Employee Health and Safety Complacency in the Workplace

Introduction and Background

In the business world today, the focus has increasingly been on employee well-being. The reason for this is the changing view of the employee as a person with needs rather than merely an automaton assigned to complete a certain job within a certain time frame so that the manager can make a profit. This view also recognizes that happy workers are more productive and ultimately more profitable for the company as a whole. Job satisfaction provides an employee with a sense of well-being, which in turn translates into greater pride in the work being done and hence higher quality performance. Furthermore, a greater sense of well-being leads to lower stress levels and fewer worker hours lost to stress-related illness. This, however, does not appear to correlate with the predominant workplace situation today. As will be shown, many workers place what they perceive as an obligation toward their employer above their own well-being. The focus of this study is to determine the reasons for this.

In conjunction with the understanding that workers need to be well in order to work well, several measures have been introduced — especially during the latter half of the 20th century — to make the workplace more pleasant for employees. Elements such as ergonomics, more reasonable work hours, and financial incentives such as raises and bonuses have become commonplace in businesses around the world. One of the most important elements for ensuring worker satisfaction and retention is the implementation of health and safety standards.

However, in addition to the hypothesis that workers tend to disregard their own health and safety for the sake of their work duties, it is also notable that many incidents of excessively unhealthy conditions — both psychological and physical — continue to be reported. The 21st century should be an age in which employees are entitled to more than a drive to generate revenue. Workers have rights. Yet the very drive to earn a salary tends to push workers toward substantially unsafe practices, including a disregard for their own safety and health at the workplace. To address this issue specifically, the research proposed here focuses on three work areas notorious for their unsafe conditions and frequent lack of adequate safety standards.

The first is the office environment, in which the pressure to complete large workloads within unrealistic time frames leads to stress. The complication is that the manifestations of work-related psychological stress are often difficult to identify in a timely and targeted fashion. The second area is the construction industry, where time constraints motivate workers to forgo the necessary health and safety precautions in favor of completing required work within a required time frame. The problem here is less a lack of standards than the fact that time simply does not allow their implementation. Finally, the cockle-picking industry is addressed — notorious not only for its lack of safety standards, but also for its highly dangerous nature. Gangmasters driven by the need for profit often exploit workers who are ignorant of the law, their rights, and their own obligations regarding health and safety.

These three areas will be examined to determine the exact reasons for employees' disregard of health and safety standards and their own individual well-being. Conclusions and recommendations will address both the issues identified and the possible mitigation of the problem through recommended actions.

The disregard for health and safety for the sake of deadlines is a deeply troubling trend in today's workplace. Having progressed as far as we have in terms of human rights and worker satisfaction, it is unacceptable that the workplace should remain unsafe in any way, or that employers should permit this to be the case.

Study Design and Methodology

Health and safety measures have become one of the most important facets of the business world today. Human resources have enjoyed increasing importance as the focus of studies in human well-being and work satisfaction. Studies have shown how an increase in worker satisfaction ultimately results in an increase in profit. No longer are workers forced to labor under inhuman conditions. Instead, agencies such as the Institution for Occupational Safety and Health (2007) and the Health & Safety Executive (2007) work for employee safety, health, satisfaction, and empowerment. Employees are thereby empowered to take control of their work environment, whereas in the past the work environment and managers were often the controlling factors.

However, it has also been frequently observed that even today the workplace comprises certain hazards — not only physical, but also psychological. This study focuses on these dangers and on how individuals are often inclined to accept such risks rather than making their own health and safety a priority, resulting in illness, injury, or even death. To investigate the reasons for this tendency, three workplace environments notorious for their hazards are considered: stress in the office environment, potentially unsafe actions in the construction environment, and physical danger in the beach environment, specifically in the cockle-picking industry.

The first step of the study is to hypothesize the various factors that lead individuals to place the importance of work over their own health and safety. A number of hypothetical reasons are drawn up for this purpose, divided according to their apparent relevance to each workplace environment investigated.

In the office environment, the following hypotheses appear most relevant with respect to the stress factor:

Individuals may be overloaded with an unreasonable amount of work. The directive of such an individual is to finish the work rather than consider his or her own safety and stress levels. Office workers are generally well informed regarding health and safety standards, but may ignore these under the pressure of a deadline.

It is possible that office workers are bullied into taking on an unreasonable amount of work that should rightfully be handled by more employees, or that they are placed under unrealistic time constraints.

Even if introduced to the HS&E department, office workers may be so focused on pleasing their superiors and proving their value to the company that they overlook the need to consult this department with health and safety questions. It is also possible that they are not informed of the exact services this department offers, or of their rights in that regard.

In the construction environment, the following appear relevant:

Time constraints and bullying play a role in construction workers potentially disregarding health and safety regulations in favor of faster work completion. This results not only in individual health hazards, but also in physical safety hazards for the entire workforce in the vicinity of the project and for the public using the finished product.

Construction workers, depending on their level of work and the contract under which they are employed, may lack the in-depth legal knowledge that office workers often have. This results in ignorance of safety regulations and of the employer's obligation to provide them. Similarly, employers may take advantage of this ignorance and fail to inform workers of their rights.

It is also possible that individuals — particularly those working on a temporary contract basis — are afraid to be replaced if they raise health and safety concerns, and therefore prefer to accept the risk for the sake of their income.

In the beach environment and cockle-picking industry, the following appear relevant:

The work does not require a high level of education, and therefore tends to attract workers with previously low or no income. These individuals tend to be uninformed regarding safety standards both as a result of their limited formal education and the employer's neglect.

As in the other two environments, time constraints and bullying play a role. Workers are afraid to lose their jobs and take the risk rather than complain about safety standards.

The likelihood that workers are fully informed regarding the nature of the company is very low. It is much more likely that they are effectively forced to accept substandard conditions, driven by desperation for survival that overrides health and safety concerns and any related legal issues.

There appears to be a significant discrepancy between the recognition of health and safety as highly important workplace features and their practical application. What is particularly intriguing is that not only managers have motives for ignoring health and safety standards, but individual workers also fail to take responsibility for their own well-being. The objective of this study is to identify the reasons for this tendency and to make suggestions for curbing it.

In our current era, individuals should be focused on their own well-being as a basis for performing better at work, presenting a better image to their superiors, and providing the company's clients with better services. This is important both internally in terms of the workplace and externally in terms of public image. A company widely known for high safety standards is generally regarded more favorably than one without them.

The main aim of this study is therefore to find ways to balance the need for speedy and voluminous work with the well-being that will ensure the quality of such work. In focusing on the three workplace areas mentioned above, the study also aims to benefit specific industries notorious for their lack of health and safety. The aim is not only to find justifications for individual actions, but to curb the self-destructive tendencies of such individuals by empowering them with knowledge.

In developing a deeper understanding of the underlying factors relating to a lack of safety awareness, the research further aims to empower individuals for greater well-being in both their work and general lives. In short, the objective is to gain a deeper understanding of the issues relating to individual health and safety in the workplace, to understand the motivations for ignoring these, and to find methods to curb the apparent self-destructive tendency of workers who place the job ahead of their own needs.

Literature Review

The literature suggests that stress is a widely recognized health hazard for workers worldwide (Skews, 2006). Stress is not only a workplace phenomenon, but a significant factor in other areas of life, such as personal and family affairs. It is also a particularly important factor because it is so difficult to recognize in its early stages. Once stress is identified as a hazard, it is often too late to act preventatively.

Another factor playing a significant role in health and safety is the tension between profit and worker well-being. The article by Skews (2003), for example, focuses on the rising costs to companies of implementing required health and safety regulations and policies. This problem is particularly significant for small or emerging companies, as the drive toward initial profit often takes precedence over considerations of worker safety. In such cases, managers tend to exploit workers' ignorance and bully them into providing the maximum amount of output without regard for health and safety needs.

A further issue arising prominently in the literature is the fact that responsibility for health and safety lies not only with managers, but also with workers themselves. According to the Health and Safety Executive (2007), for example, it is the responsibility of workers to monitor their own health and safety needs, discuss these with management, and even report the failure of management to meet these requirements to the appropriate authorities. Documentation therefore supports the empowering function of providing employees with correct information regarding their rights and responsibilities.

The literature furthermore supports the ideal of a mutually beneficial relationship between employers and employees. It is ultimately beneficial for employers to have adequate health and safety standards in place. Workers will experience a sense of well-being that serves as a basis for consistent quality in their work. This quality in turn results in returning customers and greater profits. Workers who equip themselves with adequate knowledge regarding company policies before beginning work benefit by experiencing greater satisfaction and reduced stress levels both at work and in their personal lives.

Problems arise, however, with issues such as the initial investment into adequate health and safety standards. Startup and small companies may not have the funding available to put such standards in place, while being simultaneously driven by the need to generate adequate initial profits. Workers are often kept in the dark regarding their rights in terms of health and safety, particularly in industries that attract the lower-income sector of society. Employers in such cases tend to exploit workers' fear of losing their jobs and income.

The Transport Salaried Staffs' Association (TSSA, 1996–2008) states that the office environment does not contain the physical hazards of workplaces such as construction and fishing. The tendency is therefore to overlook entirely the necessity of safety precautions within the office environment. The TSSA provides examples of possible office hazards that can be both physical and psychological, noting that 2,000 office workers are absent for more than three days per year as a result of accidents at the workplace. Furthermore, stress plays a large role in the office environment and contributes substantially to the hazards that office workers face.

Possible physical risks, according to TSSA, include noise, hazardous substances, manual handling, computer or display screens, machinery, and environments in which personal protective equipment is needed. Manual handling refers to cases where office equipment, furniture, or packages need to be moved; if these items are particularly heavy, it is vital that office workers be informed of the correct procedures. Chemical hazards — including cleaning substances, inks, and toners — can entail a significant risk for workers. Electrical cables and sockets also pose hazards if not used correctly. Office workers should be fully trained in using fire-extinguishing equipment. Noise should be kept at an acceptable level, while temperature and lighting should be at optimal comfort levels.

A very important element of worker safety is rest periods. Office workers generally spend the majority of their time in a sitting position. In addition to ensuring that the ergonomics of the office space are optimal, workers need to be encouraged to take regular breaks from their work stations. At optimal levels, office workers should take hourly breaks. This is an area where workers can easily neglect their own health and safety simply because they are so caught up in their duties that they forget.

According to TSSA, there is no specific legislation governing office environment hazards such as stress, bullying, and violence — though sexual harassment is governed by certain legislation and can be prosecuted. The other factors are risks that need to be covered in workplace policy. Unions and health and safety professionals are particularly important in these areas.

Stress is a factor that is easily ignored, mostly because it is so difficult to detect in its early stages. It is, however, one of the most significant hazards in the office environment, and could work in conjunction with bullying and psychological violence to terrorize employees into illness and regular incapacity for work. Working conditions could then become intolerable, and the company loses many costly work hours as a result of unhappy employees. The reason why these factors may be ignored includes not only a lack of legislation, but also a lack of awareness. Employees may not be aware of the specific risk factors entailed in their work, and therefore might not recognize the warning signs when they appear. Loyalty to the company and its workload could also result in a disproportionate drive to finish required work in an unrealistic amount of time.

One very significant factor in ignoring health and safety in the office is the fear of being replaced. The TSSA notes that this is not an unsubstantiated fear — many workers are indeed fired for refusing to work under unsafe conditions. According to TSSA, the penalty for firing a worker for raising safety concerns is very low in the UK, to the extent that employers find it cheaper to dismiss the disgruntled employee than to make the required improvements. While companies with unions are somewhat easier to work with, many still disregard the safety and health of their employees.

All three hypotheses for office workers appear to be substantiated by the literature. An overload of work may cause disregard for safety standards such as taking breaks from the computer. Employers under pressure to deliver their quota may bully their workers into completing work under extremely stressful conditions. It is also possible that office workers are not made fully aware of their rights and obligations, causing them to ignore their own safety in favor of everything else. Finally, office workers may fear termination if they refuse to work under hazardous conditions or complain to officials.

Companies that provide tangible goods and services are particularly vulnerable to losses of professional reputation relating to health and safety failures. The construction profession is a clear example. If a worker is obliged to take shortcuts for the sake of completing a job within a certain time frame, this may create significant dangers to the individual worker, colleagues, and the public who will eventually use the finished product.

According to the HSE, the construction industry's 2005–2006 figures report the second highest rate of self-reported work-related illnesses: 3,800 cases per 100,000 employees. This indicates a high physical hazard level for workers. A further notable statistic is that construction workers tend to have a high mortality rate unrelated to social class.

According to Howard (2008), the construction industry in the UK leaves something to be desired in terms of health and safety standards. During 2006, there was an increase of 28% in work-related fatalities over the previous year. Combined, 2006 and 2007 proved to have the highest fatalities for the construction industry in five years.

One reason cited by the HSE for this trend is the increase in actual construction work — which has more than doubled over recent years. While this statistical context suggests that the percentage increase in fatalities may be smaller than the raw numbers imply, this does not serve as an adequate excuse for the apparent lack of health and safety measures that would prevent the rise in deaths. Howard, citing Barcley Sumner, also notes that there is increased pressure on workers in terms of time and on employers in terms of worker numbers. Because of time pressures, employers are obliged to hire additional workers on short notice, often resulting in less-trained workers and a concomitant rise in accidents.

Another problem Howard addresses is the changing nature of the construction workforce and the associated culture around health and safety. The trend toward a more casual and fragmented workforce has resulted in fewer connections between workers and employers. The employer no longer knows his or her workforce, and the directive toward health and safety is therefore absent. Furthermore, the increase in the number of construction companies makes it difficult to provide enough safety representatives to meet demand. At the root of the problem is a combination of factors: employers are under pressure to complete work in a constrained time span; this leads to the hiring of unknown workers without monitoring their training; and there is a lack of concern for safety measures in favor of completing the work.

Migrant workers compound these problems. These workers make themselves available for construction work through employment agencies or even gangmasters. In addition to a lack of training, they often struggle with language barriers that make it difficult to follow specific safety instructions.

In terms of employer responsibility, Howard again cites Sumner in arguing that much stricter legislation is required to force employers to take responsibility. The existing voluntary code is simply not adequate, particularly in a rapidly growing industry. Furthermore, legislation needs to be enforced through inspection. Employer responsibility in construction is a very important issue, as 70% of serious accidents are reported to be the result of management failure.

Howard concludes by citing Olav Lawrence on health and safety in construction. Lawrence observes unsafe working conditions that are all too frequently witnessed, including scaffolding without guardrails and handling of heavy equipment without barriers to prevent falls from heights. While large companies do have safety measures and experts in place, a large number of smaller companies do not. In terms of the hypotheses, time constraints are a very large factor in the disregard of health and safety measures in construction, relating to both managers and employees. Managers under pressure for speed hire more untrained workers who often do not take responsibility for their own health and safety — either because they cannot understand English beyond a very basic level or, more likely, because they are simply not informed of their rights and responsibilities.

The discrepancy between generally accepted health and safety standards and the actual inadequacies experienced by workers in the cockle-picking industry needs to be addressed with urgency. In terms of company reputation, it is beneficial for a company to have adequate safety standards in place — both for the quality of its goods and services and for its reputation as an organization that cares about more than its bottom line.

An example that rather poignantly demonstrates the consequences of inadequate safety standards relates to the Morecambe Bay disaster. According to a news release by Paul Marston (2006), a Morecambe Bay gangmaster was sentenced to 14 years in prison after the death of 23 Chinese cockle pickers. The necessary health and safety standards were clearly not in place, and according to the article, the deaths could have been prevented. Such events have devastating effects not only on public perception, but also on the professional reputation of a company and by association on the entire industry. The gangmaster and his company suffered extreme harm to their professional reputation and a substantial loss of profits.

According to Pai (2006), the cockle-picking industry is notorious for its low safety standards. The reasons for this include not only a lack of adequate legislation or direct supervision, but also the integrated network of top bosses and the workers themselves. Workers continue to sell their services and work under the same conditions that caused the deaths at Morecambe Bay, despite awareness of that event and subsequent new legislation.

Pai cites Lin Guo, a survivor of the Morecambe Bay incident, as asserting that workers were not informed of safety measures and their responsibilities to ensure their own safety. They were not provided with the specialized knowledge needed regarding tides, local conditions, and what to do in case of danger. Furthermore, they were not provided with safety equipment, but were left to their own devices and "common sense." Pai also cites Lin Liangren, who blames the pressure that English suppliers place on the cockling industry to produce for the demand of international clients, creating great pressure to produce more in less time.

All three hypotheses relating to the cockle-picking environment appear to be substantiated by the literature: the workers' deaths indicate that they were not fully informed regarding their rights to health and safety; adequate health and safety measures were not in place; and workers appear to have accepted very low safety standards for the sake of employment.

In addition, the problem relates to legal issues. Gangmasters exploit illegal immigrants by offering low-paying work opportunities in order to make greater profits. A BBC report (Casciani, 2005) on the Morecambe Bay incident details the legislative consequences of the deaths. The British Government implemented a permit system to discourage the illegal employment and endangering of workers. Morecambe Bay itself now has its own policing force to monitor cockle-fishing practices and report illegal activities. However, Casciani indicates that much more is needed, as the industry is indicative of a much larger problem across the food industry as a whole and concerning illegal immigration in the UK. Some hold that permit legislation will only drive those already in the country illegally further underground, placing them at even greater risk of unscrupulous exploitation.

According to the HSE (2008), employers are responsible for ensuring health and safety for their employees and for other professionals or members of the public who might be affected by their work. The HSE outlines ten necessary steps to ensure this, emphasizing that these basic steps are not optional but legally obligatory. New businesses must be registered with the Health and Safety Executive or the local authority, protecting both the business and the workers in case of injury or death. The Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance also protects both employer and employee from unforeseen financial ramifications when accidents occur. A further important point relates to the role of advisers and consultants in implementing health and safety measures. The requirement is simply that the person designated is well versed in the legal and practical issues of health and safety — not necessarily an external consultant.

A health and safety policy should be implemented and communicated to all persons at the workplace. Periodic risk assessments need to form the basis of that policy, and employers should implement policies according to the findings of such assessments.

On a basic level, the ergonomics and facilities at the workplace must be optimized for worker comfort, including toilets, washing facilities, and drinking water. Temperature and noise levels in the office environment must be taken into consideration. Regular breaks from strenuous or monotonous work should also be encouraged to promote the general health and well-being of workers.

Workers should at all times be aware of their rights and responsibilities regarding health and safety. Providing this information free of charge is the employer's responsibility. Open communication channels should be established between employers and the workforce. Employers should consult their workers regularly to establish whether anything more should be done to promote health and safety, while workers should feel confident to raise issues without fear of losing their position.

A health and safety law poster should be displayed, or leaflets provided, to inform workers on legislation and their rights. Employers should also take responsibility for reporting any work-related health and safety problems in order to mitigate these for the future. Reporting such incidents promotes the confidence that the employer takes the health and safety of workers to heart, inspiring workers to feel valued and to deliver their best work.

The literature also suggests that employees should take responsibility for their own health and safety. While there is no excuse for neglecting the duty of informing employees of their rights and responsibilities, employees are also not to disregard the information that they do receive.

According to Bart Becht (2004), nobody at the workplace can disregard health and safety — including their own. Workers are therefore to take responsibility by being aware of their company's health and safety policy and implementing its provisions in their day-to-day work life. The employer cannot be expected to remind office workers to take their hourly breaks, for example. The employer is responsible for training and awareness; once these have been ensured, it is the employee's responsibility to implement the necessary measures for him- or herself.

Employees should also be aware that their actions relating to health and safety could affect others, and should ensure that those affected are aware of the risks and responsibilities that they should implement. Site visitors, for example, should be made aware of the necessary safety measures to avoid unnecessary injury.

It is also the responsibility of the employee to cooperate with the employer and supervisors in terms of health and safety, ensuring that they have all the necessary information for their own and others' protection. Finally, employees are obliged to report health and safety concerns to the relevant official according to company policy. Failure to do this could result in risk for the employee and for others. As noted above, however, workers are discouraged from such reporting by the risk of losing their jobs. While legislation is in place, this has little practical effect on managers who prioritize profit margins over health and safety.

While there is no shortage of health and safety professionals, companies, and literature, little is offered by way of solutions to the practical problems described above. The main problems relate to the fear of employees in taking the necessary responsibility for their own health and safety by raising concerns; migrant workers who create a dynamic, untrained, and unsafe work environment in dangerous industries such as construction; and illegal activities leading to the death of workers such as those in the cockle-fishing industry.

The existing literature tends to focus on the responsibilities allocated to workers, employees, and supervisors. Professionals such as Ellis Whittam (2004–2008) and OCCHNET (2007) offer their services with guarantees of increased compliance by both workers and employers, and make clients aware of the exact legal issues involved and responsibilities to be allocated within the company.

The problem is, however, that these companies cannot force their services upon unwilling organizations. The bottom line remains that company owners need to take the initial responsibility of implementing health and safety policies for their workers and of using professionals to help them do so. The fact remains that some supervisors and employers are simply not very concerned with the health and safety of their workers, and hence disregard any legislation to this effect. It is of course impossible to monitor every single company in the UK on a continuous basis to ensure compliance. As long as companies do not view the benefits of health and safety measures as outweighing their costs, there will always be a lack of such measures — and more often than not, workers pay the price through ignorance, loyalty to the company, or fear.