David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (2):139-154 (2002)
Blue-collar workers throughout the world generally face higher levels of pollution than the public and are unable to control many health risks that employers impose on them. Economists tend to justify these risky workplaces on the grounds of the compensating wage differential (CWD). The CWD, or hazard-pay premium, is the alleged increment in wages, all things being equal, that workers in hazardous environments receive. According to this theory, employees trade safety for money on the job market, even though they realize some of them will bear the health consequences of their employment in a risky occupational environment. To determine whether the CWD or hazard-pay premium succeeds in justifying alleged environmental injustices in the workplace, this essay (1) surveys the general theory behind the “compensating wage differential”; (2) presents and evaluates the “welfare argument” for the CWD; (3) offers several reasons for rejecting the CWD, as a proposed rationale for allowing apparent environmental injustice in the workplace; and (4) applies the welfare argument to an empirical case, that of US nuclear workers. The essay concludes that this argument fails to provide a justification for the apparent environmental injustice faced by the 600,000 US workers who have labored in government nuclear-weapons plants and laboratories.
|Keywords||compensating wage differential (CWD) occupational ethics nuclear workers ionizing radiation nuclear weapons hazard pay environmental injustice|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Colleen Murphy & Paolo Gardoni (2011). Evaluating the Source of the Risks Associated with Natural Events. Res Publica 17 (2):125-140.
Similar books and articles
Robert W. McGee (2010). Analyzing Insider Trading From the Perspectives of Utilitarian Ethics and Rights Theory. Journal of Business Ethics 91 (1):65 - 82.
K. S. Shrader-Frechette (2002). Risky Business: Nuclear Workers, Ethics, and the Market-Efficiency Argument. Ethics and the Environment 7 (1):1-23.
Erkki Koskela & Panu Poutvaara, Flexible Outsourcing and the Impacts of Labour Taxation in European Welfare States.
J. Lawrence French (2010). Children's Labor Market Involvement, Household Work, and Welfare: A Brazilian Case Study. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 92 (1):63 - 78.
Earl W. Spurgin (2006). Occupational Safety and Paternalism: Machan Revisited. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 63 (2):155 - 173.
Kristin Shrader-Frechette (2005). Mortgaging the Future: Dumping Ethics with Nuclear Waste. Science and Engineering Ethics 11 (4):518-520.
Laura McEnaney (2011). Veterans' Welfare, the GI Bill and American Demobilization. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 39 (1):41-47.
Kristin Shrader-Frechette (2004). Comparativist Rationality And. Topoi 23 (2):153-163.
Kristin Shrader-Frechette (2002). Risky Businessnuclear Workers, Ethics, and the Market-Efficiency Argument. Ethics and the Environment 7 (1):1-23.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads10 ( #138,576 of 1,096,455 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #238,630 of 1,096,455 )
How can I increase my downloads?