Employee Protection and Workplace Safety Legislation

Early Perceptions of Protection Needs

A century ago, agriculture and small-scale retail were the dominant work settings, although manufacturing was growing. Agriculture has long been a major area of inadequate worker protection, from both an economic and a social perspective. Many agricultural pursuits were small-scale and family owned. The economic pressure of having limited financial resources sometimes led to inadequate worker protection. Often equipment was not well maintained, and farmers could not afford the latest technology of the era. Poor maintenance precipitated many accidents, but few records were maintained.

As manufacturing grew, the same mind-set was transferred from the agricultural sector; thus, employees were not viewed as resources to be protected. There were plenty of able-bodied men, and the pay was better than in agriculture. The major motivation for work was regarded as financial. Manufacturing plants, especially in clothing and textiles, were not considered safe by the employees. Fire was a critical threat, given the massive cotton dust accumulated each day. No one considered that employees needed protection from the dust in the air; lung damage was not a well-understood issue in health circles. A similar unknown problem in the lumber mills of the early to mid-20th century was sawdust. The most common cause of employee fatality in the lumber, textile, and clothing mills was fire. Yet, 100 years ago, there was little effort or apparent interest in fire safety.

Employer's Role in Hazard Identification

Each workplace is unique, and different hazards are likely to be found in each. However, some common categories of hazards can be identified. Equipment hazards abound in most industrial settings: Equipment is often large, heavy, and at times dangerous. Regretfully, employers have not always taken the time to instruct their employees about the hazards, emphasizing instead the use of the machine and the need to minimize downtime. When rushed, employees act like anyone else; they become careless, and accidents occur. [Page 692]Lumber mills, metal-stamping plants, and firefighting situations are among the highly accident-prone job sites. Proper use of equipment must be continuously emphasized by the employer.

Numerous environmental hazards may be present, ranging from explosives to chemical leaks to malfunctioning equipment. Each work site will have its unique environmental hazards. The employer is charged with having an inventory of all potential hazards and working to reduce such hazards to the lowest levels. Protective equipment and protective clothing are crucial in some work areas. For example, persons in construction sites may be required to wear hard hats. However, a typical site visit reveals that many managers and some workers avoid wearing protective gear. The equipment may be provided, but whose responsibility is it to ensure that a worker uses the equipment? Legally, it is the employer's. Regretfully, the consequences of not assuming that burden are minor, and many employers do not even enforce their own work rules.

...