This argument states that it makes financial sense for employers
to make the workplace safer because by making the workplace safer
then lower wages could be paid to employees.
This conclusion is based on the premise that as the list
of physical injury increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase.
However, there are several assumptions that may
not necessarily apply to this argument. For example,
the costs associated with making the workplace safe must
outweigh the increased payroll expenses due to hazardous
conditions. Also, one must look at the plausibility of improving
the work environment.And finally,
because most companies agree that as the risk of injury increases
so will wages doesn't necessarily mean that all companies which
have hazardous work environments agree.
The first issue to be addressed is whether increased labor
costs justify large capital expenditures to improve the work environment.
Clearly one could argue that if making the workplace safe would cost
an exorbitant amount of money in comparison to leaving the workplace
as is and paying slightly increased wages than it would not make
sense to improve the work environment.
For example, if making the workplace safe would cost $100 million
versus additional payroll expenses of only $5,000 per year, it would
make financial sense to simply pay the increased wages.
No business or business owner with any sense would pay all that extra
money just to save a couple dollars and improve employee health and relations.
To consider this, a cost benefit analysis must be made. I also feel that although a
cost benefit analysis should be the determining factor with regard to
these decisions making financial sense, it may not be the determining factor with regard
to making social, moral and ethical sense.
This argument also relies on the idea that companies solely use financial sense in analyzing
improving the work environment. This is not the case.
Companies look at other considerations such as the negative social ramifications of
high on-job injuries. For example, Toyota spends large amounts of money improving its
environment because while its goal is to be profitable,
it also prides itself on high employee morale and an almost perfectly safe work environment.
However, Toyota finds that it can do both, as by improving employee
health and employee relations they are guaranteed a more motivated staff,
and hence a more efficient staff; this guarantees more money for
the business as well as more safety for the employees.
Finally one must understand that not all work environments can
be made safer. For example, in the case of coal mining, a company
only has limited ways of making the work environment safe. While
companies may be able to ensure some safety precautions,
they may not be able to provide all the safety measures necessary.In
other words, a mining company has limited ability to control the
air quality within a coal mine and therefore it
cannot control the risk of employees getting blacking.
In other words, regardless of the intent of the company, some jobs are simply dangerous in nature.
In conclusion, while at first it may seem to make financial sense
to improve the safety of the work environment sometimes
it truly does not make financial sense. Furthermore,
financial sense may not be the only issue a company faces.
Other types of analyses must be made such as the social
ramifications of an unsafe work environment and the overall
ability of a company to improve that environment (i.e., coal mine).
Before any decision is made, all these things must be considered,
not simply the reduction of payroll expenses.