1682009531337563

The hazardous conditions faced by Amazon employees are discussed, including citations issued by the Labor Department for safety hazards at three warehouses. The workers were exposed to ergonomic hazards and risks of injuries. Amazon faces proposed penalties for these violations. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 requires employers to provide safe working conditions. Stakeholders include the board of directors, employees, and their families. The author proposes a law with incentives for employees to report hazardous conditions to the government, who will inspect and take action. The law aims to reduce injuries and benefit both workers and employers. The topic I will be speaking about is the hazardous conditions that Amazon employees face on a day-to-day basis. Recently, the Labor Department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued citations to three of Amazon's warehouses because they were exposing workers to safety hazards. The facilities were in New Windsor, New York, Waukegan, Illinois, and Deltona, Florida. According to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, the workers were exposed to ergonomic hazards that put them at high risk for lower back injuries and musculoskeletal disorders, which refers to problems such as sprains, strains, and carpal tunnel syndrome. In addition, lifting heavy packages for hours did not help. Amazon received another citation for exposing workers at the Deltona warehouse to being struck by falling boxes of merchandise. Amazon faces a total of $60,269 in proposed penalties for these violations. Now, what do I mean when I say hazardous conditions? I mean an environment where your employees are in danger, whether that's for their health or well-being. The laws that are relevant to this case are the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, which was passed to make sure workers don't get hurt or killed at work. The law requires employers to provide employees with working conditions that are free of known dangers. It gave the federal government the authority to set and enforce safety and health standards for most of the country's workers. Examples include providing fall protection, prevent exposures to diseases, and ensure safety to workers in confined spaces. The General Duty Clause requires all employers to provide a work environment free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm. Some violations of this clause include using your phone while driving, boilers not being inspected and maintained, and ergonomic hazards. Now, examples of unsafe working conditions include using defective equipment like ladders and or tools, not warning others if there is a safety hazard, like a piece of equipment that is no longer safe for employees to use, and especially when failing to warn workers that something is a fire hazard. The first stakeholder is the board of directors, CEO, and employers at these warehouses. Their argument can be that they are pushing their employees to achieve realistic goals that are set for them. They can argue that some of these incidents, like packages falling on workers, are an accident or they are the workers' fault for not performing their job properly. The opposing stakeholder can be the employees at Amazon and their families. They can argue that they do their jobs right and push themselves to achieve their goals that have been set for them, but they cannot continue to work in conditions that are unsafe for them. They can argue that they didn't do anything wrong to release the ergonomic hazards or for the heavy packages to fall on them. The families of each employee are stakeholders, too, because if their family member who works at these facilities gets injured and they can't go to work, who will be paying the bills for the family? Now, in my view, I can kind of agree with both sides here. I think the employers may not know if there really is a hazardous work environment, but I think to some extent they do, but they know it will cost a lot of money to fix these problems, which is why they don't want to do it. I agree with the workers because it is not fair and it's not their fault that they work in unsafe working conditions, and if they try to report it, they might fear that their boss will tell them to look the other way, which could get them in trouble if the government finds out because they knew about it all along. My proposal would be a law that has incentives for employees to speak up about hazardous working conditions, not to the company they work for, but to the government, who will have a special division to deal with matters like this. If employees speak up, the government will send inspectors to the facility and judge for themselves if the employees are right. The government can then fine or shut down the facility, and the workers that spoke up will be compensated for speaking up. For example, a worker notices that the facility is using faulty equipment and they do not want to repair it. The employee can report it to the division and they will send an inspector. If the inspector notices the same thing, the company will be fined a large amount and be required to repair the equipment within 30 days. If the inspector comes back in 30 days and it is not fixed, they can shut the facility down. The goal of this law would be to have employees speak up, and if they are right, they will be rewarded. I also think there should be safety committees within each facility, and they can compete to see how long they can go without accidents or people getting hurt. The facility that goes the longest could have a party or something to celebrate that. This law would require employees to be a whistleblower, which is an employee telling a news source or someone with authority about mismanagement, illegal activities, and corruption. I think this law would work because if the employers do not fix the equipment, they will be shut down, which they don't want. The only limitations I feel would be trying to get workers to speak up, but I think once they see other workers from different companies speaking up, they will do the same. Now, the intended effects would be to reduce worker injuries so they can provide for their families. This will also benefit the company because it will mean workers are staying in the facilities instead of at home because of an injury. This will make the company more efficient, and the consequences of not following this law would be that their facility will be shut down, which will slow down production and make the company lose money. Or if they are not shut down, but employees are at home because they are injured, it will be very inefficient for the company because they will not have enough workers to meet the demand. The division could be OSHA, but because this is such a common problem, they might get overloaded with cases, so the government can create a new division that partners with OSHA. Another possibility would be to have a few people in each facility that's job is to check the equipment daily and make sure that it is maintained and used properly. They can work for and report to the government instead of a company, so they wouldn't have to worry about the costs associated with fixing the problems, which is why many employers fail to report these because they are afraid that it will cost too much to repair. In conclusion, this law will benefit both stakeholders because it will keep workers safe and make sure facilities stay up and running.