I’m looking for references saying that employees generally believe that their employers are obligated to provide a favorable (e.g., satisfying, healthful, safe) working environment. Any suggestions?
I am thinking about the literature on perceived psychological contract. Do you think it is relevant?
Nathan, I don't have references but I think you asked an important question. As per Brian Lyons's suggestion, OSHA's original General Duty Clause is as follows:
SEC. 5. Duties
(a) Each employer --
(1) shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees;
(2) shall comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this Act.
29 USC 654
(b) Each employee shall comply with occupational safety and health standards and all rules, regulations, and orders issued pursuant to this Act which are applicable to his own actions and conduct.
I think there is room for interpretation in the General Duty Clause. In workplaces where employees are exposed to incivility, we must remember that part of the definition of incivility is that the intention of the person from whom the incivility flows is unclear. In addition, many employees may be reluctant to voice concern when exposures are more troublesome for fear of losing their job.
My general response is to your question is that a good place to begin is with a qualitative study of employees, and I think you are the person to do it. Find out what employees think about the duty of an employer and how what they think squares with what they experience on the job. Such a study could help lay the groundwork for a more quantitatively organized study.
Perhaps it might be useful to look at this in a slightly different and measurable way. There are reference that get to the essence of your question in a different way. Economists since Adam Smith have viewed compensating wage differentials as part of the fundamental question that you asked. The idea is that if workers are not comfortable, they are less inclined to apply or stay in a job without something to compensate them such as higher wage rates. In other words, employers that do not provide what workers want, typically must pay more. A complicating factor is that the preferences and tolerance of workers differ with respect to working conditions. For example, some of our former graduate students enjoy the outdoors in a rugged environment while others prefer to work in a an office. Some workers may not be concerned with a bit more risk and might even enjoy it (e.g., race car drivers, test pilots, astronauts, and others).
An older but valuable REStat article, Valuing Risk in the Workplace: Market Price, Willingness to Pay, and the Optimal Provision of Safety by Herzog and Schlottmann may give you some ideas. The link below should allow access to the full article. I hope this reference helps and another perspective inspires creativity.
Rob
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2109354?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Nathan, I think Rob Catlett's idea makes sense. But I add one point. Many workers who have jobs in which they are subjected to a great deal of adversity face very high barriers to leaving. Johannes Siegrist, in responding to criticism that ERI theory does not explain why workers stay in jobs with heavy imbalances, observed that these workers are often confronted with costs-of-leaving that essentially condemn them to remain in those imbalanced jobs.
Thanks everyone for your help. Greg, I found the Brummel and Parker (2015) article to be especially helpful.