Political Economy of Workplace Injury in Canada

leT me remind you whaT faSciSm iS.iT need noT wear a brown ShirT or a green ShirT -iT may even wear a dreSS ShirT.faSciSm beginS The momenT a ruling claSS, fearing The people may uSe Their poliTical democracy To gain economic democracy, beginS To deSTroy poliTical democracy in order To reTain iTS power of exploiTaTion and Special privilege. -Tommy DouglasIn some ways, Thomas' story is unique.Yet it is also similar to the stories of the 630,000 workers who are significantly injured every year.Thomas went to work and was injured doing her job.She now has to bear the physical, emotional, and financial costs of that injury.Some workers have it better -they eventually make a full recovery or get workers' compensation.And some workers have it worse.More than 1000 Canadian workers die every year. perSpecTiveS on workplace injuryHow you react to the vast number of workers injured and killed each year reflects your values and beliefs.Are these injures inevitable?Are they just the cost of doing business?One way to look at workplace injuries is from an economic perspective.This view sees the risk of injury as minimal, unavoidable and, ultimately, acceptable.Is it the price we (or at least workers) must pay for a "healthy" economy?If we are going to lower the risk of injury, we need to ensure the cost is less than the benefit we'll receive.And the people best positioned to decide that are employers.This economic perspective dominates the debate about workplace health and safety.It is the lingua franca of employers, bureaucrats, politicians, and most academics.There are, of course, alternative perspectives.An alternative advanced by workers views workplace injuries as the result of choices employers make in order to maximize profitability.Contrary to the slogan "safety pays," it is usually cheaper for employers to organize work unsafely.This is especially true if employers can (with the tacit consent of government) pass along the cost of occupational injuries and disease to workers.This political economy approach to workplace injury focuses attention on the ways groups with a common economic interest -such as employers -advance their interests by political means.This perspective reflects a (and my) Marxist view of 1. Injuries occur in high numbers despite prevention efforts.This is explained partially by the state's use of demonstrably ineffective prevention strategies. 2.Injury prevention schemes channel worker energy and workplace conflict into mechanisms that manage and diffuse such conflict.This reduces the threat posed by workplace injuries to the capital accumulation and social reproduction processes.It also allows unsafe working conditions to persist. 3.Governments legitimize prioritizing profitability over safety in three ways: they blame workers for injuries; they make cost-benefit arguments, which implicitly adopt an economic perspective on workplace injury; and they create the appearance that workplaces are safer than they are.Similarly, it is possible to draw three conclusions regarding the compensation of workplace injuries: 4. Workers' compensation provides most workers with predictable, stable, and immediate compensation.This one - Employ men t Rel ationships in Ca na daHaving a job usually means being in an employment relationship.These relationships entail both conflicting interests and unequal power.This dynamic influences who is injured and how they are injured.It also affects whether and how an injured worker will be compensated.As you read this discussion, keep in mind the case of 17-year-old Yvon Poulin.In January 2004, Poulin was killed after he fell headfirst into a bailer while working near Peace River, Alberta. 1 During his three months on the job, Poulin complained about a lack of training.He was also looking for less dangerous work elsewhere.After his death, inspectors found Poulin's employer had failed to ensure an alarm system was installed to warn workers when the machine was in operation.Poulin's employer used a legal loophole to have charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act dismissed.This situation raises some compelling questions.Why would Poulin continue working at a dangerous job?Why would Poulin's employer not provide a safe workplace?What does the ability of Poulin's employer to evade liability say about why and how we regulate and compensate workplace injuries?The context in which work occurs helps us answer these questions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.