Question

What is the difference between right to know and right to refuse? What is the main argument for denying workers the right to refuse hazardous work?

Answer 1

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT TO KNOW AND RIFGT TO REFUSE

The right to know about workplace hazard is an important aspect for the right to a safe and healthy environment. This latter right is fully protected as long as employers succeed in cleaning the workplace of significant hazards. Some argue that the right to know is an effective approach towards workers safety, if not an absolutely essential. While according to others, right to know is not dependent for its justification on the right to a safe and healthy workplace that’s mean employees who are adequately protected by their employers against occupational injury, damages to health or disease still have a right to be told what substances they are handling, what dangers they pose, what precaution should they take and so on.

As a worker they have the right to know and refuse to the danger they will be facing during their work. Their employers should have a full description on the job to the employees so that they are not dilemma and they agree with all the possible danger that they may face. This is to guarantee that the safety, health and welfare of workers in both private and public sector are protected.

Many workers are killed on the job accidentally and these deaths could have been controlled if hazards were taken care of. Workers secured under Occupational Safety and Health Administration has a right to refuse and avoid hazardous work under certain condition if they believe that the equipment, machine, device they are likely to operate could endanger themselves or another worker and the physical condition of the workplace. This right allows workers to investigate and repaired the refuse work if it possesses danger. During the investigation and repair, workers have the right to receive payment.

Altercation for denying workers the right to refuse hazardous work

It is normally followed by a duty to inform the employer immediately of the situation, sometimes the joint safety committee must also be informed as well. Neither the worker who refused nor another worker should be assigned to the work until the problem has been resolved and if this happens again and a worker is injured, the law may file case against the employer to severe civil and criminal penalties. In Canada, the worker who refused the work and the health and safety representative has rights to be present on the field while the employer undertakes a spot investigation. If the employee is still not ready to work after the employer has taken all important measures, an expedited government inspection can be activated; until that has led to a decision, the employer however cannot force the worker to do that work and is supposed to provide him or with an alternative assignment to avoid payment loss. A worker appoint to replace the one who refused must be illuminate of other’s refusal.

Recognition of a right to refuse hazardous work is an important phenomenon to the general rule that the employer is the one who provides an opportunity to workers and that an employee is not to abandon his or post or refuse to carry out important command given by him. Its aspect lies in the exigency of the situation and the presence of interests of public order to save and secure life.