Occupational Health and Safety Theories: La_Camera Restaurant

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary
Introduction
Discussion
Conclusions and Evaluation
Reference List
Footnotes

Executive Summary

The issue of occupational health and safety covers a wide array of factors that influence the health and personal safety conditions in the workplace. The theories that form the basis for consideration of the issues of the La_Camera Restaurant include the classic deterrence model, the responsive regulation model, and behavior reasoning theory.

The methodology used in the paper included the application of these theories in the situation at La_Camera to determine the theoretical impact of their application and the potential to improve operations.

The recommendations offered for La_Camera include the use of more positive methods of enforcing occupational health policies, reduction in the use of the punitive measures, and the implementation of the measures to mitigate not just safety risks, but also health risks affecting the employees.

Introduction

Framework for the Report

The issue of occupational health and safety is a wide body of knowledge that deals with safety in the workplace. Employees have a right to work in a safe environment that guarantees their personal safety and health.¹ The focus on occupational health and safety is not just accidents that occur in the workplace.²

It also includes diseases that people get when they are at work, depending on the working conditions. Working conditions can cause health deterioration among workers, apart from workplace injuries. This report focuses on occupational health in the context of the La_Camera Restaurant. A previous examination of the operations of the restaurant showed that there were some theoretical possibilities to improve the occupational safety and health practices.

The report identified various ways that the restaurant could use to improve its work. The original report looked at the three theories, and it examined one in detail. The purpose of this work is to look at different ways of implementing this theory in the context of the La_Camera Restaurant.

Context Analysis

The three theories that formed the backbone of the previous report were the classic deterrence model, the responsive regulation model, and the behavior reasoning theory.³ The classic deterrence model states that the best way to reduce accidents in a workplace is to deter people from committing the accidents by implementing the punitive measures.

The responsive regulation model sought to bring in the positive motivation aspect in it by creating rewards for people who were reported to take occupational health and safety risks. The third theory, the behavior reasoning theory, assumes that people act based on certain reasons hence if the employees get good reasons to observe high standards of safety in their workplaces, then there is a good chance that they will uphold the required standards.

These three models informed the study of the application of occupational health at the restaurant. In addition to these, there was an effort to investigate the operations of the restaurant, in order to determine how well the models applied work in the restaurant.

This involved the examination of the relationship between the restaurant waiters and the managers to determine whether they were predisposed to better occupational health and safety operations.

In addition, the report looked at some of the policies relating to the sources of injury and risk that seemed to have an influence on the practice of occupational health and safety. The other issues that informed the study included the role of regulators and clients at the restaurant.

Methodology

This exercise will look at the theories afresh in order to identify clearer strategies of their implementation. Without invalidating the classic deterrence model, this work will focus more on the other two theories. The reason for this is that the scope of the responsive regulation model covers the implications of the classical deterrence model, hence there is no need to revisit the implications of the theory in detail.⁴

On the other hand, the behavior reasoning theory forms an important viewpoint to help in understanding the responsive regulation theory. This makes it important as a part of this detailed analysis of the implications of these theories in the La_Camera Restaurant.

The second element of the method applied for this study is that there will be another look at the relationships between the staff of the La_Camera Restaurant to create a concise picture of the occupational health and safety issues in the restaurant. The final element of the methodology is the comparison of the occupational health and safety practices at the restaurant with other establishments to identify the lessons that the La_Camera Restaurant can adopt.

Discussion

Research Findings

The findings of the previous research fall into three major categories, along in line with the three theories. Under the classical deterrence model, it was clear that there were measures instituted at the café to ensure that the members of staff found it easier to conform to safety standards than to risk to have the penalties of violation.

For instance, the restaurant charges broken cutlery to the waiters responsible for that, hence it is in the interest of every waiter to keep the utensils from breaking. One of the unintended consequences of this policy is that when no one witnesses the breaking of the utensils, then no one owns up to the loss because of the penalties imposed on the offender.

Secondly, the responsive regulation model was not in full use at the restaurant. There were no clear incentives for the staff to participate willingly in the development and implementation of the occupational health and safety standards. The attractiveness of this model came from the fact that while it allowed people to interact freely, it alienated the leadership, making it difficult for the staff members to volunteer information.

Thirdly, there is sufficient verification for the behavior reasoning theory because of the occupational health and safety theories at work at the La_Camera. It is not difficult to find reasons for each of the prevalent attitudes towards reporting incidents that have an influence on occupational health and safety.⁵ The fact that the policies of the company tend to punish employees that enhance risk factors makes it unattractive for them to report such incidences.

Despite the problems with the manner in which the restaurant approaches occupation health and safety issues, it is nonetheless clear that the restaurant puts a premium on safety issues. Its policies actually came up to protect the employees and the customers that patronize the restaurant.

The existence of the strict codes still makes it a safe environment to work. The only issue with it is the negative notions that the codes seem to evoke among staff caused by the safety procedures. Another strong point of the system is the fact that it allocates responsibility of addressing the risk factors in a logical way, having a clear chain of command.

It is the responsibility of the staff member responsible for spillages, breakages, and minor personal accidents to deal with the cause immediately. The responsibility moves upwards to the supervisors and then the managers. This feature of the occupational health and safety procedures makes it very easy to stop any further risk to the rest of the staff members.

Analysis of Findings

The findings are consistent with the predictions of the theories of occupation health. It is true that many organizations tend to use negative motivation to address health and safety issues in the workplace. The reasons for doing this vary, but they seem to make sense. However, the best practices in occupational health and safety seem to be counter intuitive.

Instead of seeking to keep things safe by using threats, it is better to use encouraging methods because people respond better to encouragement rather than punishment. This does not mean that there should be no recourse for negligence or willful actions likely to threaten the safety of the workplace.

It means there must be a system that encourages the reporting and documentation of the occurrence of the safety risk factors in order to control them. One of the approaches is to give a monetary reward to employees with good safety records, or to base performance pay on safety activities.

It can also include having rewards for employees that come up with ideas that can help improve the safety of the place as they aid in identifying risk factors that the restaurant does not formally recognize. Another option is to put up some kind of reward for the safest shift to encourage teamwork in the area of occupational health and safety.

One of the best practices at the La_ Camera is that there is a very clear chain of command when it comes to occupational health and safety. The restaurant reporting lines also serve as the chain of responsibility when it comes to the assessment and elimination of safety factors. This clarity helps a lot in cases of emergencies and enforcement of policies. It is the best practice recognized in occupational health and safety field.

As it is common in many workplaces, there is too much focus on the safety of the employees and patrons at the restaurant, and very little focus on the health concerns that come about in the course of duty.

The research showed that many organizations tend to focus on safety and completely ignore the health component mainly because health issues are more difficult to detect and relate to the workplace. The La_Camera does not have clear protocols or policies relating to the health the workers especially concerning the health problems that activities at work can cause.

On the one hand, there are strict regulations that govern the entire hospitality industry relating to communicable diseases because of the risk of spreading them to clients.⁶ However, there is very little attention to the health risks the staff faces on a daily basis. For instance, chefs spend a lot of their time in smoky and humid conditions as they prepare dishes. Waiters do not have many options when it comes to serving smoking clients in the sections of the restaurant for smokers.

Examples of Application of Occupational Health and Safety Theories

A study on occupational safety showed that one of the most prevalent health complications that are the results of workplace injuries all over the world is the musculoskeletal disorder.⁷ This is an injury of the muscles, tendons, and nerves. The leading cause of these disorders is poor ergonomics.⁸

The working conditions require the repeated use of certain body parts that experience inordinate strain over time. Some industries have more risk of these injuries as compared to others. However, virtually all workplaces have factors that predispose workers to these conditions. The risk factors are not very severe in the hospitality industry, but some aspects of working there can result in health deterioration of the workers.

Waiters and chefs tend to spend many hours running their feet off moving about the kitchen and the restaurant hall. In addition, waiters carry several pounds of weight on each trip, either carrying food to the customers, or bringing back used utensils. These actions, continued for many years, can cause severe back pain. In addition, if the waiters and chefs use inappropriate shoes, than it can cause or aggravate lower back pain.

This case shows that there is a need to enforce certain working conditions such as the length of a shift and the weight that a serving tray should not exceed. This is easier to implement by limiting the size of the tray used by the waiters. In addition, the restaurants should determine the best type of shoes adapted to work for long hours for both waiters and chefs. This measure will result in less strain during working hours and lesser risk of absenteeism from work.

To illustrate the application of the responsive regulation model, there are documented evidences of cases when workers developed terminal lung disease because of working in a popcorn-processing factory.⁹ Occupation health practitioners related the disease to a particular chemical used to line popcorn flavoring.

he chemical, diacetyl, is one of the known causes of bronchiolitis obliterans, a rare and poorly documented lung ailment. This chemical caused death of a number of employees who worked for Jasper Popcorn Company by inducing brochiolitis obliterans. At the time the employees became ill, it was not yet clear that it was the cause of infection.

The chemical occurs naturally in milk and vegetables in trace quantities. Hence, it did not seem to present any serious risk to the employees. Jasper Popcorn company decided to increase the quantities that were used to line its popcorns because it improved the butter taste in popcorns. Upon identification of the chemical as a possible cause of lung disease, there was little intervention from the authorities because there were no procedures to deal with the issue.

It took litigation efforts to bring the issue to public attention precipitating redemptive actions. In this sense, the lack of procedures to deal with unforeseen consequences in occupational health led to the unsatisfactory management of the diacetyl problem, which ended up causing the death of many employees in the popcorn industry.

The lessons for the La-Camera Restaurant from this situation is that there is a risk of causing harm to employees provided there are no procedures for dealing with the issues. It should encourage the restaurant to take its time to develop procedures that take into account the health of the employees in the workplace.

The third occupational health case study is the place of occupational health in the construction sector.¹⁰ This sector is one with the highest safety risks, and normally requires the use of various safety measures.¹¹ The focus of construction on safety comes from the fact that the industry has many risks associated with the safety of the workers. Workers face risks from falling objects, machinery, heavy lifting, and related physical processes.

This greatly reduces attention to the health risks that come with construction. In addition, construction projects do not last long enough for the full impact of the health risks associated with the work to manifest. This situation illustrates the need to focus on responsive regulation for such conditions. The La-Camera Restaurant should be careful to take into consideration both safety and health concerns of the employees.

Conclusions and Evaluation

Summary of Findings

In conclusion, the practical application of the responsive regulation works better that the single application of classic deterrence model in occupational health. Using deterrence alone makes people develop resistance to the process, and it requires a constant input of pressure to make the process effective.

Responsive regulation is central to the effective implementation of occupational health measures because of its capacity to develop both deterrent and encouragement measures. Secondly, there is a necessity to make up a balance of health and safety measures that an organization puts in place to deal with its occupational health and safety concerns.

Overemphasizing one at the expense of the other can lead to unfavorable long-term consequences. Focus on health alone would cause casualties in the area of safety. Lack of safety can be fatal in a very short time. However, lack of measures to protect the health of employees can lead to long-term consequences threatening business continuity.

The third theory evaluated in the exercise, the behavior reasoning model, relies on reasons as the basis for action in occupational health. It assumes that everything people do comes from a reason or a combination of reasons. Therefore, it seeks to provide people with the reasons they need to practice effective occupational health and safety standards.

Its impact is not unique apart from the other theories. Therefore, its impacts fully lay within the purview of the responsive regulation framework. In this sense, it is useful as a supporting theory, but is not an essential theory in the development of an effective occupational safety and health framework.

In relation to the La_Camera Restaurant, there is an opportunity for it to improve its occupational health and safety operations by using the responsive regulation model. In particular, the restaurant needs to explore more ways of encouraging the staff to observe high health and safety standards without the undue fear of reprimand. This will create a positive working atmosphere and a less acrimonious place to work.

Evaluation of the Research Process

The process used in this research had two main thrusts. First, there was the development of a theoretical framework to examine the occupational health practices at the La_Camera, and then there was a process to determine the application of these theories to identify loopholes and opportunities for improving the current implementation platform.

The process relied on the theories to develop ideas to be used at the restaurant. The recommendations made from the theories make it clear that the use of theories can help develop useful models for planning the application of occupational health and safety strategies. This approach integrates theoretical development of concepts with their practical application in the field of occupational health and safety.

Reference List

Bluff,E, N Gunningham, & R Johnstone, OHS Regulation for a Changing World of Work. Sydney: Federation Press, 2004.

Bohle P, M Quinlan, Managing Occupational Health and Safety: A Multidisciplinary Approach. South Yarra: Macmillan Educational AU, 2000.

Burke RJ, CL Cooper, & S Clarke, Occupational Health and Safety. Surrey: Gower Publishing, 2011.

Hudson P, “Safety Management and Safety Culture: The Long, Hard and Winding Road,” in Proceedings of the National Conference on Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems, Melbourne, 2001, pp. 3-32.

Lingard H, & SM Rowlinson, Occupational Health and Safety in Construction Project Management. Oxon: Taylor & Francis, 2005.

Markkanen P, D Kriebel, J Ticker, &M Jacobs, “Injuries are not Accidents,” Lessons Learned: Solutions for Workplace Safety and Health, pp. 78-88, January 2011.

Markkanen P, D Kriebel, J Tickner, & MJ Molly, “When my Job Breaks My Back: Shouldering the Burden of Work- Related Muscoloskeletal Disorders,” Lessons Learned: Solutions for Workplace Safety and Health, pp. 19-40, January 2011.

Molly J, D Kriebel, and Joel Ticker, “The Poison that Smells Like Butter: Diacetyl and Popcorn Workers’ Lung Disease,” Lessons Learned: Solutions for Workplace Safety and Health, pp. 41-57, January 2011.

Stellman JM, Encyclopeadia of Occupational Health and Safety. Geneva: International Labour Organnization, 1998.

Walters D, K Frick, & R Johnstone, Regulation Workplace Risks: A Comparative Study of Inspection Regimes in Times of Change. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2011.

WHO, Declaration of Workers Health. Stresa: WHO Collaborating Centres of Occupational Health, 2006.

Footnotes

¹ E Bluff, N Gunningham, & R Johnstone, OHS Regulation for a Changing World of Work. Sydney: Federation Press, 2004.

² P Bohle, M Quinlan, Managing Occupational Health and Safety: A Multidisciplinary Approach. South Yarra: Macmillan Educational AU, 2000.

³ P Hudson, “Safety Management and Safety Culture: The Long, Hard and Winding Road,” in Proceedings of the National Conference on Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems, Melbourne, 2001, pp. 3-32.

⁴ JM Stellman, Encyclopeadia of Occupational Health and Safety. Geneva: International Labour Organnization, 1998.

⁵ D Walters, K Frick, & R Johnstone, Regulation Workplace Risks: A Comparative Study of Inspection Regimes in Times of Change. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2011.

⁶ WHO, Declaration of Workers Health. Stresa: WHO Collaborating Centres of Occupational Health, 2006.

⁷ P Markkanen, D Kriebel, J Tickner, & MJ Molly, “When my Job Breaks My Back: Shouldering the Burden of Work- Related Muscoloskeletal Disorders,” Lessons Learned: Solutions for Workplace Safety and Health, pp. 19-40, January 2011.

⁸ RJ Burke, CL Cooper, & S Clarke, Occupational Health and Safety. Surrey: Gower Publishing, 2011.

⁹ Molly J, D Kriebel, and J Ticker, “The Poison that Smells Like Butter: Diacetyl and Popcorn Workers’ Lung Disease,” Lessons Learned: Solutions for Workplace Safety and Health, pp. 41-57, January 2011.

¹⁰ P Markkanen, D Kriebel, J Ticker, &M Jacobs, “Injuries are not Accidents,” Lessons Learned: Solutions for Workplace Safety and Health, pp. 78-88, January 2011.

¹¹ H, Lingard, & SM Rowlinson, Occupational Health and Safety in Construction Project Management. Oxon: Taylor & Francis, 2005.

Click Here To Order Now!