80.        In this editorial, the author argues that it makes financial sense for employers to
make the workplace safer, in support of this claim the author reasons that since wages
paid to employees should increase as the risk of physical injury increases, the converse
should be true as well. Hence, by decreasing the risk of injury, employers could
decrease the wages paid to workers and thereby save money. This argument is
unconvincing for two reasons.
      To begin with the author assumes that because companies would agree that as risk
of injury increases wages should also increase, they would also agree that as risk
decreases wages should also decrease accordingly. This is tantamount to the assumption
that risk of injury is the primary factor that determines workers' wages. It is obvious
that few employers, and even fewer employees, would agree that this is the case. To
adopt this position one would have to disregard education, experience, and skill as
equally important factors in determining the wages paid to workers.
      Secondly, the author's reasoning suggests that the only benefit of a safer
workplace is the savings employers could realize from lower wages. This is obviously
not true. The costs associated with accidents on the job could far outweigh any savings
that could be realized by paying workers lower wages.
      In conclusion, the author's argument is unconvincing. Risk of injury is an
important factor to consider in determining the wages paid to workers but is not the only
such factor. Furthermore, there are far better reasons for employers to make the
workplace safe' than the one presented by the author.