A Nozickian Case for Compulsory Employment Injury Insurance: The Example of Sweatshops

2Citations
Citations of this article
27Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Production in sweatshops entails an elevated risk of occupational injury and sickness due to accidents and exposure to dangerous working conditions. As most sweatshop locations lack basic social security systems, health problems have severe consequences for affected workers. Against this background, this article considers what obligations employers of sweatshop labor have to their workers, and how they should meet them. Based on core libertarian concepts, it shows that they are morally responsible for health problems caused by their management decisions, that they should compensate affected workers, and that they must prevent potentially irreversible health problems. In line with Nozick’s contractarian method, the article further argues that these obligations should be implemented through a compulsory employment injury insurance system. Such a system would impose industry-wide health and safety standards, in contrast to the view that libertarianism excludes any labor regulation for the protection of workers, as an illegitimate interference in voluntary labor contracts.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bäumlisberger, D. (2021). A Nozickian Case for Compulsory Employment Injury Insurance: The Example of Sweatshops. Journal of Business Ethics, 173(1), 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04535-z

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free