I. Introduction
Employment for individuals is considered a source of livelihood, a means to cope in their daily lives. The wages that employment provides a breadwinner conveys the manner in which he will be able to survive the daily demands of living, particularly in financial terms. This goes to show that being employed is a necessity among individuals. Being employed denotes that an individual has a source of livelihood and is able to fulfil the demands of his life. The relationship that exists in the employer and the employee has been considerably addressed in the past and existing literature. However, there is constantly a recurrent representation of inequity in such areas. The existing relationship between employers and employees reveals a fiduciary duty on the former. Having this duty, the employer is thus compelled to provide occupational safety and hygiene such that the welfare of the employees is taken in hand. This study will consider and analyse the occupational hygiene that exists in the workplace. Along with this analysis is a description of the substances that an employee is subjected to and the possible courses of action that the company could undertake to maintain a healthy workplace. The focus of this study will be on respiratory illnesses which in some ways been prevalently related and acquired from the workplace.
II. Range of Hazardous Substances
Employees are often subjected to conditions that they deem as normal and commonplace without knowing the health implications. These seemingly routine exercises that employees carry out to complete their tasks places them at great risk by providing a window of opportunity for infection and other forms of illnesses for them to acquire. The following discussions will present the existing conditions in the workplace and the possible hazards that may impede in the health of the employee. The arguments indicated in this part of the paper is going to be based on the existing literature and internet articles published by the NHS.
A. Conditions in the Workplace
The emergence of globalization and dominance of capitalism in the present period has provided several changes in the condition of working for people. Studies have shown that the workplace is inherently not a safe environment. , , 2004,9) In the UK alone, majority of its population is considered a part of the workforce. In the work of the HSE (2006), they have compiled the figures from the Office of the National Statistics (ONS) indicating that there are over 25 million individuals who work as an employee, over 29 million serving as a worker, and over 3 million self-employed individuals in the UK. (HSE, 2006)
On the same study, the HSE indicated that the workers of the manufacturing industries comprise of more than three million individuals in 2005. This easily rates as the part of the working sector which possesses the most number of individuals. Other sectors that hold huge number of individuals includes the service industries and construction, both having over two million individuals under its industries. In the work of Jones, Huxtable, and Hodgson (2006, xx) they have indicated that in 2004, over two million individuals believed that they were in some way sick or down with some from of illness which is triggered or aggravated by their employment. As a result, their study claimed that over 28 million working days were lost because of that illness triggered or aggravated by work activities of the said individuals in Britain.
It is the presence of this occurrence that some sort of occupational safety measures are recognized in some studies. Safety in the workplace has been taken into consideration in the existing literature; some have indicated that this safety is compromised by specific items present in the workplace while some indicate that this risk is presented by other employees in the company. , 2002,, 1995,1) the following discussions will be taken into the context of the United Kingdom. Particularly with reference to the items that could pose as threats that could trigger illnesses to the members of the workforce. Though the study of n (2006) indicates that majority of the employees in Britain suffer from musculoskeletal disorders, respiratory illnesses on this context will be the primary concern of this study.
B. Specific Respiratory Hazards
The following discussions are going to establish the particular hazards and the consequent respiratory effects that these items provide to the English population.
1. Hazards present at work
A study by (1997) made in the Avon area indicated several elements that are considered pollutants and could trigger illnesses to individuals. One particular element discussed is Nitrogen Oxide. The presence of NO2 in the environment was found to trigger some susceptibility to infection among those who are exposed to it in a prolonged period.
Another element found to trigger respiratory illnesses includes formaldehydon, 1997) The said element is considered a volatile organic compound that comes from regular fixtures in the workplace like carpets and cleaning agents used for the office furniture. Other sources may be from the newly painted walls and other furniture in the office. Harrison (1997) indicated that exposure to such an element may trigger sensory and airway irritation. Incidence of asthma and chronic bronchitis has also been uncovered in the said study.
The presence of dust mites in the workplace has also been noted in the worrison (1997). He indicated the prevalence of Dermatophagoides pteronissinus in the United Kingdom which similarly play a function in the incidence of asthma and other respiratory illnesses. Other organic elements such as fungi and bacteria could also trigger respiratory illnesses. These elements could form in the walls and other woodworks in the workplace. An area which may provide a damp environment is a conducive location for these elements to spawn. On the other hand, the study of National Statistics (2002) indicated Isocyanates as the major agent that trigger occupational asthma. Flour and grain comes in a far second place followed by solder flux in third. Thus, the professionals that frequently have respiratory conditions in England includes bakers, flour confectioners, and spray painters.
2. Work-related Illnesses
On a survey of National Statistics (2002) they have uncovered several respiratory illnesses that have been bothering the workforce of England. The study claimed that over a hundred sixty-eight thousand individuals have breathing and lung problems. Moreover, the same amount of individuals apparently considers the source and cause of the illness as work-related. This means that the environment provided by their individual employment appear to be causing disease among the majority of England’s workforce. Occupational Asthma has been claimed to be the primary illness coming from employment activities. Moreover, the said study similarly claimed that there was a steep decline in the incidence of occupational asthma from over six hundred cases in 1992 to less than three hundred in 2002.
In addition to occupational asthma, the study similarly claimed that employees in the UK also suffer from pneumoconiosis. The findings of the said study indicated that the incidence have been erratic because there have changes in the method of acquiring data in 2002, the latest being the more accurate. Moreover, the incidence of pneumoconiosis normally occurs in industries where silica is involved. Similarly, employees from quarrying firms and coalminers have apparently been susceptible to the said illness.
III. Discussion
The following discussions are going to be based on the laws and guidelines instituted by the UK government to monitor the operations in working environments. Similarly, the role of the occupational hygienist will also be taken into consideration in this part of the paper.
In view of the discussions in this paper, an occupational hygienist is able to carry out his/her commission by merely implementing the specific laws and guidelines that the government have presented to aid in improving the working environment for the workforce of UK. First, the employer is responsible for providing a safe system of working and a safe place for work in the context of common law. An employer has to acquire such measures as are reasonable to make out that the site is safe. This tenet is stated in Davidson v Handley [1945] 1 All ER 235, 236. It was decided by the Court of Appeal that the responsibility of the employer to offer safe appliances broadens to envelop all actions generally and realistically incidental to the every day work, and, consequently, extended to the applicant’s case. On the other hand, it is an issue of fact whether a specific process needs a system of work in the concern of safety, or whether it can sensibly be left to the worker commissioned with the job. It is typically applied to employment of a usual kind where the appropriate application of managerial control would identify the system of working, provide tutoring on safety and support the employment of safety tools. (Speed v Thomas Swift & Co [1943] 1 All ER 539) Even though usually thought of in the context of physical security, it is apparent that the responsibility to offer a safe system of work similarly expands to an employee’s health.
On the statutory basis, the occupational hygienist could basically recommend for the entire organizations specific measures noted in specific legislations. To illustrate, an occupational hygienist could recommend the management to look into the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations of 1999 in order to know the specific activities it could undertake to minimise the risk involved in the workplace. In particular, the said legislation indicates the requirement for an organization conduct a risk assessment process, employ the knowledgeable individuals, and similarly conduct trainings for the dissemination of information and training. In the context of the physical structure of the company (the physical workplace), an occupational hygienist could recommend to the employer to view Workplace (Health, Safety, and Welfare) Regulations 1992. Particular physical attributes such as ventilation, heating and other ergonomic elements of the workplace is indicated in this piece of legislation.
On the level of the individual employee, the occupational hygienist could similarly recommend activities that are based on the legislation. An information drive should be sufficient in this respect. A brief summary of the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Regulations 1992 would be helpful for the workforce. This will provide the knowledge that their employers are obligated by the state to provide them with the necessary safety equipment they need. Specifically, the provision of protective clothing is generally indicated in this law. Not only should these equipment shield them from possible accidents, these should also consider to address the safety of their health.
The workforce should also learn that it is required from their employers to ensure the safety of the machines they are operating. The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER) 1999 specifies the necessary safety precautions that should be acquired by the employer before the machine is given to the supervision of the employee. If the essential equipment is not available and this brings about a mishap he will be legally responsible, even though he is not essentially compelled to take on the most recent developments and equipment (Toronto Power Co v Paskwan [1915] AC 734). The company is legally responsible to provide the employee with the equipment they needed in order not to trigger any other forms that could aggravate their condition. Moreover, if the member of staff would not have employed the tools if it had been provided, the employer’s breach of duty is not the grounds of harm (McWilliams v Sir William Arrol & Co [1962] 1 All ER 623).
IV. Conclusion
This study has established discussions claiming the importance of occupational hygiene in organizations. In as much as claiming profit and acquiring revenue includes the major requisites of the organization to fairly survive, high regard towards the human aspect of the organization should be the priority of organizations. One could not discount the fact that accidents happen, certain elements in an environment have certain effects on the human anatomy. It is the responsibility of the employer to minimize the incidence of this by establishing a safe working environment. Using occupational hygiene and employing the services of occupational hygienist is a step in the right direction. Although the government has established laws and statutes that help employees to achieve a healthy working environment, it is up to the individual employers whether they are to vehemently adhere to these guidelines. To this end, sustaining the actions of organizations will ultimately for their own benefit.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment