In any event, graveyard shifts can be treacherous amidst of various diseases. As stated from litigants’ comments, “Can you push a prolapsed bladder back into place aware of the negative changes in his health condition as a result of being forced to work on the night shift; REMEC failed and refused to make changes to accommodate Plaintiff’s deteriorating health condition.” However, after much persistence, harassment, and three-way conferences were a graveyard shift behind me.
Nonetheless, switching from graveyard to day shift becomes a challenge. In addition individuals who endure long-term graveyard with sudden day shift changes develop jet lag symptoms. In essence employees become human switches for a company’s workforce.
Nonetheless, individuals research attempt toward discovering unusual chemical performance. Furthermore, investigative manufacturer’s MSDS shows known cancer chemical presence. In addition suspected container appears mislabeled requiring location of source container. In other words, contents from an identified source container are poured into a non-identifying container without proper labeling or individual knowledge. Therefore, MSDS chemical product tracking was nonexistent. Nevertheless, although minute cancer chemical, ethylene oxide, is present in deionized water, manufacturer’s warning recommends path toward caution.
On the other hand, as alternate safer solutions such as deionized (DI) water are available and right-to-know processes appear lacking, health and safety moderators appear unconcerned toward product contents. As stated by Workman (2007), “After reviewing the updated MSDS for the cleaning solution, I do not see that it presents a substantial hazard. Since individuals may have different reactions to contact with this cleaner, REMEC provides gloves to employees upon request”. However, because communication, gloves, and cancers appear challenged, cancer prevention serves as a superior alternative. In other words, Remec and others should not create cancer patients such that cancer solutions or vaccines can be discovered. Miserably, when individuals become expendable objects, when employees primary language is not English, occupational diseases through non-communication will continue.
Nonetheless, chemical mishandling prompted upper management notification. As stated in litigant’s report, “Plaintiff complained to his management at REMEC about the improper and dangerous use of a chemical industrial cleaning solution being improperly used and handled by REMEC employees.” In essence health reform through prevention of skin cancers can not occur. Unhappily and shortly thereafter, management terminated the employee. Hence, health reform through prevention creates retaliation. In any event, OSHA required Remec Defense and Space to perform corrective actions whereas upper management tackles employee retentions.
The following research concludes health reform using preventable measures is desired. Unfortunately, individuals or employees who communicate health reform will receive company retaliation. Furthermore, when hiring practices are toward limited-English candidates, then health and safety practices lingers. Additionally, given that employees fear of unemployment or retaliatory activities, then workplace calamities will continue. As stated by Bernhardt, Ph.D. et al. (2009), “Despite the existence of legal protection from retaliation, many workers chose not to make complaints to their employers, even when they encountered substandard conditions in the workplace” (p. 28). In essence health reform retaliation will continue regardless of labor law regulations. However, although pre-existing conditions can lead toward spiraling healthcare costs, focuses toward healthcare reform using prevention without retaliation appears as a superior alternative solution.