Wade L. Robison's Commentary on "Occupational Health"
Author(s):
Wade L. Robison
I
The case says that "OSHA guidelines do not apply to
chemicals that have not been tested" and that "a relatively
small percentage of chemicals in the workplace have actually
been tested." OSHA guidelines presumably apply to chemicals,
and only to chemicals, that have been tested somewhere or
other. Otherwise a company could refuse to comply with any OSHA
guidelines on the ground that it, the company, had not tested
any of the chemicals. So the way to read the case is that a
large percentage of the chemicals used at ABC have not ever
been tested for their toxicity anywhere and that therefore they
are not subject to OSHA regulations.
What this way of putting the matter brings out is that OSHA
is presuming that a chemical is innocent until proven guilty.
No chemical is presumed to cause health problems until it has
been tested and, one supposes, shown to cause them.
One must presume that OSHA has reasons for this presumption,
for clearly they could make other presumptions, even the
opposite one, namely, that no chemical is presumed safe until
it has been shown not to cause harm. One likely reason is that
many new compounds are very helpful, that large numbers are
being introduced on a continual basis, and that testing each
and every one of them for their toxicity would be a very
expensive undertaking and to some measure useless when it is
reasonable to assume that many will never be positioned so as
to cause problems. For instance, PBB was introduced into the
food chain in Michigan when it was accidentally mixed in with
farm feed, and no one had a clue what the source of the problem
was when the animals began to sicken and die. No one had ever
tested PBB for its toxic effects, and with good reason: it
would never occur to anyone that a compound primarily used to
insulate heat sources would ever get into the food chain. No
doubt many chemicals are like that and are never used in any
manufacturing process where they are likely to cause
problems.
Don Hayward's problem thus turns out to be relatively
complex. Hayward cannot appeal to OSHA to prevent the workers
from being harmed by hot metals, if they are, because the
metals have not been tested by OSHA. So Hayward, if he pursues
the matter, will be in the position of asking that ABC
Manufacturing satisfy stricter guidelines than those required
by OSHA.
But Hayward is supervising workers who are becoming ill, and
he has an obligation, as their supervisor, to see if he can
find the source of the problem. He is presumably in charge of
making sure that whatever it is that the workers are producing
is in fact produced, produced in the quantity needed, and when
it is needed. So if the workers he supervises are becoming ill,
he needs to be concerned about their health just because their
ill health may prevent his section of ABC from doing what it is
supposed to do. But he also ought to be concerned about some of
the long-term implications of the problem for the company. If
the workers are becoming ill because of the toxicity of the hot
metals they work with, then, whether OSHA guidelines apply or
not, the company may have to pay the costs of long-term health
care. That the use of metals which cause workers harm is not
regulated by OSHA will not necessarily protect the company from
a legal suit and perhaps vast monetary awards from sympathetic
juries. So the immediate solution of ignoring the problem,
which is the implication of Cal Brundage's remark that the
company is in full compliance with OSHA guidelines, may have
expensive long-term consequences.
He thus has two concerns as an employee of ABC, both of
which obligate him to pursue the matter. There is a third
source of obligation. That is that some people are being
harmed, that he is in a position to help, and that no one else
who might help seems to care. The workers are being harmed. It
may be that the cause is not the hot metals they are working
with, but that seems the obvious first suspect. In any event,
Hayward is the workers' supervisor, the one most immediately
aware of the problem and, since Brundage, his supervisor, has
made it clear that he is not going to pursue the matter, the
one best positioned to help. He has an obligation to try to
help them that comes from the obligation any of us have, as
persons, to come to the aid of others in need of help when we
can. This is an obligation that becomes more and more pointed
the more harmed the persons are needing help, the less likely
it is that they will receive help from others, the better
positioned one is to give help, and so on.
The question is what should he do. He has already approached
his supervisor about the air quality. He might approach him
again, explaining that although having higher air quality might
have the company satisfying stricter guidelines than OSHA
requires, their capacity to produce the product in his section
is likely to be increased. That is, he might use a practical,
not a moral argument, to get his supervisor to do something. He
might also point out his concerns about the long-term legal
consequences, and he might give his moral concerns an airing.
He need not feel at this point, that is, that he has exhausted
all possible avenues of discussion with the person most likely
to be most helpful, his immediate supervisor.
II
Searching the literature for something that might be helpful
is another way to proceed. It is better to have some
information about whether any of the hot metals may actually be
causing a problem if he is to proceed. Of course, if he finds
evidence that any have been tested and found to be cause health
problems, he has a response to Brundage's remark that the
workplace is in compliance with OSHA. It may be, but Don can
then go to OSHA, point out that one of the metals not regulated
has been tested and found toxic, and ask that it be regulated.
Under such circumstances, ABC would be well-advised to go ahead
and regulate the use of the metal in a way that would eliminate
its toxic effects--either by not using it at all or by using it
in a way, or under such conditions, that it could not cause
harm.
The puzzle is why he has not gotten the article he has
ordered. It seems odd that a supervisory engineer must get
approval of his supervisor in order to have an article sent
for. Why should anyone else control what one wants to read in
the company library? But that is a given.
It is also given that the actual request has twice failed to
go through. Anyone who has ever worked in a bureaucracy can
sympathize and wonder if, indeed, the requests did not get
"lost in the shuffle." So Don cannot assume without more ado
that Don is preventing him from getting his article. He should
get another request form, take it to Don to get his signature
right then and there, to take it back down to the librarian. He
can explain to Cal that, for some reason, the request did not
make it through, and since he wants to read the article, and
has wanted it now for some months, he would like to hand carry
the request. If Cal refuses, then he and Don can talk about
that and Don will no doubt be faced with a new problem. But at
least he will know what the problem is and can pursue it until
it is resolved so he can do what he must do to try to help and
protect his workers.