Risk aversion workers

A second benefit from employee involvement is that workers pick up information about workplace risk. Workers getting more information concerning job risk and the firm s safety efforts will help reduce uncertainty in their minds and thus increase the value of the employment experience for risk-averse workers. This lowers emplo5nnent costs and may improve worker productivity to the extent that safety behaviors depend upon workers attitudes and improved morale leads to higher productivity. 

The continuous hedonic equilibrium model is fully described by three simultaneous first-order differential equations and associated boundary conditions. The boundary conditions establish equilibrium at the zero and maximum risk levels by adjusting the value of wages and matching the least risk-averse workers to firms who are the least efficient producers of workplace safety. The zero profit condition determines the maximum level of injury risk. 

A general awareness of the potential dangers of exposing workers to high levels of any chemical should also have prevented such working practices. In the risk averse environment in which we live in today we... 

Now define a,- as the value of a where equation (3.5) holds with strict equality. Assuming a, the individual s risk aversion parameter, is continuously distributed workers with risk aversion greater than a,-choose employment with levels of safety greater than or equal to that in submarket i, which is (l-n,), while workers with lower risk aversion accept greater health hazards. Looking across all submarkets, we can identify j- values of a that uniquely sort workers into the j submarkets. 

Also included in Table 3-2 are the acceptance wage function for the most risk-averse (a = 0.98) and the least risk-averse (a = 0.96) workers and the offer wage function for firms with the most productive (p = 1) and least productive (p = 0.1) safety equipment. Acceptance and offer wage functions represent the monetized value of the indifference and isoprofit curves in wage/risk space. We derived asking and offer wages using the level of utility or profit for a completely safe... 

Acceptance Wage s the shadow value of the iso-utility function for workers with risk aversion given by a particular value of a and tc = 0. Offer Wage = the iso-profit function value for firms with safety productivity given by a particular value of p and 7i = 0. 

A numerical solution of hedonic labor market equilibrium requires specific functional forms to represent workers preferences, firms outputs, and the distribution functions of risk aversion and efficiency of safety measures. Appendix 4A fully describes the numerical model. Table 4-1 provides a summary listing of the model s structural equations and initial parameter values. In choosing starting values for the parameters underlying the model we reproduced labor market equilibrium just prior to the enactment of OSHA. 

L(-) is the density function of workers with respect to their risk aversion parameter (a), where a takes on values between some maximum and minimum with equal probabilities N -) is the demand for labor by an individual firm, which solves the firms three necessary conditions for maximum profit and F(p) is the density function of firms with respect to their efficiency of safety production, where 0left-hand side in the hedonic labor market equilibrium equation, (5.5), is the number of workers supplying labor to employers at each risk (ti) level, and appearing on the right-hand side of (5.5) is the quantity of labor demanded. ... 

Worker heterogeneity appears via interpersonal (stochastic) differences in the risk aversion parameter (a), which also determines whether a worker files an exaggerated WC claim. The condition for labor market equilibrium in (5.5) also has as an outcome that each firm, which is imiquely represented by a value of safety efficiency (p), hires a homogenous work force (as captured by a common value for a). The result of the matching mechanism in our simulation model is that at some levels of safety (p) all workers with nonimpairing injuries apply for WC benefits (fli = l) and all PPD workers apply for PTD benefits ( 2=1)-... 

It is not even clear if size of operation in itself is related to hazard management and the incidence of occupational trauma. A study of explicit and implicit risk pooling of small employers in the US workers compensation insurance market, based on the 1987 National Medical Expenditure Survey, found little support for the hypothesis that employees and dependents of small firms are likely to be averse to health risks should they obtain coverage comparable to that held by large-firm employees (Monheit Vistnes, 1994). 

Where a monetary value of averted dose is used in the control of occupational exposure, a baseline value for the monetary value of dose and an increase in this value as the individual dose approaches the dose limit may be applied. This approach is consistent with the aim of avoiding major disparities in the doses that are received by personnel of different types who work in the controlled area. This relationship reflects the aversion to both such disparities and to the risk itself and ensures that the major effort is focused on those workers who may receive the highest doses. 

---