Introduction
In the present day organizations, joint responsibilities and shared compliances are emerging among the stakeholders. Employers and employees are somewhat equally responsible for the safety and health of the workers. A few decades back employers were considered as the sole entity responsible for the health and safety at the workplace. The general perception was that the employees are working for the benefit of the employer, and it is the latter’s duty to be responsible for everything. But, by the advent of the stakeholder approach, business is considered as a social entity, where multiple social units play in tandem to make the business sustainable. Now we need not hesitate to view that the sole responsibility for health and safety at work does not lie only with the employer. We shall review the current practices of health and safety in the light of key legislations, and the social and cultural scenarios within and outside the business organizations.
Let us begin our review from the angle of Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HSWA).
This law inherently imposes an obligation on the employers to ensure safety at workplace for
their employees, in a reasonably practical manner. But it also forces a responsibility on employees to care for their own safety and that of others who may be affected by their work or behaviour. Traditionally, the workplace setting recieved much focus in reducing the harm at work (i.e. protection of health). Now, one cultural change that is evident in the organization is that, the worksite is considered as a domain for health promotion ( Melse J M and van den Berg M, 2009). Worksite health promotion is considered as a partnership between the employer and the employee, where employees have a shared interest in it, but employees have a dependency relationship with their employer. One of the dependence is with regard to income generation as salary.
Though, the employees have begun to take responsibility for health and safety at work place, they interpret the term ‘responsibility’ differently (Allender S, Colquhoun D, and Kelly P, 2006). Firstly, the researchers have observed that lifestyle to employees is “very personal‘, which makes them unaccountable to any one, and they do not owe any explanation to employers for their lifestyle. They equate responsibility with autonomy. The employees must realize that work performance and safety are affected by their lifestyle. For example, if an employee drinks during after-work hours, may be independently leading a life style. But next day his performance gets affected by overnight drinking. Neither employer nor legislation can interfere into such situations. The employees themselves should take responsibility for their lifestyle behaviors, especially when the results of their personal habits interfere with their roles at work.
Most of the laws and rules around the implementation of HSA (Health Savings Account) are individual oriented. The money in the HSA belongs to the respective individual HSA owners, and they can decide when and how to use the funds. The tax benefits associated with it flow to the HSA owners (Whitney R. Johnson, 2012). Even though an employer is not legally responsible for the management of HAS by the individual employees, employer need to cooperate and promote the positive benefits of HAS. Employers must understand the rules, and educate the employees to maximize the benefits from HAS programs (especially in managing HAS and tax payments).
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) was prepared to prevent workers’ casualties, accidents and harm at work. The law required employers to comply with
Working conditions that are free from obvious and known hazards. The Act was aimed to provide the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which arranges and enforces protective workplace safety and health principles. OSHA also mandates to provide information, training, and support for workers and employees. In OSHA employers have specific, compliance-driven duties and responsibilities, such as workplace risk assessment, safety training, provision of protective equipment, and review of compliance in the United States and in European Union member countries. But, employees must take special responsibility to be aware of the fundamental health, safety and risk issues they encounter at work place. They should care for their own safety and act as safety officer. Each employee has a responsibility towards their own safety as well as others’.
Today’s sex discrimination looks very different and it has become has become highly individualized (Gowri Ramachandran, 2005; Burns, J. E. and Burns, C E. 1973). Now, the sex discrimination does not target men or women, nor does it snipe a particular group of men or women —such as women who are bold or men who are submissive. The victims of present day sex discrimination face discrimination by inability to conform to the norms of the workplace. The discrimination has become very subtle and subliminal. Employees are just marginalized using work place norms and the victims find it difficult to articulate or even being aware that they are discriminated.
Workplace related laws set out responsibilities and rights for both employees and employers (Adrian & Keith, 2011). Employees are expected to carry out their work in a way that has regard to the safety of others. In the present scenario, employers and employees are expected to be aware of their rights and duties, and associate with each other for the common good of health and safety. The present study aims to determine how far the employers and employees are cooperating and upholding their rights and responsibilities with regard to health and safety issues at workplace. Another aim of the study is to find out the extent of equal opportunities provided for both the genders and equal payment offered to their work. As per the OSHA norms the organizations will be observed to find out the degree of compliance. There are also specific regulations about the way in which potentially harmful substances should be used and stored (Jill & Peter, 2010). In order to comply with the law, the workplace must meet many requirements such as minimum room temperature, air quality, and working conditions such as break time, recreation, healthy environment, etc. The primary aim of the research is to identify the dynamics of the health and safety laws in promoting cooperation and collaboration between employer and employees.
Methodology
1. Procedure
The business organizations chosen for the study are Unilever, Procter&Gamble, and Nivea. The intended methodology for the research is primarily quantitative approach (Tashakkori & Teddie, 2010), with a blend of qualitative observations. A specially prepared close-ended survey will be designed to collect data on key variables i.e. the compliance focus, the extent of sex discrimination, cooperation between employer and employee with regard to implementation of health and safety measures, and general health and safety policies adopted by the company. Because the study involves employer and employee, the survey will be conducted among, senior HR managers, Regional heads, and the shop floor employees. The survey data and other observations will be gathered in person / face to face.
2. Sampling
A total of 250 survey responses are planned for the study. This includes both eh senior managers and the employees.
3. Data analysis
The gathered data will be subjected to appropriate statistical analysis such as correlation, chi square, etc. using SPSS version 20 IBM.
Summary
The research report will carry information whether there is cooperation and collaboration between employer and employees in carrying out health and safety initiatives. The study also would observe what methods the organizations are using to implement health and safety programs that are beyond compliance requirements. Another outcome of the research would be determining whether sex discrimination and gender based differential pay is practiced in the organizations. Annie et al. (1997) has reported that employees display great sincerity towards the company, if they are well paid and work in association with the employer.
Conclusion
The business world is evolving and the social set up around it also changes. The stakeholder approach is becoming a symbiotic system, in which the employer, employee and the regulatory body must work together to enhance the safety and health at the work place. The health and safety initiatives and employee policies must adapt to the new circumstances and develop a collaborative vision. The organizations no longer can just do a good job by technically meeting the compliance norms. The organizations must go beyond the regulation and the stakeholders must own the health and safety processes to prevent the mishaps. Healthy employees are resource and assets to the organization, and organizations are assets to the nation.
REFERENCES
Melse J M and van den Berg M (2009). Ethische aspecten van preventie in verschillende settings [Ethical aspects of prevention in different settings]. www.nationaalkompas.nl 2009 Volksgezondheid Toekomst Verkenning, Nationaal Kompas Volksgezondheid.
Allender S, Colquhoun D, and Kelly P. (2006). Competing discourses of workplace health. Health (London), 10(1):75–93.
Whitney R. Johnson (2012). HSA Programs for Groups: Employer Versus Employee
Responsibilities, Benefits Quarterly, 3rd Quarter, 2012.
Gowri Ramachandran. (2005). Intersectionality as “Catch 22”: Why Identity Performance Demands Are Neither Harmless nor Reasonable, Alb Law Review, 69, 299–300.
Katharine T. Bartlett (1994). Only Girls Wear Barrettes: Dress and Appearance Standards, Community Norms, and Workplace Equality, Michigan Law Review, 92, 2541–49.
Annie, TS. Jone, LP. Lymen, WP. (1997). Alternative Approaches to the Employee-Organization Relationship: Does Investment in Employees Pay Off? ACAD MANAGE J, 40 (5), 1089-1121
Tashakkori, A & Teddlie, C. (2010). SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social &
Behavioral Research, 2nd Ed, Sage Publications. California.
Adrian, W & Keith, T (2011). The Future of Employment Relations: New Paradigms, New Developments. Palgrave-McMillian, NewYork
Jill, R & Peter, U. (2011). Bringing the employer back in: why social care needs a standard employment relationship. Human Resources Management Journal, 21 (2), 122-137.
Burns, J. E. and Burns, C E. (1973). An analysis of Equal Pay Act, Labor Law Journal, February, 92-99.
