|← People v. Kipp||Employment Laws →|
OSHA being the main legal federal agency, charged with the responsibility of enforcing safety rules and health strategies has the mandate to make sure that the statuary laws regarding safety rules are adhered to by organizations. It should provide a common equal flat form for both men and women to have a save health working condition where less accidents are encountered.
Based on the work injury, Petrel (1919) asserts that employment laws should come up with damage cost evaluation which justifies both the two parties, In relation to injuries whether minor or major are associated with expense incurrence for treatments. As the saying goes prevention is better than cure, the cost of injury treatment and management is more than the cost of preventing it to happen. Petrel (1919) argues that every organization has a responsibility of preventing any possible calamity to its employers by ensuring that measures of safety codes and regulation are put in place to avoid any possible accidents.
According to Holborn (1969), compliance cost which include putting in to place safety regulations, work place inspections for possible accident, work place safety consultation, work place emergency compensation plan, nutrition in work place, substance and drug abuse at work place, disaster training stress prevention, non smoking zones regulation among others are less expensive to put in place than putting up with injuries which occurs at work place.
In light of Holborn (1969) OSHA might also advice organizations to incur indirect cost associated with work place injuries. This may include damage to equipments the worker was using, loss of work time and insurance of an extra cost in hiring a new employee. Another possible cost is that, the compensation cost for the employee may rise if the employee was not properly insured. This might cost twice the original cost if prevention measures were taken before.
In conclusion companies which have safety programs tend to have decreased accidents hence less cost is spend on remedial programs. As a result the companies have bust employee morale since they work in safety places. Other companies offer incentives to employees who observe safety precautions as a measure of promoting accident prevention.