Critical Thinking Skills, Viewpoints and Positions (Essay Sample)

Critical Thinking
Name
University
Critical Thinking
There are situations where something happens and in analyzing it one finds that it can be looked from different perspectives. Each one of these views will be having some strong points to back it up. The more critically the case is analyzed the more strong points come out depending on the view that one has taken. It will be imperative to develop critical thinking skills to assist one in arriving at an acceptable solution. Therefore, this paper will look at a similar case study from which two opposing viewpoints and positions are taken and critical thinking skills will be required to arrive at the one that is acceptable.
In the case study in consideration a worker has been injured in the place of work, and there is no agreement on who is to take responsibility for the accident. The victim and a fellow employee are blaming the management for failing to take corrective measures in preventing the occurrence of the accident. They do further claim that the company ignored warning signs on their safety concerns with the machine. The management, on the other hand, through one of the foremen and a manager asserts that they are not to blame for the accident, and therefore, they cannot take responsibility implying that it had occurred due to the victim’s negligence (Melillo, 2010). This raises the question on whether the division on this issue is due to the different positions of the two groups as observed by Fisher (2011) with one on the blue collar side and the other on the white collar or the management side. Bassham, Irwin, Nardone and Wallace (2011) agree that it could be a case of one of the sides lacking sincerity, and this may call for an external party without vested interests to critically analyze the situation.
The victim claims that he adhered to the proper way of carrying out his duties in operating the machine prior to the accident. On this note he claims that the company should take responsibility because it did not assure them of the machine’s safety (Hereford, 2015). A fellow worker supports this assertion and claims that the protective mechanism for the machine in questions had not been designed properly and was not working effectively, and therefore, posed a danger to the ones operating it. He further asserts that the other workers had communicated to the foreman on the danger posed by the machine due to its inability to protect them. The foreman on the other hand asserts that the victim was careless when handling the machine and he had even spotted him joking before the accident took place. He further notes that the machine was well maintained as verified from available records. The foreman is at the centre of the dispute with the workers on one side and the management on the other side and him being the connecting point. According to Lau (2011) the question that is arising is whether he is lying for the sake of protecting the management or he might not have reported the matter to the manager.
The issue in question has two solutions that can be used independently with each one having its consequences (Lau & Chan, 2015). The first is blaming the victim for the accident and leaving him to take sole responsibility for it and meet the costs of his medication. There is the danger of other machine operators getting injured by the machine and by such a decision they will not have confidence in the management. The second option could be having the management accept responsibility, and hence, treating the patient and taking corrective action on the machine to avoid a repeat of the same to someone else. This option has two views that will pity the foreman and the manager against each other where it has to be decided who is to take responsibility among the two for the scenario. Fisher (2011) agrees that the foreman might have reported and the manager did not take action on the matter, and therefore, being his boss he resolves to protect him by stating that nothing was reported to him. On the other hand, he might have not taken the matter seriously and failed to report, since the machine has been working without any such catastrophes for a longer time. Either way for this option there will be negligence on the part of the foreman or the manager if the information got to the concerned person and he failed to act.
The victim and the fellow worker seem to be having a stronger case against the management from the look of things. It can also be true that the management was misinformed and that is why they did not take action. The health and safety report which was carried out independently deduced that there was a problem with the machine implying that it took sides with the machine operators. Consequently, based on the overwhelming evidence absolving the victim from blame the best solution would be for the management to take responsibility pending investigations on who between the foreman and the manager is to blame.
The management should take full responsibility for the accident and other than meeting treatment costs they should compensate the victim for the injury sus...