Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
LAW & ETHICS IN THE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT 8e
Instructor’s Manual
CHAPTER FIVE
WORKERS RIGHTS AS HUMAN RIGHTS: HEALTH AND SAFETY IN
THE GLOBAL WORKPLACE
MAIN CONCEPTS
Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA)
Perspectives on risk in the workplace
Corporate criminal liability
Compensation for workplace injury and illness
Safety concerns in the global economy
INTRODUCTORY TIPS
Introduce this topic by asking students to identify the sources of health and safety risks in any
place that they have worked, and list them on the board. Some prompts: exposure to second-hand
smoke in bars, restaurants; delivery-persons' risk of motor vehicle accidents; eyestrain, repetitive
stress injuries from computer work; exposure to herbicides on lawns, farms; toxins/chemicals in
industrial sites; risk of robbery in convenience stores in urban or isolated areas. Then ask them to
consider the risks to which they are exposed in other aspects of their lives (dangerous sports, like
skiing, scuba diving, windsurfing; drinking/driving; dangerous places they might travel to or
through, etc.).
Once you have elicited a good cross-section of risks, ask students to decide who should evaluate
and minimize each kind and why.
You might also mention that although much of the chapter is focused on American work sites and
law, work-related danger is a global concern. The International Labor Organization has statistics
available at http://laborsta.ilo.org/cgi-bin/brokerv8.exe where statistics on work-related injuries
for most countries can be found.
*****
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System v. The Hershey Company,
Questions, p. 174 & 175
1. How do Hershey’s alleged wrongs harm the plaintiffs in this case?
If Hershey was actually engaging in illegal activities, it is reasonable to assume that the value of
2. What evidence do the plaintiffs provide to support their claim that they have a right to
investigate the corporate records?
A board of directors has certain responsibilities to company shareholders. The plaintiffs based
3. Plaintiffs allege that Hershey directors may have violated their fiduciary duties.
Explain.
4. Hershey lobbied against a bill that would have required “slave-free” labeling for cocoa
products and instead signed the Protocol. Consider Hershey’s actions from the various
ethical perspectives described in Chapter 1.
Microeconomic theory or free market ethics would favor any strategy enhancing the
Utilitarian analysis would most likely not support Hershey’s actions on the basis that the
Deontology would question why Hershey lobbied against the bill. If the goal of the Protocol is
From a virtue ethics perspective, the Protocol sounds more like moral minima that moral
As for the ethic of care, the opposition to the labelling suggests that Hershey is not very
concerned with its relationship to the workers that produce its cocoa.
.
5. Hershey claimed it did not knowingly purchase from farms that exploited child labor?
How might they have violated the law that makes it a crime to knowingly – or with
reckless disregard for the facts – benefit from a venture involving forced labor?
Answers will vary, but some might suggest that Hershey’s lobbying efforts against the
6. Research: Find out what steps the U.S. has taken to help end illegal gold-mining by
children in Bukino Faso and other parts of West Africa.
Gold mining by children continues to be a significant problem in West Africa and other
7. To what extent should a company be responsible for the working conditions of its
suppliers? Research: Find out how Phillip Morris responded to reports of child labor
in Kazakhstan.
Opinions may vary, but most if not everyone will agree that a company should avoid suppliers
who violate basic human rights and child labor laws. Phillip Morris made a commitment to
rectifying problems in Kazakhstan:
8. What similarities do you see between the allegations in the child labor complaint and
this set of facts? What obligation should a company have to investigate its suppliers in
the United States?
Similarities include the ages of the workers involved and the fact that they are not United States
Jobs Americans Won’t Do, by Matthew Webster Questions, p. 178
1. Why does the US treat agricultural workers different? Who are the stakeholders?
Consider it from the perspective of free market theory, utilitarianism and deontology.
Research: Find out about current debates involving U.S. farmworker health and safety.
Answers as to why these workers are treated differently will vary. Ask students to consider the
Microeconomic theory or free market ethics would not favor changes that lower profits as
Utilitarian analysis would consider the overall good. Food is a significant expense for
American families and anything that increases the cost of production increases the price.
Deontology would consider the same issues and strive to find out what is fair for both the
There are many websites that provide information on U.S. farmworker health and safety
including:
http://www.cata-farmworkers.org/english%20pages/fhsi.htm
2. Is it ethical for parents to encourage or allow children to work in agriculture? Should
the government do anything to regulate this practice? Research: What changes does
HRW recommend? How has the government responded?
Opinions will likely vary regarding parents and government regulations. HRW’s website
The original CARE Act (2009) has been reintroduced twice in Congress and as of February 2014
the current (2013) act is in committee:
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA)
Chao v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, Questions, p. 185
1. What is meant by “piercing the corporate veil?” On what basis did the majority decide
that the corporate veil need not be pierced in this case? How does the dissent respond?
In the typical corporate veil piercing scenario, the corporate veil is pierced such that individual
shareholders can be held liable for corporate acts. Here, the purpose of piercing the corporate
veils of Ho Ho Ho Express, Inc. and Houston Fruitland, Inc. would be to hold the corporations
liable for the acts of their individual shareholder, Ho. Therefore, this case presents a “reverse
2. What is required for a “willful” violation of the OSH Act’s general duty clause? For a
“serious” violation? Why does the majority uphold the Commission’s rule that the
violation in this case was not willful? On what basis would the dissent have reversed the
Commission’s holding?
OSH Act requires employers to free their workplaces of “recognized hazards that are causing or
are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees.” The specific general duty
PERSPECTIVES ON RISK IN THE WORKPLACE
Echazabal v, Chevron USA, Inc., Questions, p. 191
1. Why was Echazabal willing to risk his health? Is it ethical to allow him to work there?
For this reexamine the frameworks for ethical decision making in Chapter 1.
This question asks students to begin to think about the constraints on choice. A person with
limited skills and/or opportunities might be thinking of his family when he chooses the
Opinions will likely vary on the ethical issue. This would be a good group activity. Remind
2. What reasons did Chevron give for not wanting Echazabal to work in the coker? Can
you think of any other reasons the company may have had?
Chevron's reasons included: potential damage to Echazabal’s liver from exposure to the solvents
and chemicals; working in the coker was a “direct threat” to Echazabal’s health and potential tort
3. Research: Echazabal on remand
The case is reported on remand to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals at Echazabal v. Chevron
USA, Inc., 336 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2003). The court ruled that Chevron was not entitled to a
4. How can a company minimize the "rock and a hard place" dilemma?
Until the Supreme Court overturned this decision, a company would not have been free to refuse
to hire a person like Echazabal. Instead, to minimize its legal liability, Chevron would have had
5. (Johnson Controls) Who are the stakeholders? Are they the same as those in Echazabal v.
Chevron?
Exporting Hazards by Henry Shue, Question, p. 194
1. What are the six indicators that a “cost” is actually a “harm,” where use of foreign labor
is concerned?
1. The damage done is physical.
2. The damage is serious and possibly fatal.
What does Shue mean by describing a harm as “unavoidably undetectable”?
2. Who is responsible for safe working conditions in US firms abroad?
Students can be asked to do stakeholder analysis, which might lead to some of the following
considerations:
From the standpoint of international investors seeking to maximize profits, strong
worker protections curb the most efficient use of labor and create disincentives to
invest. Minimum wage requirements, child labor laws, occupational safety and
Workers and unions take a different perspective. They maintain that high wages
and strong social protections usually mark advanced economies with stable
Attracting multinational corporations by holding down or cutting back on labor
standards starts a "race to the bottom" among countries competing for investment.
To encourage investment, each country wants labor costs for its workers to be
lower than those of its competitors do. But the only way to gain the advantage is
[There is some truth in both views.] At an extreme, high wages that do not reflect
At the other extreme, holding wages below productivity gains, failing to
redistribute wealth in a society that can afford a social safety net, and permitting
total capital mobility without labor protections accelerate the "race to the bottom."
An open trading system, but not "free trade" as theory would have it, is preferable
to rigid protectionism. As part of an open trading policy, richer nations should
CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Compensation for Workplace Injury and Illness
Hopkins v. Uninsured Employers’ Fund, Questions, p. 187
1. What must be proven for a person to collect workers’ compensation in Montana? How
did the applicant here satisfy that standard? Research: Find out what is required to
obtain workers’ compensation in your home state?
The person must be an employee who was in the course and scope of employment at the time of
injury. Additionally, non-prescription drug consumption cannot be the leading cause contributing
2. Is it fair for employers to be immune from lawsuits even where workers were knowingly
exposed to dangerous materials?
