The issue touches on the ethics and legality of OSHA to change the levels allowed for benzene exposure in the workplace after the publication of a new report that reveals the number of deaths caused in places where the level of benzene was above 10ppm yet the required amount was 10ppm. Due to this report and new development in the workplace, OSHA decided to lower the level of benzene exposure from 10ppm to 1ppm without any data to support their decision or less any official report that states that the previous level of 10ppm was dangerous.
The stance I would take on this issue is that the level of benzene exposure at the workplace should remain at the previous 10ppm unless OSHA is able to prove that the levels below 10ppm are dangerous. OSHA should stop acting on pure speculation with an excuse of saying that there was a scientific uncertainty, and thus they want to protect the workers from any level of exposure that they are not sure of its effects. Thus, I agree with the ruling (Harris, Pritchard & Rabins 2009 p. 47).
The major impacts of the ruling are both positive and negative, analyzing from both the employer’s perspective and the workers’ point of view. The pros are that the employers and the companies that deal with benzene, do not have to incur huge economic costs in trying to install new systems that will limit the level of benzene exposure. This will in turn save the economy of the country and ensure that the companies are able to make enough profits relevant for economic growth.
The cons for this decision are that the fewer number of employees who work in this exposed environment are not sure if they are safe working under the given limit or if it is harmful. Furthermore, the ruling and recently reported deaths can discourage workers to shy away from the industry and this can lead to lack of manpower and reduced productivity in the long run. The OSHA rule is currently for a Time weighted limit (TWA) of Benzene exposure with a time limit of 8 hours per day and should not be exceeded. This is important in order to protect the workers from the long term effects of a high exposure to Benzene.
A similar ethical issue refers to the levels of allowed exposure to radioactive materials that reach the residents of Japan in an area known as Fukushima Daiichi. These high levels of radioactive exposure have not been fully verified to warrant the closing of the nuclear power plant, but they are indeed lethal enough to an extent that they are able to cause cancerous cells among the residents (Brumfield, 2013).
The issue raises further controversy since the World Health Organization (WHO) clearly states that the level of exposure is not lethal, but only dangerous to workers who work inside the plant and are highly exposed to radiation. This report is debatable since it is evident that the residents are falling sick while their children are being born with brown teeth. This ethical dilemma was triggered after an earthquake broke some of the reactors and the power plant was not shut down even after such effects. On the other hand, the government is insisting that the residents who are a few kilometers away from the plant are totally safe from radiation (Brumfield, 2013).
The examples from section 4.6 relating to line drawing used to analyze if an action is bribery refers to the use of different factors to determine the cause for the action, such as analyzing if the item received is a gift, the timing for one to be given the item, the responsibility bestowed upon the potential receiver, the product quality and the quality offered. The example used in the text of Victor being offered a fully funded trip to Jamaica in the disguise of attending a forum for ACME is a partial bribery since the trip also includes fully funded beach attendance and he is free to have fun (Harris, Pritchard & Rabins 2009 p. 80). Thus, according to me ACME is trying to persuade Victor to favor their company even though he already made a decision to award the tender to ACME.
Another scenario that I can add to this example is one where a contracting company gives gifts to the person in charge of awarding tenders although the person may not be an engineer. The perfect example is where an engineering firm supports a particular politician during his campaign in the hope that if he wins, then he will return the favor by awarding the company with specific tenders applied for in his constituency or county as a thank you gesture. Here, the company’s support for the politician is strategic and acts as a gift but is usually more worth than 10000 dollars. The reason is strategic since the company wants a specific person to win so that he can be indebted to them and in the process return the favor by awarding the company tenders when they apply. The responsibility of the politician is that he will be in charge of the tender committees while the product quality and the product cost will depend on the contracting company’s bid.
Works Cited
Brumfield, Geoff. Fukushima’s Doses Tallied. 2013.
Harris, Charles, Michael Pritcard & Michael Rabins. Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases. London, UK: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009. Print.