At the same time, it is worth to take to stock, the fact that the above measure goes hand in hand with the deontological principles which states that in every corporate entity, there must be the acknowledgement of the duty of reparation and the duty of justice by the employer. According to US OSHA (2000), there are thousands of cases of industrial accidents and disputes that go unreported either for litigation or compensation, or both.
This definitely calls for the need to introduce the state regulatory that is responsible for the curtailing of cases of underreporting. It is likely that this will portend, setting of the laws that ensure the democratization of the workplace, especially the human resources management department, in the meat packing industry. This measure inculcates the principle of utilitarianism as it seeks to protect the roll of employees who work with / in the meat packing industry from exploitation and neglect at the time of an industrial mishap.
The society on the other hand is to gain from this stipulation as the rule is likely to set precedence for entire meat packing and such like industries to allow enough space for work and accidents related reports to be aired without any constraint or fear of victimization. This assures the society of security as far as its source of labor is concerned. Herein, the deontological principle of Permissible Harm that was put forth by Frances Kamm, that a corporate entity can suffer or allow one individual to suffer harm, provided that the majority are taken care off becomes non applicable here.
This is because industrial laws that are fair must be based on equal treatment for all. In another spectrum, it is necessary that that the proposals by the US Department of Labor and OSHA that the meat packing industry be tampered with laws that are antithetical to industrial retaliation be set in place, are inevitable. The importance of this proposition is based on the fact that retaliatory activities which are always concomitant to standoffs at the work place among employees by themselves or between the employees and the employers are known to sometimes cause injuries (Peterson and Cohen 2005).
It is not strange that in some cases, there have been fights and physical confrontations in the working place, resulting to deep injuries. The fact that meat packing industries are fitted with heavy and sharp industrial machinery warrants maximum tranquility and order, and hence the need for anti- retaliatory laws. The measure conforms fully to the utilitarian doctrine of gains being realized by one and the majority. In the first case, the meat packing industry will be rid of poor intra-organizational relations.
This also wards off cases of poor employee-employer relations that are always detrimental to the volume of production. The employees are also able to give out their maximal output as a result of the smooth interaction in the horizontal and vertical lines of communication. Conclusion In order to ensure a comprehensive OSHA safety, it is required that other recommendations be set in place so as to complement the ones above, put across by the US Department of Labor, OSHA and the Omaha based consul.
To this effect, it is incumbent upon the US government to ensure that all the meat packing companies or industries are well ventilated and hygienic. In the same vein, it is needed that measures be put in place to ensure that as far as the OSHA regulations are to be imposed on the meat packing industries, there are laws set in place to stipulate that all the workers are well supplied with other felicity working conditions such as protective clothing and overalls. This also demands that the meat packing company employees be well supplied with a succinct timetable that spells out their shifts to avoid fatigue.
The measure is necessary since it is a well established fact that some industrial mishaps have been caused by fatigue and doze offs. References Dunn, K. and US OSHA. (2004). The Role and Importance of OSHA. Maryland: Marymount University Press. Humphrey, H. (2005). Industrial Relations and Safety. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Michael, M. and Joseph, C. (2003). The Role of OSHA in Fostering Industrial Safety. Cleveland: McGraw Hill. Mintz, B. (2004). OSHA Law, Policies and History. Michigan: Michigan University Press.
OSHA (2001). OSHA and Employees’ Rights at the Workplace. California: OSHA. Putnam, L. and Langerman, N. (2002). OSHA and Exposure to Industrial Danger. Denver: Lewis Publishers. Peterson, R. and Cohen, J. (2005). OSHA and Complete Industrial Compliance. Colorado: Buttersworth. Reese, C. and Eidson, J. (2006). OSHA Health and Safety. New York: McGraw Hill. US OSHA (2000). OSHA and Industrial Health and Economy. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Wang, C. (2003). OSHA Management and Compliance Laws. Nevada: Noyes Publication.