Recessions are bad news when it comes to workplace safety: report
Canadians are worried about the impact of the economic downturn on workplace health and safety. But what do they do about it when everyone is so concerned about jobs?
A worker is more likely to be laid off if he or she has reported an accident within the past 12 months, according to a recent Dutch study.
The researchers’ hypothesis was that the apparent decreases in the number of safety incidents during economic downturns aren’t a result of safer workplaces or work practices but instead reflect workers’ reluctance to report problems to their employers for fear of getting fired.
Increasing a company's layoff rate even slightly leads to a significant decrease in the probability that workers will report accidents, the researchers say.
Of course, getting fired always carries adverse consequences, even in the best of times. But when unemployment is high, the consequences grow, especially in countries with poor unemployment benefits.
The relationship between unemployment and incident reporting is even stronger in those countries than in countries with high unemployment benefits like Canada, explains safety expert Robin Barton.
Recessions simply aren’t good for workplace safety; rather, they actually lull everyone into thinking that the workplace has gotten safer when that’s not the case at all, she maintains.
Critics worrty that occupational health and safety could be seen as a 'nice-to-have' rather than a really essential social and economic ingredient thus tempting employers to reduce standards or delay introducing essential protective measures.
How are things where you work? Do lean times mean cut corners? Is there a downside to whistle blowing when it comes to safety issues?
By Gordon Powers, MSN Money
Posted by: nicky | Oct 19, 2021 3:00:52 PM
This is very helpful information.I always look forward to reading your posts.You have great writing skills.Thanks for the info and keep on writing.
Posted by: James Laitinen | Oct 24, 2021 12:59:22 AM
You can't fire someone for reporting safety violations. If you document and inform a company and they do not follow the procedure, and then are alerted by a third party to try and solve the issue that is not just cause for firing someone. This is irrational fear mongering.
And if they did fire a person, it would be a blessing! Don't work for companies like that, ever. Make sure to document your case (with common sense), get a great lawyer and take them to court. By promoting safety at work helps companies ensure they remain profitable and sustainable. Companies are people powered! They can't do that with people that aren't able to work from an accident. It costs them money too in all kinds of ways.
This article is non-sense.
Posted by: mike | Oct 24, 2021 6:49:50 AM
Actually James you can fire someone. not for reporting the safety violation but they will find a way. i worked for an amployer as a safety coordinator and my manger told me to look for anyone who had more than one injury in the past 12 months so that he could go and lay off that person. It happens all the time.
Posted by: Rob | Oct 24, 2021 8:43:47 AM
It is fine to say that legally they cannot fire you, we have the laws in this country to protect you against wrongful dismissal. Now for a reality check, how many workers can afford a laywer, what do you do for a income, because if you are fired you are not eligible for EI. The lawyers that advertise you dont pay unless you win will not represent you unless they are 100% sure they can win, that is why they have a great success rate. Not only that but you probably will not want to use the employer for a reverance for your job search. Ya I know they are not suppose to give bad referrals, but this my friend is reality, companies still and always will black ball employees. Everything looks good on papper until you try to use it.
Posted by: Anonymous | Oct 24, 2021 9:09:26 AM
There is a difference in firing someone for having an injury or reporting an unsafe situation vs. laying someone off due to "lack of work". That is what the article mentions, getting laid off not getting fired. There is a different precedence involved in administering one over the other.
If you look at the layoff forms you will not see "due to injury".
It might be difficult proving that the layoff was actually due to something else, when in fact the employer can use the excuse of "lack of work" in almost any circumstance, and the insurance board will not think twice about it unless you (the employee) vocalizes this to them (if it regarding a workplace injury / illness).
For those of you who know insurance, it is a game of risk vs. liability. In all reality if you are cooperating with your employer's return to work guidelines and are communicating properly - you won't likely have an issue if the employer sees merit in your abilities on the job. If you are trying to get a free ride, there are laws in place nowadays will not allow you to take advantage of the workplace insurance system in place. Canadians are protective through government funding, which makes it more difficult for employers; whereas Americans have privatized systems in place which have less impact on the employer...