Introduction
· What is the issue/problem? The problem is that too many people in the workplace are showing higher blood levels of lead than is thought to be healthy. This is due to a lack of precautions taken by both the employee and the workplace stemming from a potential need for knowledge on the subject.
· What current legislation has been proposed to address this? (Identify bill # and name) H.RES.375 Supporting the goals and ideals of Workers' Memorial Day in order to honor and remember the workers who have been killed or injured in the workplace. This bill was written to not only honor those workers killed or injured in the workplace but to use the day for promotion and awareness of workplace hazards.
Who is affected by the issue?
· Who is affected the most? Those most affected would be the employees of the workplaces that use lead on a regular basis. The employer/companies are also affected when the employees are unable to work due to health complications caused by the lead blood levels.
· Who loses, and what do they lose? The employee and company both lose in this situation ultimately.
· Who gains, and what do they gain? In this situation, it doesn’t seem as if anyone gains from this issue. The only thing I can think of is that the companies may gain from using lead in their production of products as opposed to alternate materials for various reasons.
What are the consequences of the issue?
· For the individuals mostly affected? Those who have higher levels of lead in their blood are more likely to develop certain diseases and disorders. Because of this, it is also more likely that their ability work remain in the workforce will be diminished.
· For their families? If the working employee is unable to work due to a condition that has developed from lead exposure, this could place much strain on the family. This includes various aspects: economic, social status, ability to interact in the public and within the household, etc.
What is the economic impact of the issue?
· What are the economic costs of the issue, and who bears these costs? The economic costs of this would affect the companies. This is through the loss of employees which means less production and also includes more payouts for health insurance. The employees would also suffer because they would not be able to work as much which would cause them to bring in less money to their families.
· What are the economic benefits of the issue, and who benefits? I don’t see any economic benefits of the issue. The only possible benefit is the company income from using lead to produce their products.
What is the social impact of the issue?
· What are the social costs of the issue, and who bears these costs? Those who are working in places with high potential exposure to lead are likely more towards the lower social status end of the spectrum.
· What are the social benefits of the issue, and who benefits? I do not believe there are any social benefits of the issue except for that those who are not directly affected by this may not notice the problem. This is likely those who are the people that run the companies.
What are the barriers?
· What are the barriers to addressing this issue? The amount of these incidents may not be because of the lack of knowledge but could simply be the lack of compliance. Also, it is hard to ensure that each employee takes personal responsibility to protect himself/herself when working with a potentially dangerous material.
· How can they be overcome? This can be overcome by essentially attacking this from every direction: education, mandating regulations within the workplace, etc.
What are the resources?
· What resources will we need to address this issue? Such safety organizations as NIOSH and OSHA can be used to educate companies about how to reduce the risk of getting high blood levels of lead. They can also enforce regulations and teach companies how to enforce them on their own in order to benefit everyone in the scenario. The legislation can also be used to encourage the backing of bills that promote work safety.
· Where and how can they be tapped? I can find much of this information for the organizations and my local representatives online. I can contact them by phone, email, or writing a letter. I actually found a webpage by CDC about who to contact in my state about this issue which I thought was pretty neat and will prove to be beneficial in the future.
What is the history of this issue?
In the 1990’s, surveillance was conducted in Minnesota to monitor the amount of cases that were filed. With the implementation of a program, the prevalence went down.
Allies & Opponents
· Who would support this issue? Employees, companies, and others involved would likely support this issue.
· Who would oppose this issue? The companies may oppose since they may not want to put the effort, time, and money into preventing lead poisoning in the workplace. This may also imply that the companies would have to monitor the amount of exposure an individual gets to lead.
· How can you involve allies and opponents in advocacy efforts? (What common ground can you share? How can you create a win-win for your allies and your opponents?) Making companies aware of the overall benefits that it would have, including its employees, would help get them motivated to support this issue. They would have better production, pay less in health insurance, and have fewer turnovers with employees. The employees would also benefit by staying healthy and staying in the workforce to support their family. They should know that they deserve to be protected when working with dangerous materials.
Your Recommendation
· How do you want policy-makers to vote on this proposed policy? I think policy-makers should vote yes to making a change to decrease the prevalence of lead poisoning from the workplace.
