Here, "the governing statute and formal regulations give OSHA wide freedom at higher agency levels to make decisions and formulate programs concerning the inspection of workplaces. It does not follow, as the government seems to argue, that an employee who performs an inspection has the type and breadth of discretion which makes the inspection a discretionary function." (Fairchild, 23)
This would implicate political imperatives in shaping an OSHA policy of legal responsibility that should instead by determined by real and accurate field-compiled safety requirements. Any indications that a failed safety inspection might have contributed to the presence of the offending machine is also a support for the argument that more careful reflection must be engaged of Irving's testimony. Using the discretion clause, no such testimony is even heard. Indeed, according to the details of the case, "the District Court did not analyze the evidence and made no findings concerning OSHA's policy in conducting its "general inspections," the degree of discretion allowed the compliance officers, or whether such discretion as existed was grounded in social, economic or political policy. Instead, the court simply relied upon the Fifth Circuit's decision in Galvin, which asserted that the discretionary function exception would have prevented the court from hearing a suit against the United States for OSHA's alleged failure to inspect or negligent failure to detect a dangerous condition, notwithstanding Berkovitz, because OSHA itself had violated no mandatory statute or regulation." (Fairchild, 24)
Ethical Decision Factors To Consider:
Unfortunately, this decision fails numerous ethical tests, not the least of which is the service of Irving's interest and the proper compensation provision for her injuries. As the stakeholder with the greatest interest in the outcome of the decision, her claims are removed from due consideration in the legal scenario portrayed by the district court.
A more ethical perspective, ironically, proceeds from OSHA itself, though decidedly not for reasons of ethicality. In the interest of protecting itself from liability, OSHA attempted to foist responsibility for inspection...
Accordingly, "Richard Amirault, the OSHA Area Director in New Hampshire, testified that 'As far as humanly possible, [the compliance officers] were supposed to cover the work place,' to 'look at every operation,' and 'to observe any place where an employee works.'" (Fairchild, 27) This would be to argue that the OSHA provided its officers with all the necessary directives to carry out their responsibilities as inspectors and that any failure to survey the entire workspace would have been an inspection failure attributable to the inspectors themselves and not the agency.
Though under Berkovitz this would seem to dismiss OSHA from responsibility, a more ethical examination suggests that if given the proper instructions and directives from OSHA, the offending machine was a safety failure that the inspectors can't have missed. This is to say that ethically, there is a responsibility which falls upon OSHA to ensure that all of its inspectors have been trained and equipped with the proper knowledge and qualifications to bear such discretion. Evidence indicates here that even were there to be accepted the condition that the discretion of inspectors resulted in a failure to observe certain safety violations, it was OSHA which bore the discretion of recruiting, hiring, training and informing its inspectors. An ethical lens does not allow us to look past this level of responsibility.
Recommended Corrective Action:
Ultimately, this would be the resolution at which the Court of Appeals would arrive. The view of the court would be that the if the agents had been instructed and trained properly, it is impossible that they would have allowed the offense in question. Rationally, it was found that the inspectors could not have possible had this discretionary authority as the offense was otherwise to glaring to be overlooked. Only an institutional failure of education could be held as responsible.
Thus, the recommended course of corrective action is to award Ms. Irving a settlement based on OSHA's liability and to impose a legal condition upon OSHA which demands stronger recruiting and training of inspectors. As a counterpoint to the discretion clause, this removes the unfair insulation of a government agency that shold legally and ethically be held responsible for grievances against it.
Fairchild, SCJ. (1990). 909 F2d 598 Irving v. United States. United States Court of Appeals: First Circuit.
OSHA. (2006). Fire Safety…
WorldCom (CEO Bernard Ebbers) supported by years of profitability arising from the deregulation of phone companies was a fast moving stock that was highly toted by stock specialists as a must buy, even while it was seriously hemorrhaging from bad and fraudulent business deals and its own shoddy accounting, cover ups and bad investment deals. WorldCom quickly supplanted at&T as the favorite of many investors, based heavily on Grubman's recommendations.
Hypothetical firm -- Pharmacare -- and address the issues of corporate responsibility and ethics. Background Information on Case New Jersey-based company, Pharmacare (We CARE about YOUR health®) counts among the leading pharmaceutical firms across the globe. It is reputed for being an ethical, well-managed and caring corporation that manufactures superior-quality products aimed at saving the lives of millions and enhancing the QOL (quality of life) of millions of other people. Its offering
PharmaCARE -- Case Review The Stakeholders There are numerous stakeholders and stakeholder groups that are presented in this case. The stakeholders can be thought of in two different primary groups to make the first set of distinctions, internal and external groups. Internal Stakeholders The management team The employees CompCARE and PharmaCARE Investors External Stakeholders Colberian Citizens and Workers The Drugs Patients Employees, Management, and Investors at Wellco Society in General PharmaCARE's Unethical Treatment of the Colberia's PharmaCARE's received support from the Colberia's in
Corporate Social Responsibility: Bowen and Carroll Howard R. Bowen was the founder of the concept of corporate social responsibility. In his book "Social Responsibility of the Businessman," Bowen argued that business was a major force that touched the lives of numerous individuals. Since business was inextricably and continuously involved in processes of judgment and decision-making, many of their proposals and assertions touched the lives of vast numbers of citizens. These included
Engineering Ethics This post-mortem report is directed to the British Petroleum (BP) board of directors concerning the BP Texas City refinery explosion incident that took place on March 23, 2005. A series of explosions occurred during the restarting of the hydrocarbon isomerization unit in the Texas City refinery. The main technical reason behind the initial explosion was the flooding of the over-pressurized distillation column, which ended up in a geyser of
Regardless of the actual operation being run at a time or the other, Riordan Manufacturing respects the regulations instated for all types of activities. We respect the right of our staff members; we respect the rights of the communities in which we operate and we function in full accordance with the national and international stipulations. We condemn any type of sexual or otherwise discrimination or any type of illegal treatment of