Suazo, G A R and Jaselskis, E J (1993) Comparison of construction safety codes in United States and Honduras. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 119(3), pp. 560-572. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to provide managers in multinational construction firms with a comparison between American and Honduran safety approaches, specifically, differences between the Honduran Labor Code and the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Act. This research involved an extensive review of the safety laws in both countries and interviews with managers in the Honduran construction industry. Several differences in the safety approaches were identified. It was discovered that the Honduran Labor Code does not protect a large percentage of the construction workforce because most workers are considered temporary. Benefit compensation is low for permanently impaired workers who are covered under the workers' compensation program. Also, worker insurance compensation costs are evenly distributed among different industries; this means that safer industries pay for accidents of high-risk industries, and safer employers are penalized by having to pay for accidents caused by careless employers. Recommendations are provided to managers in multinational construction companies who are considering project work in Honduras and to the Honduran government for improving the labor regulations pertaining to safety. The findings of the present study may be applicable to other developing countries with similar laws related to worker safety.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | construction safety, program, regulation, Honduras, construction firm, United States, manager, developing country, interview, construction industry, compensation, insurance, occupational safety and health, multinational construction company |
| Subjects: | occupational health and safety management, environmental health, political science, industry analysis, software systems, development economics, Geography, economic analysis, organization, data collection methods, strategic management, practitioner, dispute resolution |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Geographical Context, Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Sustainability, Governance, Roles and Professions, International Construction, Legal Issues, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here