Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday May 14 2020, @09:33AM   Printer-friendly
from the follow-the-money dept.

Older, larger companies benefit from not investing in worker safety, study finds:

When it's cheaper to pay nominal fines for violating workplace regulations than to provide safe workplaces, that indicates current safety regulations are not enough to protect workers, researchers say.

Oregon State University Public Health and Human Sciences associate professor Anthony Veltri was one of several authors on the study, an international collaboration between Mark Pagell, Mary Parkinson, Michalis Louis and Brian Fynes of University College Dublin in Ireland; John Gray of the Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio; and Frank Wiengarten of Universitat Ramon Llull in Spain.

"Organizations that do not provide a safe workplace gain an economic advantage over those that do," said Veltri, who studies occupational safety and health. "The goal of improving the longevity of a business conflicts with the goal of protecting the workforce."

The study, published last week in the journal Management Science, looked at both short- and long-term survival of more than 100,000 Oregon-based organizations over a 25-year period. In this study, "survival" was defined as ongoing operations, even in the face of an ownership change.

[...] Although there are businesses that provide safe workplaces and also improve their competitiveness, such businesses are not the norm, the study says. And while organizations seeking to maximize their survival are unlikely to harm workers on purpose, they are correct in calculating that the costs of preventing all harm to workers is higher than the cost of not doing so.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2020, @01:25PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2020, @01:25PM (#994230)

    All these lovely epicycle philosophical questions that Americans get to wrestle with when talking about healthcare.

    In the USA: get sick read insurance contract phone lawyer pray to Jeebus start a CrowdMe (whatever) drink bleach declare bankruptcy.

    In the UK: get sick go to hospital done.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +5  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=2, Underrated=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2020, @03:43PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2020, @03:43PM (#994276)

    All these lovely epicycle philosophical questions that Americans get to wrestle with when talking about healthcare.

    In the USA: get sick read insurance contract phone lawyer pray to Jeebus start a CrowdMe (whatever) drink bleach declare bankruptcy.

    In the UK: get sick go to hospital done die.

    FTFY

    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2020, @09:53PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2020, @09:53PM (#994408)

      That' better than don't go to hospital because you can't afford it and die?

  • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Friday May 15 2020, @01:42AM (1 child)

    by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Friday May 15 2020, @01:42AM (#994468)

    In the UK anywhere else in the world: get sick go to hospital done.

    Fixed.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2020, @01:25PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2020, @01:25PM (#994611)

      That's how it works here too. You don't /actually/ need to pay those ER bills. They aren't allowed to garnish wages for medical.