The Ethical Implications of Danger Pay
Society has continuously been looking for ways to advance, whether that be in technology, literature, science, or athletics. Along with society’s advancement, the work sector has both grown and changed innumerably. The workforce has expanded greatly, and the specialization of jobs has reached an all-time high. As society has continued to progress, people have grown to express a strengthening dislike for unethical working practices, whether that be unsafe working environments or insufficient wages. This has led to a strong stigmatization of certain work practices which could be deemed unethical. One of the most notable condemnations has been the growing criticism of the practice of danger payment. Danger pay is a form of extra compensation given to employees for performing a potentially dangerous or even life threatening job. This compensation could be a monetary benefit, such as extra pay, or a tangible benefit, such as free schooling for an employee’s children. Danger pay, or hazard pay, is used by employers in order to incentivize workers to work in conditions which could potentially result in injury or even death.
There has been great movement to improve the ethicality of working practices in order to ensure that all people have the right to work in safe and beneficial environments. Many different sources have been responsible for the growing investment in the social working conditions. Historically, books and the media have portrayed the highly unsafe working conditions many people have been forced to work in, which has prompted a strong movement against risky working practices. Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle described the highly unsafe working conditions in meatpacking industries, and first highlighted the terrible situations workers had to face in the United States. Depictions like SInclair’s have led to a growth in the discontent amongst citizens regarding practices considered dangerous or unethical, and have caused the government to take action in order to prevent such circumstances. Agencies such as the Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration (OSHA) were created in order to regulate unsafe working environments and punish employers who did not comply (Robinson). The Fair Labor Standards Act was passed in order to create a baseline on which companies should operate in terms of payment for employees (US Department of Labor). This growing contempt for jobs considered dangerous by some has created many issues, ranging from a growing need to incentivize companies to convince them to create ethical working environments to an ongoing debate over the fair and necessary minimum wage. The epitome of all consequences has been the dramatic decline in the number of workers willing to work in traditionally “dangerous,” and yet essential, careers.
Employers and companies have created numerous techniques to bridge the disparity between the number of hazardous job vacancies and the number of people willing to work in potentially hazardous situations. The most effective of these techniques has been the creation of hazard pay. Hazard pay has been used as an indirect solution to the vacancies in dangerous jobs for many years. Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations (1776), which is widely considered to be the primary basis for modern economics, describes the concepts of wages and why they differ from career to career, and first addresses the concept of danger pay. Through this, Smith explains that the dangers of a job inherently affect the wages paid. He states that jobs with higher instances of danger consequently have higher wages. This theorem has not been validated in present day however, since there are many careers, such as sanitation or garbage workers, in which workers are still paid low wages but have high instances of danger through their work. Thus, while The Wealth of Nations addresses the concept of danger pay, it considers the payment a form of a higher salary rather than an added compensation, which is not quite as relatable to society today.
The wages for danger pay differ between every job, and it is up to the discretion of the employer to decide how much to pay and when to pay the wage. Some workplaces have instituted danger pay policies which operate on a case by case basis, depending on this situation each worker is in. In these instances, the hazard pay is an extremely variable source of pay, and this variability of the payment has led to strong denunciations by critics. However, other institutions have implemented a mandatory hazard pay policy. This mandatory danger pay has alleviated some of the criticisms that came along with the previously highly variable danger pay policies. The UN, a multinational and intergovernmental organization recognized by numerous countries, has created an obligatory payment for employees working in a list of areas classified as “dangerous” by the UN. These areas are usually plagued by civil unrest and war, which means they are highly hazardous areas to live in. The United Nations has set a very high ethical standard throughout the globe. Consequently, the fact that it has implemented a danger pay policy may set a precedent for other countries and organizations to follow, which could mitigate some of the criticisms levelled against a variable danger pay policy..
There is a very strong stigma around the concept of danger pay; the term alone has many negative ethical connotations. Thus, companies generally try to avoid participating in “hardship allowance” or danger pay transactions with employees. However, in some cases, a danger pay allowance is unavoidable for employers, because the job vacancy will not be filled by anyone unless there is extra compensation involved (BBC News). There are numerous reasons that could explain why a company would choose to implement a danger pay policy, despite knowing the backlash its decision would face. According to BBC News, a credible news organization recognized worldwide for its trustworthy distribution of information and news, these influences could range from regional factors such as economic instability and political unrest to geographic factors like extreme weather or pollution (BBC News).
Numerous concerns have been raised over the ethical implications of danger pay, which is primarily why the concept is so stigmatized. These criticisms have prevented many companies from being able to comfortably announce a danger pay policy, which further increases the amount of vacancies in the dangerous job sector.
Some critics claim that danger pay places a hypothetical “price tag” on a human life, establishing a monetary value on their safety and wellbeing. By paying an employee to risk their life, the employer would essentially be implementing a “down payment” on a person’s life (Robinson). Critics view this as an immoral practice which degrades the meaning of the human life.
Others argue that danger pay creates a social cleavage in society, coercing or incentivizing only certain types of people to work in more dangerous jobs. According to Time magazine, almost all of the most dangerous jobs in the United States are primary jobs, such as logging, construction, and repair work (TIME Magazine). Thus, these critics argue that by instituting the concept of danger pay, people from lower social classes who generally work primary jobs will be more likely to risk their life in order to receive the extra compensation, since their pay is so elastic. This is because there is much less variety in the jobs available to the poor, since the poor generally perform unskilled labor. Consequently, by implementing the policy of danger pay, an exploitation of the poorest social classes would occur, since they would be most likely to work the “dangerous jobs.”
Critics of danger pay also argue that the concept of danger is also ill defined. Danger is such an abstract concept that there is no one literal definition of what is dangerous and what is not. Each person’s interpretation of danger may differ from those around them. These critics argue that there are no definite standards to establish which job is qualifying of danger payment or not. For instance, in one instance, nurses demanded extra compensation due to their increased chances of being infected by the Ebola virus (Al Jazeera News). In another instance however, coal miners have demanded pay raises due to their unsafe working conditions and high risk of lung disease. Both situations meet the standard for a hazard pay, but if employers were to consider every danger of every job, almost every career would qualify for an additional hazard pay policy. This lack of a proper definition or standard for danger pay has led to the criticism that if a danger pay policy were to be implemented, many employees would began to demand a hazard pay, since the concept of what actually constitutes as dangerous is so abstract and varies from between persons and situations. Endorsers of danger pay discredit this criticism by stating that danger pay should only apply to situations in which the probability of being exposed to danger is high and not a purely hypothetical or improbable chance.
Multiple alternatives to danger pay and solutions to the ethical dilemma have been proposed. The most obvious solution seems to be to simply create safer working environments. However, it is highly unlikely completely safe working conditions will be established in all dangerous jobs, so a danger pay policy must be implemented until employers can establish such conditions.
Another solution proposed has been to simply eliminate the concept of danger pay altogether. However, it is not quite so simple. Employers argue that without danger pay, there would be no alternative for the company to hire workers, since no worker would willingly work in such a dangerous environment without any sort of incentive. Studies done by Mercer University, a credible college institution which performs reliable research, has found that upwards of seventy percent of companies worldwide have no price ceiling on the amount of money they pay as a worker “danger pay” (Mercer University). This is due to the difference between the high inelastic demand for employees and the extremely elastic supply of workers. Companies are willing to pay almost any price for danger pay because they are so desperate for employees, which proves that without danger pay, the instances of workers willing to be employed would decline dramatically. This highly inelastic demand is due to the fact that many jobs requiring danger pay are necessity for societal growth and advancement. Jobs such as sanitation workers and military employment are highly vital to aiding helping a country’s growth, and yet they are also some of the most dangerous jobs present. Thus, a solution of simply eliminating the job that has been considered dangerous is not very feasible, since many of these jobs are extremely vital for social and economic advancement of a country, and eliminating them would severely limit a country.
Another solution raised has been the potential use of machines for the work instead. Proponents of this solution state that the use of machines would eliminate the need for danger pay altogether.. Employers on the other hand have argued that many jobs with an institutional danger pay policy are unable to function if carried out by machines. For example, military employment cannot be replaced by machinery, mostly because such technology does not yet exist. Employers also argue that if machines were to replace people jobs, there would be a dramatic rise in unemployment, which would cause a sharp decline in economic growth and functionality. Further, employers argue that high unemployment rates would inhibit many workers’ abilities to advance in society, since many jobs would be eliminated, which would allegedly lead to a decline in worker self-efficacy and mental health (A World Without Work).
A more effective solution is implementing an entirely intangible form of danger payment. The intangible benefits could include housing in the region, shorter work hours, increased vacation time, and other benefits that are not a monetary form of compensation. This way, there would be no ethical dilemmas raised over placing a “price tag” on a worker’s life, since the payment is not monetary. Further, this would also help alleviate the worker shortage, because workers would still have some sort of incentive to join a dangerous career, even though it may not necessarily be a monetary benefit. Consequently, an intangible danger payment policy would diminish the vacancies in employment while also addressing many criticisms that have been raised. However, one aspect of this solution that is not addressed is the social cleavage that would be created in society between the poor and the rich, because the rich do not necessarily need the intangible benefits. The rich can already afford items such as good housing and taking time off for vacation, among other things, so they will have no incentive to take up a career which could be considered dangerous when they do not need the incentives.
These “dangerous jobs” are vital to the growth of society and the economy. Without them, society would not be able to function. Consequently, some sort of incentive is necessary to fill the vacancies in the dangerous job sector. However, there are still such strong ethical implications surrounding the concept. The only way to address this stigmatization of “danger pay” is to implement a program which could incentivize workers without being deemed immoral, because until this is done, the disparity between the number of jobs available and the number of workers willing to complete those jobs will continue to increase, inhibiting societal growth and economic development grea