The aim of the present thesis is twofold: first, to analyse some practical ethical problems that stem from the workplace and the working environment and to offer guidelines concerning how such problems can be solved; second, to illuminate how the specific nature of work and the working environment is intimately connected to the relation between the employee and the employing entity, as set forth in an employment contract, and how the form and content of such contracts are, among other things, determined by culturally and socially established ideas. The normative question to be addressed is thus: which of these ideas should be maintained? This can be seen as a second-order, or more fundamental, ethical question whose answer depends on determining which normative principles are right. An additional aim of this thesis is thus to illuminate that the contract relation has relevance to practical ethical problems in the workplace context in this second-order mode. The thesis consists of an Introduction and five papers. In Paper I (written together with Sven Ove Hansson) we argue that employees have a prima facie right to privacy, but that this right can be overridden by competing moral principles that follow, explicitly or implicitly, from the contract of employment. A set of ethical criteria is developed and summarized in the form of a guideline for determining the moral status of infringements into workplace privacy. In Paper II these criteria are applied to three broad classes of privacy-intrusive workplace practices: (1) monitoring and surveillance, (2) genetic testing, and (3) drug testing. In relation to some scenarios on these themes, it is shown that it is possible to handle such practical ethical problems systematically by way of the proposed guideline. Paper III deals with the fact that employees are protected by health and safety standards that are less protective than those that apply to the general public. Emphasis is put on the distinction between exposure and risk, and this distinction is claimed to be a key determinant for the relevance of arguments put forward in support of such double standards. In Paper IV the nature of the contract of employment is explored from an ethical point of view. An argument is developed against the claim that (a) the individual’s freedom of decision and (b) the practice of institutional arrangements are sufficient to justify a contract of employment. Paper V questions the standpoint that the voluntariness of the contracting parties in an employment relationship has substantial value. One overarching issue concerns the meaning of voluntariness in the employment context, another, its normative importance. It is argued that it is indeterminate exactly where the line should be drawn between voluntary and non–voluntary agreements in this context. Concerning the latter issue, it is claimed that even if we were able to draw such a line, this fact does not tell us anything about the normative importance of the voluntariness condition, nor how much normative weight we should assign to the fulfilment of its conditions in the workplace context. / QC 20100915

<p>This thesis identifies and systematizes two categories ofpractical problems that stem from work and working environmentcontexts: workplace privacy and occupational health risks. Thefocus of the discussion is on ethical justification. Do we havereason to accept a certain level of (potential) harm toemployees by virtue of the fact that they are employees, and ifso, under what circumstances? The thesis consists of a briefintroduction and three essays.</p><p>In<i>Essay</i>I, it is argued that employees have a prima facieright to privacy, but that this right can be overridden bycompeting moral principles that follow, explicitly orimplicitly, from the contract of employment. Three types ofjustification are specified: those that refer to the employer'sinterests, those that refer to the interests of the employee,and those that refer to the interests of third parties. A setof ethical criteria is developed and used in the subsequentessay to determine the moral status of infringement ofworkplace privacy.</p><p>In<i>Essay</i>II, these criteria are applied to three broadcategories of intrusive workplace practices: (1) monitoring andsurveillance, (2) genetic testing, and (3) drug testing.Scenarios are used to show that such practical ethical problemscan be handled systematically using proposed guidelines. It isalso shown that some practices are dubious and at least some ofthem can be replaced by less intrusive means of ensuring thedesired outcome, for instance efficiency or safety in aworkplace.</p><p><i>Essay</i>III deals with the fact that health and safetystandards for employees are less protective than those thatapply to the public. Emphasis is put on the distinction betweenexposure and risk, and this distinction is claimed to be a keyfactor in the relevance of arguments in favour of such doublestandards. The analysis of 'double standards' for public andoccupational exposure to risk aims to show that a justificationof such standards is closely linked to two separate types ofissues, namely empirical and normative issues. It is claimedthat this kind of differentiation seems to be supported neitherby a reasonable conception of the contract of employment nor byany obvious ethical principle that is applicable to workplacesor work situations in general.</p><p><b>Key words:</b>Contract of employment, double standards,drug testing, ethics, ethical justification, exposure, genetictesting, health and safety standards, privacy, surveillance,risks, work, work environment</p>

Thesis (LLM.) -- University of Limpopo, 2017. / In South Africa, during the then apartheid era, the mining sector had records of extremely high fatalities, injuries and occupational diseases that led to massive death of miners predominantly the Blacks. In the post-apartheid era, numerous laws have been enacted to address the problem. One of the laws that was introduced is the Mine Health and Safety Act 29 of 1996 which provides for radical enforcement of health and safety standards using various mechanisms, such as monitoring systems and inspections, investigations, and employers' and employees' duties to identify hazards and eliminate, control and minimise the risk to health and safety of mine workers. This study examines the extent, efficient and efficacy of the implementation and enforcements of these laws and points out the challenges being encountered and prospects made thus far. The study used Australia and Chile for comparative study and showcased how the government and the laws they have passed are being effectively used to contain and curtail health hazards, accidents and fatalities in the mining environment.

This thesis identifies and systematizes two categories ofpractical problems that stem from work and working environmentcontexts: workplace privacy and occupational health risks. Thefocus of the discussion is on ethical justification. Do we havereason to accept a certain level of (potential) harm toemployees by virtue of the fact that they are employees, and ifso, under what circumstances? The thesis consists of a briefintroduction and three essays. InEssayI, it is argued that employees have a prima facieright to privacy, but that this right can be overridden bycompeting moral principles that follow, explicitly orimplicitly, from the contract of employment. Three types ofjustification are specified: those that refer to the employer'sinterests, those that refer to the interests of the employee,and those that refer to the interests of third parties. A setof ethical criteria is developed and used in the subsequentessay to determine the moral status of infringement ofworkplace privacy. InEssayII, these criteria are applied to three broadcategories of intrusive workplace practices: (1) monitoring andsurveillance, (2) genetic testing, and (3) drug testing.Scenarios are used to show that such practical ethical problemscan be handled systematically using proposed guidelines. It isalso shown that some practices are dubious and at least some ofthem can be replaced by less intrusive means of ensuring thedesired outcome, for instance efficiency or safety in aworkplace. EssayIII deals with the fact that health and safetystandards for employees are less protective than those thatapply to the public. Emphasis is put on the distinction betweenexposure and risk, and this distinction is claimed to be a keyfactor in the relevance of arguments in favour of such doublestandards. The analysis of 'double standards' for public andoccupational exposure to risk aims to show that a justificationof such standards is closely linked to two separate types ofissues, namely empirical and normative issues. It is claimedthat this kind of differentiation seems to be supported neitherby a reasonable conception of the contract of employment nor byany obvious ethical principle that is applicable to workplacesor work situations in general. Key words:Contract of employment, double standards,drug testing, ethics, ethical justification, exposure, genetictesting, health and safety standards, privacy, surveillance,risks, work, work environment