The Employer-Employee Relationship and the Right to Know By Anita M. Superson

Autonomy for a worker = having a say in what happens to his or her person in the workplace. At a minimum this means knowing about the health and safety hazards that are present.

Do employers fully disclose safety hazards to employees? Probably not in actual practice. Case law seems ambiguous about employees’ right to know. The issue appears to turn on whether disclosure is seen as harming the employer’s competitive position by disclosing trade secrets.

Why don’t employers disclose hazards (fully or otherwise)? The common lack of trust between employer and employee decreases expectations (by the employee) and motivation (for the employer). Employers may be tempted to hide hazards in order to increase profit, thereby treating employees as means to the employers’ end.

Should employers fully disclose safety hazards to employees? On Kantian grounds – “Yes.” Autonomy demands informed consent. On contract theory – “Yes.” Employment involves an implied contract between employer and employee, and contracts can be fair only if they rest on informed consent (or informed mutual obligation).

Should employers fully disclose safety hazards to employees, continued? On Friedman’s notion that business is obliged to increase profits, but only so long as it avoids fraud and deception – “Yes.” In the long run, fraud and deception will lead to the collapse of commerce. On the basis that the free market requires full and perfect information – “Yes.”