This essay delves into the rights of the worker to perform duties in a site that is as safe as possible. Workers do have rights under the law if the employer fails to provide a safe workplace and protect them from harm. In 1908, Congress passed the FELA to protect railroad workers from injuries that resulted from the employer’s negligence (Montgomery IV, 1998). Although Metro-North knew of the presence of asbestos in its workplaces, it did not take any corrective remedies to protect its workers against asbestos exposure. However, in this case, Metro-North admitted negligence. In this context, Metro-North had a duty under the law to protect and compensate its workers.
The FELA addresses the role of the employer with regard to worker exposure to asbestos. The core role of the employer is to reduce the level of risks that workers face while working in areas with elements of asbestos. It requires employers to offer personal exposure monitoring for evaluating risks to employees and creating awareness in situations where exposure to asbestos is evident. However, Metro-North failed to execute any protective measure from harmful asbestos.
Buckley suffered emotional and legal injuries due to exposure to asbestos. Tort law allows Buckley to seek compensation because of the Metro-North negligence (Masino and McCurry, 2011).
Obviously, the level of exposure to both dust and airborne asbestos to Buckley exceeded legal limits. The FELA did not define any ‘safe’ level of asbestos exposure to workers. However, expert witnesses argued that Buckley had inhaled a sufficient quantity of asbestos because of the working condition. This could cause asbestos-related health problems later because all occupational exposure to asbestos could result in such health complications in humans.
Metro-North knew of the exposure to asbestos. In this context, it could have protected its employees by controlling Buckley’s work practices, creating regulated areas, and establishing engineering controls to lessen airborne levels of asbestos at workplaces. The Court could have compelled Metro-North to use administrative controls in order to guarantee that it reduces exposure and provides personal protective equipment to employees. Moreover, Metro-North could have taken initiative to establish a medical monitoring scheme for its workers who experienced asbestos exposure.
Situational business ethics and moral relativism have critical roles in employee’s personal situations and that of the company. However, Metro-North adopted a ‘scapegoat’ approach in the case of Buckley. From this observation, one can realize that it is not simple to make ethical decisions in a business environment with diverse interests. Hence, negligence is an ethical violation at Metro-North that shows several factors, which influence immoral decisions in organizations. Metro-North failed to evaluate its decisions based on wrong or right principle. Hence, Metro-North acted in bad business ethics by challenging compensation to Buckley, yet it admitted negligence. Moreover, it did not take any action to protect employees against exposure to asbestos.
Moral relativism requires businesses to base ethical decisions and opinions with regard to other relevant subjects (employees). However, Metro-North did not consider its employee in its decision to challenge Buckley knowingly that it had exposed him to dangerous levels of asbestos. Moral relativism starts by awareness that certain decisions could have ramifications, which could affect employees negatively, including emotional injuries and distress (Weaver, Trevino and Cochran, 1999). Metro-North faced a challenge of using moral judgment to resolve the issue. Overall, it is imperative for organizations to recognize that individual virtue and laws alone do not shape ethics and decisions (Posthuma, Roehling and Campion, 2011). Instead, workplace environments play critical roles in shaping workplace ethics (Crook, 2011).
References
Crook, J. R. (2011). Contemporary Practice of the United States. American Journal of International Law, 105(1), 799-805.
Masino, A., and McCurry, E. (2011). The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009—Imputed Governmental Tort Liability Immunity. Southern Business Review, 2011, 11-22.
Montgomery IV, R. B. (1998). Metro-North Commuter Railroad Co. v. Buckley. Louisiana Law Review, 59(1), 393-407.
Posthuma, R. A., Roehling, M. V., and Campion, M. A. (2011). Employment discrimination law exposures for international employers: A risk assessment model. International Journal of Law and Management, 53(4), 281-298.
Weaver, G. R., Trevino, L. K. and Cochran, P. L. (1999). Integrated and Decoupled Corporate Social Performance: Management Commitments, External Pressures, and Corporate Ethics Practices. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 539–52.