CEO\'s Statement a CEO Who Has Elected

CEO's Statement

A CEO who has elected to allow workers to make their own choices as to whether they want to do something dangerous as part of their work for the company is setting herself up for an entire host of problems. There are several reasons why it is not a good idea for the CEO to allow this kind of behavior, and the most compelling moral argument on the subject comes from utilitarianism (Cornman, et al., 1992). This particular type of moral theory states that the good of the masses is more significant and important than the good of the few (Rosen, 2003). In other words, people should not be allowed to have "free reign" to do what they please if that is going to harm others. In this case, one could argue that the workers would only be harming themselves, but that is not true. The chemical exposure they have can affect their lives, as well as the lives of their families and others with which they come into contact.

This is similar to the way in which people used to work with asbestos all the time. Some of them contracted mesothelioma years later, but it was not just the workers who got sick. In some cases, the fibers that they brought home with them also got into the lungs of close friends and family members, including small children. Wives and children who had never worked with asbestos got sick and died because of the lack of protection taken by the workers and the companies. Since that time, companies have been more careful of these kinds of issues. Not taking care of workers can open a company up to all kinds of lawsuits, as well. Even making it clear that it was the choice of the worker is generally not enough to win a lawsuit, because the argument from the worker's attorney will always be that human life is sacred and that the worker was not clearly informed as to all of the dangers he or she might face when working in a particular area.

Whether the person works in a dangerous area of the chemical plant with or without protective equipment, there can still be concerns. However, allowing workers to simply avoid wearing protective equipment if they do not feel like wearing it is very dangerous to the workers, to the company, and to the other people with which those workers come into contact on a daily basis. If protective equipment is offered (and was required in the past), it is a good assumption that the protective equipment is needed. Because of that, all workers should be required to wear the protective equipment. Any overtime that is needed should be divided up appropriately between those who work in that area, not simply determined based on who wants to work it. Companies need strict, clear rules to protect their workers, their reputation, their facilities, and their ability to continue to operate. Not requiring protective equipment would be a dangerous practice that would put too many people at risk and that could lead to serious trouble in the future.

Rules for pregnant women and women of child-bearing years should be the same as rules for anyone else, with a few exceptions. Some companies are very careful not to allow pregnant women to lift too much weight or to be in an area where a chemical or other item could cause harm to unborn children. While this does make sense and a company should have these kinds of rules, the idea that all women who are able to bear children should be banned from a particular activity or area is sexist and unrealistic. Just because a woman has a menstrual cycle and is, as far as the company is aware, capable of producing offspring, does not mean she is working to become pregnant or ever will become pregnant. Some women do not have partners. Others do not want children, and they take the precautions necessary to avoid conceiving a child. Women who are of child bearing age should be treated no differently from anyone else. If they become pregnant, then they may have to be restricted in their activities because of the possibility of harm to the fetus.

Again, what is best for the largest segment of society should be what is considered by the company - but there should be no reason to restrict people simply because they are of a specific gender or belong to an age category during which children are commonly produced. The idea of "child bearing age" can fluctuate greatly, as well. A woman who is 50 may still be having a regular menstrual cycle. While it would be highly unlikely (but not impossible) that she could get pregnant, the woman next to her who is 35 but has had a hysterectomy or who has gone through premature menopause absolute will not become pregnant even though she is, technically, still of child bearing age. Companies should be very careful to avoid categorizing people and turning them down for jobs they can perform based on age-related assumptions, because that is how companies get sued. Because women are the ones who bear the children, they often find that this is an issue with some companies.