics.com. Occupational disasters have had a particular alarming rate of growth, thus classifications should be comprehended.

Source: Dessler, 2010

Source: Dessler, 2010

Source: toolboxtopics.com DIFFERENT TYPES OF VIOLATIONS The OSHA identifies a willful violation as an infringement in which, the employer knowingly does not make a rational effort to eradicate a hazardous condition in the workplace. For example - The HSE fined Tesco to 48,000 due to their admission of failing to provide a safe working system for loading and unloading vehicles at one of its stores. Furthermore, they disclosed that Tesco had not presented training and supervision to operational and managerial staff concerning to the loading and unloading of vehicles. Lastly, the HSE indicated that the company had also failed to eliminate the application of metal plates, to unload vehicles, which are regarded as an unsafe practice (www.roadtransport.com).

The existence of a workplace hazard that may cause injury or illness that would most likely consequent in death or serious physical damage, without the prior knowledge of the employer is defined as a serious violation. For example - in Canada, a retail grocer was penalized $350,000 for violating the occupational health and safety legislation that caused a young workers death. A drop ceiling made up of acoustic tiles caused the young worker to endure a fatal head injury, which resulted in his death. The employer pleaded guilty for failing to ensure the placement of a guardrail to prevent workers accessing the drop ceiling. In addition to the fine imposed, the employer was required to pay a 25% victim fine surcharge, which is credited to a special fund that aids victims of crime (news.ontario.ca). In reflection to such cases, it cannot be solely contributed that employers are exclusively liable to such penalties. However, due to their responsibility to assure workplace safety, such fines imposed are appropriate. For example - a division of Davisco Foods International, Jerome Cheese Company faced $111,000 in penalties for several safety violations. Upon inspection of their premises, the legislative authorities identified that the firm failed to allocate sufficient resources, thereby exposing employees to the risk of serious injury or death linked with probable discharge of anhydrous ammonia. Additionally, the employer was held responsible for lacking to instigate an emergency response plane. The OSHA recognized the violations as serious, implicating that the employers knew or should have known of the significant prospect of death or serious physical harm consequential from the hazards. The OSHA, therefore recorded 12 serious and one repeat violation carried out by the organization (www.magicvalley.com).

A repeated offence is classified as a violation that the employer evokes by citing previously a substantially similar condition and the excerpt becomes a final regulation under the OSH Review Commission. For example - British Petroleum (BP) has been struck with a hefty penalty of $50.6 million for violating health and safety regulations after failing to recoup from repeated infringements, which recorded to 170 injured and killing 15 others in 2005 and 2009 separately. Furthermore, BP has agreed to apportion $500 million to reprimand insecure conditions at the refinery. The repeated violation and volume of the punishment demonstrates that BP either purposefully disregards the requisites of the OSH, or is unconcerned of employee health and

safety. Victims of the violation invoke the right to criminally prosecute the BP executives, as their conformity of the penalty exemplifies their divulgence of guilt (www.ombwatch.org).

A circumstance in which, the most critical injury or illness that would likely result from a hazardous condition cannot be plausibly foreseen as a cause of death or serious physical injury to the employee is identified as other-then-serious violation. For example - SOLVE Composites were cited to other-than-serious violations by the OSHA, prompting a $700 proposed fine. The makers of fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels were inefficient in protecting employees against basic hazards, by not maintaining illness and injury logs (pressrepublican.com).

A failure to abate offense is termed when the employer is responsible for not rectifying a violation, which OSHA issued as a citation and moreover, the abatement date has passed. The irresponsibility of organizations can lead to such mishaps, for example - Imerys Minerals Ltd, a china clay organization was charged by the HSE for failing to guarantee their staff the security engaged in manually stacking bags onto conveyors. The firm was fined 30,000, which accounted for an employee to suffer multiple injuries due to the flaw in design (www.hse.gov.uk).

OHS & CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Many controversies surround the critical issue of confining top executives with criminal liability. The biggest example is of Acme Markets, which witnessed its president judged guilty of violating health and safety law and held criminally liable. The court labeled responsibility of the top executive, as a position of authority (Butler and Worrall, 2009). Such an interpretation presents absolute liability by virtue of position. There is too much pressure for profits that cause executives to give orders for both increasing profits and making safe products and working

conditions. When both goals can't be reached, many executives are pressured not to want to know about potential dangers. However, if the penalties for top executives are too harsh, the society may have difficulty finding proficient business leaders to take the necessary risks required in business. Nash (2001) acknowledged that the yearning for profits assisted the Concept Sciences Inc. to be penalized, when they were charged for violating OSHA standards in a development to formulate an explosive cleaning material for computer chips.

Occupational health and safety irregularity accounts to 56,000 deaths annually compared to violent crimes that mount to 16,000 every year, of which the most profound example being of the Ford Motor company being prosecuted with homicide for marketing a defective product, which resulted in the deaths of three teenage girls (Mokhiber, 2007). A large part of the problem remains that fines don't mean anything to top business executives. Recommending jail sentences for business executives appear to be the most sought for punishment. New legislations proposed will ensue OSHA violations that result in death or serious injury as a felony rather than a misdemeanor (www.nrlrc.net). The legislations of the world have bestowed executives to monitor safety standards in the workplace. Since, we have already dictated a desired safety levels, we are now attempting to persuade employers to actively stall by the set standards. Executives should be held criminally liable because a decision to compromise safety standards is fundamentally, a resolution to kill or injure for profit (Speirs and Johnson, 2002).

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH & SAFETY

Occupational health and safety are crucial themes that concern all organizations worldwide. The instinctive human behaviour enacts as a character, in widely held occupational accidents and injuries (Ford and Tetrick, 2008). Workplace related accidents accumulate to more than 125 million annually across the globe. Additionally, an estimated 220,000 of these accidents are fatal. Every year, thousands of millions of workers are treated with occupational disabilities, and astoundingly, over 10 million crippling injuries and diseases are recorded worldwide (Fernandes, Penalva and Koenders, 2006). Foundations of accident and incident are intricate, as they each evolve from unique combination of events (Doytchev and Hibberdb, 2009). This section will feature the global perception of workplace related accidents and illnesses.

As elaborated previously, the American and British code of legislation regarding occupational health and safety are OSHA and the HSE. To bring forth a comparison between nations, a further embellishment of other developed and undeveloped is presented. Firstly, Switzerland, a developed nation, approved a law in 1911 which pioneered to establish the Lucerne of the Swiss Accident Insurance Fund (SUVA) (Singleton, 1983). The fund is in command to bear accident insurance within industries protected under the law. Second in comparison is Brazil, which is labeled as an under-developed nation. The legal framework for workplace health parameters in Brazil is very convoluted. Brazil does not have specific fragment of legislation that defines a standard setting process (Frumkin and Camara, 1991). However, the restructuring of the health sector to Unified Health System (Si.stema Unico de Saiide, or SUS) in 1988 has empowered SUS to undertake responsibility to protect workers health.

As a final point, glimpse into the Nordic region, where an assessment of the region will convey a comprehensible understanding of various occupational health and safety measures. Swedens legislation body has been recently modified from the National Board of Occupational Safety and Health till 2000, to Swedish Work Environment Authority (SWEA). They have a compelling principle (Work Injuries Insurance Act (LAF)) that protects employed people from work injuries (Nordin and Bengtsson, 2001). The Work Injuries Insurance Act classifies a work injury as a consequential injury from an accident at work.

Reflexive legislation has been consequently instigated in Nordic and EU countries (Hasle and Petersen, 2004; Wilthagen, 1994 cited in Hasle, 2007), which maintains that employers are accountable for clarifying whether the work presents and health hazard. This signifies that the modern legislations executed by the HSE and SWEA place extensive and varied responsibility on employers for protecting their employees. Quinlans (2000) gathered details of UK and US workforce imply that more accidents and health problems transpire amongst workers employed in outsourced jobs. Furthermore, it can be noted that many industrializing nations confer a low and non-existent value for health and safety working environments and emphasis on safety culture (Takala and Obadia, 1997).

In regards to all labour matters, there persist three factions the government, the employers and the unions, which should contribute with steadiness. In the UK, unions have revealed a notable lack of involvement in health and safety legislations. Moreover, they have indicted by employers to intentionally resist development of working conditions, in order to attain special wages and allowances (Singleton, 1983). Likewise, the Brazilian unions have been inactive in occupational

health and safety due to boundaries forced by the government and moreover, by pressing economic apprehension. Nevertheless, emerging awareness of environmental destruction in several areas of the nations, with subsequent health costs; unions have strengthened their activities (Frumkin and Camara, 1991). In contrast, the unions in the US have made a comparatively persuasive contribution, with many critiques asserting the OSHA to be bias towards the unions (Singleton, 1983).

The crucial difference that is subdued from an otherwise analogous pattern is that the Swiss and Brazilian workforce is still proportionately agriculture and forestry based, compared to the Americans with a considerable professional workforce. This matter itself reflects the differences in general occupational accidents and health statistics, as it can be noted that administrative undertakings are less hazardous than agriculture or forestry assignments (Singleton, 1983). This topic is better supported by Frumkin and Camara (1991), who note that the majority of Brazilian workers at high incident are agricultural workers and gold-seekers in the Amazon basin; and such task entitles special risks of enduring occupational injuries and diseases. Sweden too accounts to primal sector, which have recorded manufacturing and mining as the premier form of occupational accidents encountered by workers (Nordin and Bengtsson, 2001). Furthermore, Bohle and Quinlan (2000) have identified that the majority of work-related illnesses have also been accounted by workers included in light assembly or process work, data processing officers, cash register operators, sewing machinists, mining and forestry workers, carpenters and workers doing repetitive clerical tasks. (Browne et al., 1984 and Yassi, 1997).

In can be identified during the course of time, the conception of responsibility and enforcement has revolutionized. The predated legislations associate responsibility and cause, in order to apportion accidents to employers - as a design or work; and to employees - on the basis of carelessness (Singleton, 1983), which depicts employers with the obligation of taking preventable measures and to take practical attention of their employees. In addition, employees are conscientious by law for considering suitable care in carrying out their tasks.

Formulating a successful health and safety legislation is a very intricate process, but the predicament cannot be evaded. There can be no skepticism that some legislation is indispensable for every country, however, the attitude taken by discussed nations seem inadequate. The Swiss approach has directed to a structure governed by financial controls. In contrast, the British have taken ground on being too passionate, which has resulted in a structure subsisting resourcefully if cost-benefit standards were utilized more sternly (Singleton, 1983). In addition, the attitude embarked on by the Americans of mending a problem when it emerges may perhaps be successful, if it had been a more continuing.

Nevertheless, the British are making an effort to develop organizations to acknowledge inspector concurrently as both an advisor and enforcer. In distinction, the Americans and the Swiss are emerging to separate the roles, as compliance officers (enforcement) and the other as consultant (adviser) (Singleton, 1983). This segregation of ideology has emerged from the principle that preventing an accident is more significant, than punishment and penalty after its occurrence. Conversely, the present scenario indicates an alteration towards prevention and that health and

safety programs in organizations cannot be substituted with legislations, rather it can promote its development (Singleton, 1983).

OHS AT THE WORKPLACE AND THE ROLE OF MANAGEMENT

Health and safety should be a primal issue in the workplace and every employer has a duty of care. This is critical to the health, safety and general welfare of all employees. Not all employers are aware of the implications of the duty of care. In order to instigate the value, top management should take the initiative and transfer the philosophy of good safety management, which in return will assure a sound working environment (Adams, 2001). Incidents are made up of two elements: frequency and severity. Frequency and severity are the results of unsafe acts, unsafe conditions or a combination of the two. Current philosophy supports that unsafe acts are the primal loss features. Safety should start with engineering methods to engineer and design out hazards, therefore making them dependable (Mokhiber, 2007). This is why safety is so reliant on behavior modification. It also explains why safety professionals are trained with a combination of technical skills, as well as managerial and human relation skills. Dessler (2010) insinuates few basic measures that can be implemented by organizations to ensure that there persists an impression of a healthy and safe working environment. It is very essential for management to bring about the change and enforce employees to establish a avertable work zone, that encourages protection. Below is an enlistment of the various programs that can be implemented in an organization to maintain the legislative standard level.

There divergence of opinions regarding the preferred

subsist

configuration of workers'

involvement in topics

relating to health and safety at work. Furthermore, Source: Dessler, 2010

employees have contradictory opinions about the functions too. The numerous viewpoints on this matter are influenced by concepts of how accidents and illness are associated with work. Zink (2005) further prompts that just by convincing organizations to empower employees regarding health promotions will be insufficient. Employers need to be exhibited that the potential for health improvements will expand the corporate health (financially) as well, within the

organization. OHS needs to be organized in a more process-oriented manner, which will replicate benefits for employers, employees and the customers (Zink, 2005).

Despite the attempt to be acquainted with safety management, employers must comprehend to OSHA record keeping methods. This entitles an organization with more than 11 employees to maintain a log of and inform certain occupational injuries and illnesses (OSHA). By maintaining such a record, it will assist an organization to identify the key areas which are regular obstructions to their current OHS standards. Furthermore, spontaneous OSHA inspection should be given an encouraging outlook, as it will result in identifying the organizations challenges to sustain a safe and healthy workplace (Dessler, 2010). Prior record keeping of incidents will aid in this process, as the organization will have preceding knowledge of their deficiency.

In addition to ensuring safety standards and OSHA regulations, organizations should also be obliged to offer their employees OHS assistance programs, which emphasize on stress management (DeCenzo and Robbins, date), substance abuse rehabilitation programs (Nighswonger, 2000) and workplace violence training (Dessler, 2010).

Source: Dessler, 2010

Source: Dessler, 2010

Source: Dessler, 2010 CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION

Valuing safety and health in the workplace is a vital element to organizational efficiency. Employers needs to realize that health and safety cultured organization will serve to be more productive, and therefore, a safety culture needs to be emphasized. The issue of confining executives criminally liable to improper health and safety in the workplace is just not a solution to long-term gain for the organization. This paper assessed several areas which indicated the concern appropriately. According to Henshaw (2003), employers and workers uniformly need to appreciate the value of a safer working environment. They need to understand that both are on the same team, the organization, which needs to toil together to attain a solution to occupational safety challenges. The corporation as a whole needs to be committed towards health and safety, by justly comprehending health and safety issues in every work processes and practices (Henshaw, 2003). This test of dedication should be a continuous improvement process which strives to achieve a zero tolerance on occupational and health issues. In my opinion, a framework conceptualized by Makin and Winder (2009), illustrated below, to advance occupational health and safety management can be implemented by organizations to relegate executives to be criminally accountable. All health and safety controls should be considered during the application of this agenda.