Case study (BP’s workers)
This case study is about BP’s Texas City refinery which is the third-largest oil refinery in the U.S. It is regarding the safety of the workers. There was an explosion in the Texas City refinery in 2005, March. The government investigated the causes of a blast at the BP’s plant which killed 15 people and left others injured. The blast was caused by a power shortage that had happened a few days before.
As the government was investigating the causes of the blast, they found that it was a result of BP’s poor training on safety to its staff. On the day of the explosion, there were new staff that were on duty and didn’t know about safety measures. This was because of the training they had received from the supervisors and managers who didn’t possess the necessary knowledge required in job safety.
According to the investigation, it was found that newly appointed workers were trained by incompetent supervisors and promoted to supervisory positions without a clear understanding of what was expected of them. They were trained with outdated manuals and their request for more counseling was ignored. The training were mainly computer-based and there was no expertise to offer an explanation. Although BP’s refinery had tried to put an all-inclusive training program, it was criticized and there was a need for them to fix extensive training programs. These programs were supposed to cover all areas and specifically offer safety knowledge.
The government investigation went further and carried out research from the BP’S workers. According to the research, most of the workers agreed that they did not get enough training to help them understand the safety measures required in the refinery. Most of the training was conducted through self-administered computer program which was not understandable since there was no one to offer the practicability of the training.
It is the duty of the employer to offer a safe working environment to its employees and therefore the government recommended that the BP’s refinery offer extensive training especially to the supervisors and managers who were responsible to train the other staff. They were further advised not to rely on the self-administered computer programs but hire expertise to train the staff.
Boatright view about BP’s worker safety practice
Boatright would say that at BP worker safety was not practiced. He would say that every working day poses a major threat of a serious injury or even death. This requires a lot of training for the employees on how to take care of themselves and this was lacking in BP’s case. According to him some of the most common diseases that lead to death e.g. heart disease, respiratory conditions, and cancer are considered to be related to occupations (Boatright, p137, para5, line1).
Boatright’s view on this issue is that employees should be given their right to a safe and healthy workplace and therefore employers are obligated to provide working conditions that are free from known hazards and protect their employees against injury resulting from direct actions of employers (Boatright, p138 Para. 6, line 6).
Faden and Beauchamp view about BP’s worker safety practice
Faden and Beauchamp would say that BP’s worker safety practice was not good. This is because the employees were not given adequate training regarding their safety in the workplace and according to them, most of the health hazards such as cancer, irritation, lung damage, etc. are caused by chemicals (Faden & Beauchamp, p129, para1, and line1). They would suggest that workers be given legal and ethical rights to know about the dangers entailed in the contact of these chemicals. According to them, it’s the duty of the employers to set up “hazard-communication programs” that convey information to their workers. This can be through computers, the internet, microfiche, etc. New workers should be trained before their exposure to hazardous substances and this should continue each time a new hazard is established and after training, the employees should sign an acknowledgment of the training.
BP’s attitude toward its workers
BP’s attitude towards the workers was bad. They were not concerned about the worker’s safety and according to an interview that was carried out it revealed that the workers were not given adequate training regarding their responsibilities and the safety risks at the refinery (Belli, p173, para6, line 1) the workers were supposed to take self-administered computer courses which were not adequate for the safety training required.
This attitude is not ethically acceptable because the employees have a right to know about the hazardous condition they are working in and with this, they will be able to protect themselves against diseases associated with such hazards.
BP’s attitude and the stockholder’s view of the purpose of the corporation
BP’s attitude seems to be more consistent with the stockholder’s view of the purpose of the corporation because he was more concerned about maximization of profit for the shareholders than he was concerned about the employee’s welfare.
Works Cited
Belli, Anne. BP workers III-Trained for dangers. Houston Chronicle. Case study. 2007.
Boatright, John R. Occupational Health Safety. Case study.
Faden, Ruth R. & Beauchamp Tom I. The right to risk information and the right to refuse workplace hazards. Case study. 2003.