Transcript 1.2 The Moral, Social and Economic reasons for Maintaining

1.2 THE MORAL, SOCIAL AND
ECONOMIC REASONS FOR
MAINTAINING AND PROMOTING
GOOD STANDARDS OF HEALTH
AND SAFETY IN THE WORKPLACE
1.2.1 The Moral reasons-ILO Statistics
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The ILO estimates that more than 230 Million people die every
year from work related accidents or diseases.
There are about 270 million accidents and about 160 millions
victims of workplace accidents and illnesses each year.
According to the ILP 3.9% of the worldwide deaths are due to
occupational injuries or diseases.
15% of the world population have incurred minor or major injuries
from work in any one year.
30% of the unemployed labor had reported that they have been
exposed to minor or major occupational accident or illness when
they used to work in the past.
30% of the global work-related accidents are due to commuting
accidents.
1.2.2 Moral Reasons

1.
2.
3.
The main preventable factors for accidents are
Lack of a preventative safety and health culture
Poor management systems
Poor Supervision
1.2.1 The moral reasons- Accident
Rates

Accident Rates : Employee should not have to risk
injury or death at work.
1.2.1 The moral reasons- Accident
Rates
1.2.1 The moral reasons- Accident
Rates
1.2.1 The moral reasons- Accident
Rates
Conclusion of Tables
 Fatality rates are lower in developed countries or
established market economies than underdeveloped or emerging economies of Asia and
south America. However its important to stress that
many hazardous industries have relocated from
developed to emerging countries.
1.2.1 The moral reasons- Disease rates




Out of the 2.2 million work related deaths each year,
about 1.7 million are due to work related diseases.
Work related diseases can cause economical loss for
governments and organizations. ( Costs include sick pay,
and compensation pays).
Hazardous substances claim about 438000 lives each
years. Asbestos alone claims about 100,000 lives
annually.
Women tend to be more preventive than men at work.
However women are more vulnerable for diseases in
agricultural works simply because more women do jobs
in this sector than men.( Malaria Hepatitis..etc)
1.2.1The moral reasons- Disease rates



Men are more vulnerable to fatal accidents at
work.
In UK during 2007/2008 there were 2.1 million
people suffering from work related illness, of whom
563000 were new cases in that year. This led to 28
million working days lost compared to 6 million
days lost due to workplace injuries.
Musculoskeletal disorders were responsible for 8.8
million working days lost causing.
1.2.1The moral reasons- Disease rates




This is an average of 21 days 0ff work for each illness.
13.5 million days off were lost due to stress,
depression, and anxiety causing each sufferer to have
,on average, a 31 days off.
Researches show that one of five employees with
sickness leave from work for six weeks will stay off
work permanently.
The World Health Organization WHO had estimated
that 37% of Low back pain, 16% of hearing loss, 13%
of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 11% of
asthma, and 8% of injuries are related to work place
activities.
1.22 Social Reasons

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
In all countries, employers owe a duty of care to each of their
employees and others that might be affected by their undertaking,
such as contractors and members of the public. This duty must not
be assigned to others , even of a consultant is employed to advise
on Health and safety, or employees are subcontracted to work with
another employer. This duty must be sub-divided into five groups.
Employers must
Provides a safe place of Work, including access or egress
Provide safe plant and equipment
Provide a safe system of work
Provide safe and competent fellow employees.
Provide adequate levels of supervision, information, instruction and
training.
1.22 Social Reasons



Vicarious Liability : In many countries, Employers are
responsible for the action of their employees, provided
that the action in question took place during the normal
hours of work.
Employer duties are often mirrored in national
legislation and apply even if the employee is working
at a third party premises or if he/she has been hired
by their employer to work for another employer.
These duties indicate clear social reasons for sound
Health and safety management systems to protect
employees, members of the public and in some case the
general environment.
1.22 Social Reasons
Enforcement
Occupational Health and Safety maybe re enforced
by the civil law and-or criminal law. Many countries
believe that with out the extra encouragement.
‘Prevention is paying not only in human terms but also
in better performance by business and national
economic strength. Together we can make sure that
decent work is safe work’
Thaksin Shinwatra
Prime Minister of Thialand.

1.23 Economic Reasons
Poor Occupational health and Safety performance
results in additional costs to both public and private
sectors of the economy of a country.
Costs of Accidents
1.
Direct Costs
2.
Indirect Costs
3.
Employers’ liability insurance
4.
Fault and no fault injury compensation

1.23 Economic Reasons
1.
Costs of Accidents
1.23 Economic Reasons


UK HSE had shown in a study that indirect costs
(Hidden costs) can reach up to 36 times greater
than direct costs of an accident.
In 2000 costs of accidents in UK was 55 billion Euros
with 120,000 deaths caused by occupational illness
and 60,000 deaths caused by fatal accidents.
1.23 Economic Reasons
1.
Direct costs: These are costs which are directly
related to the accident and maybe
a)
Insured direct cost or
b)
Uninsured direct cost
1.23 Economic Reasons
a)




Insured direct costs normally include
Claims on employers and public liability insurance
Damage to buildings, equipment or vehicles.
Any attributable production and/or general
business loss
The absence of employees
1.23 Economic Reasons
b)






Uninsured direct costs include
Fines resulting from prosecution by the enforcement
authority
Sick pay
Some damage to product, equipment, vehicles or process
not directly attributable to accident
( e.g. caused by
replacement staff)
Increase in insurance premiums resulting from the accident.
Any compensation not covered by the insurance policy due
to an agreement between the insurance company and the
employer.
Legal presentation following any legal claim.
1.23 Economic Reasons
Indirect Cost
These are costs that are not attributable to the
accident but may result from a series of accidents.
2.
a)
Insured Indirect Cost
b)
Uninsured direct cost
1.23 Economic Reasons
a)



Insured Indirect Cost include
A cumulative business loss
Product or process liability claims
Recruitment of replacement staff
1.23 Economic Reasons
b)









Uninsured Indirect Cost include
Loss of goodwill and a poor corporate image;
Accident investigation time and any subsequent remedial action
required;
Production delays
Extra overtime payments
Loss time of other employees such as first aid staff, or employees
who tend to the need of an injured person.
The recruitment and training for a replacement employee.
Additional administration time incurred
First aid-provision and training
Lower employee morale possibly leading to reduced productivity
1.23 Economic Reasons
3.
Employers Liability insurance
In many countries, employers are required to have
a liability insurance to cover their liability in the
event of accidents and work-related-ill-health to
employees and others who may be affected by
their operations.
This insures that employees who sues their
employers get compensated regardless of the
financial situation of their employer.
1.23 Economic Reasons
4.
Fault and no fault injury compensation
In the UK compensation for an injury after an accident
is achieved by means of a successful legal action in a
civil court. In such cases employee sues his employer
and the employer are found at fault. This might take
time.
This process is adversarial, costly and can deter
injured individuals of limited means from pursuing their
means and had led to the increase of the cost of
insurance premium. This had led to the no fault injury
compensation.
1.23 Economic Reasons

The no Fault compensation was then introduced to
over come the delay and cost of the fault
compensation. In these systems amounts are agreed
centrally at a national or state level according to
the type and severity of the injury. The
compensations is in the form of a structured
payment rather than a lump sum and may be
awarded in the form of a service, such as nursing
care, rather than cash.
1.23 Economic Reasons

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
In 1974 a No –Fault compensation system was introduced
and administered by the Accident Compensation
Corporation (ACC). This followed a report that was issued in
1966 that advocated for a 24 hour accident cover for
everybody in New Zealand. It suggested the following five
principles for any national compensation system
Community responsibility
Comprehensive Entitlement irrespective of income or job
status
Complete rehabilitation for the injured party
Real compensation for the injured party
Administrative efficiency of the compensation scheme
1.23 Economic Reasons

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The advantages of a no fault compensation scheme include:
Accident claims are settled much quicker than Fault schemes
Accident reporting rates will improve
Accidents become much easier to investigate because blame
is no longer an issue.
Normal disciplinary procedures within an organization or
through a professional body are unaffected and can be used
if the accident resulted from negligence on the part of an
individual.
More Funds are available from insurance premiums for the
injured party and less used of the judicial and administrative
process.
1.23 Economic Reasons

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The disadvantages of a No Fault compensation scheme.
There is often an increase in the number of claims, some of which
may not be justified.
There is a lack of direct accountability of managers and
employers for accidents.
Mental injury and trauma are often excluded from no-Fault
schemes because of the difficulty in measuring these conditions.
There is more difficulty in defining the causes of many injuries and
industrial diseases than in a fault scheme.
The Monetary value of compensation awards tends to be
considerably lower than those in fault schemes (Although this can
be seen as an advantage to organizations).