Wentowrth institute of technology,BOSTON MA

1 | Page

Abstract

I chose to research the topic of construction safety and the issue of the
strict laws that is being enforced on many construction jobs and companies
in the US. I chose this topic because I have first-hand experience in the
construction field as an electrician. I have been to both residential and
commercial jobs including both large and small companies. I have seen
plenty of examples of how the laws affect the jobs both positively and
negatively.

I plan on looking into this issue by looking at both sides with a

utilitarian view, as well as touch upon some ethical principles such as, risk
vs. reward, value for human life, and the good of many. The argument is
between construction workers and business owners, and OSHA (Occupational
Safety & Health Administration) to see if the laws they are putting in place
are necessary and if they are moral or immoral. The big picture here is
whether or not OSHA has good intentions with the laws

2 | Page

To start, Id like to talk about the construction workers view of this

problem. When working in the construction field whether youre a plumber,
carpenter, electrician, etc. You have to abide by the OSHA laws and
regulations. This means that you have to operate under their regulations in
order to conduct business. The regulations range from hard hats to tying
down ladders. All of them do serve a purpose, but were the made under the
thought to value human life? Or to collect money from fines and prevent
workers compensation claims. There are many things to be said about these
rules put in place.

Allot of the safety precautions do make sense to follow. Things like

hard hats and safety glasses are good to wear when working close to thinks
like saws or working below a work zone. But often times they are not needed.
Say if you are walking to the truck to eat lunch and you arent wearing your
safety glasses and hard hat but youre still technically in a work zone, you
broke the rules and can be fined for it. Even though there was no actual work
going on anywhere near you youre still at fault and could be cited or written
up.

3 | Page

Another example I have is the newer ladder safety rules. Any ladder 6
or taller requires you to tie it don along with yourself on a harness. If you are
unfamiliar with ladders, picture a basic 6 foot step ladder tied down to a
ceiling along with you on a harness, seem like overkill? I do believe it is. You
could say its to protect your well being on the ladder to prevent physical

harm. But the construction worker who has climbed ladders for 20 years can
say it is unnecessary and that it is only for OSHA to collect fines for failure to
comply. If workers have been climbing on ladders for over 100 years, what
has changed now? Are they more dangerous? I dont think so, but there had
to have been a reason why.

OSHA could argue back and say that the fines are there to scare you
from breaking the rule. Or in other words make consequences for your
actions. But is profiting off of someones mistake that could have resulted in
injury moral? If you look at the numbers of injuries before and after the
ladder restrictions were put in place, you will find that they have not changed
much at all. So it makes you wonder why they changed it in the first place.

As a business owner you are constantly worrying about your

employees following the rules. For example, my father owns an electrical

4 | Page

company, and under law he is responsible for all the actions of his
employees. Obviously he cant control the employees while hes not there.
But he is responsible for supplying every piece of safety equipment required
by OSHA. There is a huge range of things you will have to supply such as
glasses, hard hats, harnesses, etc. so it financially hurts the bosses. Now, it
is starting to sound like all OSHA wants to do is make employers spend
money. However from OSHAs point of view, they could say that you cant
put a price on human life. Is someones eye sight not worth a $10 pair of
safety glasses?
Ethically speaking, OSHAs laws are for The good of many meaning,
That excellence stems from a concern for the achievement of the common
good (as opposed to what is good just for the individual person or company)
so they cant have tailor made laws to include or exclude companies to help
them with expensive safety gear. Would it be fair to the big companies if the
small companies got a break on laws and didnt have to buy all the gear?
Then youd ask if the small companies are not as important as the big ones if
they dont have to follow as many safety precautions.

However, if a company has several safety violations the company

could receive a harsh audit from OSHA. They will initiate an investigation of
the companys safety practices. They show up un announced, and review all
of the companys safety assets to try to find anything missing, or damaged

5 | Page

that could potentially lead to injuries on the job. To me, it is a clear violation
of privacy to show up without any type of warrant and go through the
businesses things like that.

The utilitarian view of this is that they are trying to assure themselves
that the company is operating safely to ensure the greater good of its
employees. With that being said, there is again a fine if something is found
during that audit. To me it is immoral to show up unannounced and fine
someone after snooping around their things. Because the owner may not
intentionally be missing things or have damaged safety gear. There are
several cases where employees lose things like hard hats and not tell the
boss. If the boss is unaware of things like

is it really his fault? In that case, should OSHA just go around and fine
everyone to make a big pay day?

The rules make you think why theyre there, and who they were
designed to protect. Are they there to protect the average construction
worker? Or rather to protect the governments bank account? I say this
because of the harsh fines employees and employers can receive when
found guilty of breaking the rules. In the event an employee is hurt on the

6 | Page

job and they are legitimately temporarily disabled, they can file for workers
compensation. When someone is on workers compensation, they collect
government money. And I believe that the safety laws are there to prevent
people from going out on workers comp. In other words, if an employee gets
hurt under a safety violation, they are completely responsible for their own
actions. While OSHASs rules can be assumed to be for the greater good,
who are they bringing justice to? While they see to have good intentions, it
effects companies big and small in negative ways. No one wants to get hurt
on the job. OSHA should be offering guidance, not fines.

A solution to this problem would be for OSHA to stop fining companies,

but to rather prevent them from operating until they are up to par on all of
the safety requirements. In my opinion OSHA should not worry so much
about fining businesses for small time offences. But rather fine companies
who purposely break the rules to operate an unsafe business, just to

save money on buying safety equipment. Fining a small company could put
them out of business which in turn, hurts the economy. The more companies
that go out of business have employees who could go out on unemployment,
and that unemployment money comes from government funds. So when
OSHA fines these people to gain money, they are potentially losing money

7 | Page

from unemployed workers. When looking deep into the issue, OSHAs master
plan basically snowballs and the outcome actually hurts them in the end.

Works Cited
1)
Thomas Krause, Ph.D. The Ethics of Safety, How a safety program can be the
starting point for building an ethical organization Jun 1, 2007
http://ehstoday.com/safety/best-practices/ehs_imp_67392

2)
Epstine Becker & Green, P.C, Willful OSHA Violations Require More than
Mere Negligence, Says the DC Circuit 10/8/2012

8 | Page
http://www.oshalawupdate.com/2012/10/08/willful-osha-violations-require-morethan-mere-negligence-says-the-dc-circuit/