Restricting Trade

[cm husker]

Just an example of how this works.

 

The last time an OSHA inspector came through our facility, among the things he found was an electrical outlet. OK, it has a metal outlet box and cover that is typical in industrial situations. Something had bent the cover. It wasn't cracked. No way was there any exposed wires. It didn't cause any gaps around the cover where something could have entered the box and touched exposed wires.

 

The fine??? $6,000 for just that one thing.

 

Seriously??? Does that violation justify the fine? Oh...yes...and then it becomes public knowledge that we were fined by OSHA and the size of the fine makes people think some major issue was found.

Now, our insurance company has a free service to go through our facility and look for things OSHA may fine us for so that we can fix them before an OSHA inspector all of a sudden shows up. We have a full time safety person on staff doing nothing but trying to make sure when they show up the fine is as low as possible (No way to eliminate the fine totally) We had heard through the grape vine that they were stepping up inspections. We thought we were ready. Guess not.

 

The problem with this situation is not that it's a governmental program. It's that it's tied to politics. We as manufacturers could lobby congress to fix this. However, no politician in their right mind would even THINK about touching this because they would immediately be painted as not caring about the little guy. They don't care about the working class. All they want to do is make their fat business partners and friends happy....bla bla bla.....

 

What you're describing is an awful drag on the economy and on what good, honest workers (whether laborers or executives) are trying to accomplish.

 

And here's the thing: I agree! It's all tied to politics. But the reality is, we can't take politics and buyouts/sellouts out of this current system, because some special interest is always getting paid behind these inefficiencies, whether it be an existing large competitor that sees smaller competitors crippled by compliance costs or the industries of compliance and insurance that siphon off funds from otherwise productive enterprises that are forced to account for these ridiculous regulations.

 

Which is why we need to fundamentally change the existing system (by eliminating it, or greatly diminishing its influence). Because the solution is not to try to pull different levers in an already broken system.

[BigRedBuster]

Detroit right now is a disaster area. Jobs should be welcome there with open arms. However, there are one hell of a lot of companies that are never going to locate there due to the fact that the work force there is almost poisoned with a mentality that they should be compensated and treated the same way as when the auto industry was at it's prime. Reality is, that's not the real world.

 

Now, if I were to relocate a facility there, those workers deserve to work in a safe environment and the rest of the world deserves the fact that I'm not going to pollute the environment.

However, I would think a very good incentive program would be that I would be allowed to relocate there and possibly start workers out at a low wage and possibly not very many benefits. This would allow me to train those employees, get them acclimated to what we do and increase productivity. I would then have an agreement with the government or local business development group that in 5-10 years I would work my way up to paying them better with better benefits.

 

They are better off than they were on welfare or unemployment. They get training and experience. They have a chance to better themselves and their community with the investment our company would make.

 

However, that doesn't mean I can go in and do whatever I want and the employees just have to suck it. Hell....Flint right now would be a prime place to take advantage of people. They can't even sell their homes to move if they don't like my job.

[cm husker]

I hate the word "deserve." Who dictates what a person deserves or doesn't deserve?

 

and it also seems like you're just drawing different lines in what is the "acceptable level of treatment." How is that different than the people who are "poisoned" in your view? Seems like just a matter of degree; not principal.

 

Please explain how "Flint" took advantage of its residents.

[BigRedBuster]

I hate the word "deserve." Who dictates what a person deserves or doesn't deserve?

 

and it also seems like you're just drawing different lines in what is the "acceptable level of treatment." How is that different than the people who are "poisoned" in your view? Seems like just a matter of degree; not principal.

 

Please explain how "Flint" took advantage of its residents.

Bold = I didn't say they did.

 

I personally believe that if I hire someone, they should have at least some form of faith that I am not knowingly putting them in a dangerous situation that they don't know about.

[BigRedBuster]

BTW......this is WAY off topic of restricting trade.

[cm husker]

Very good discussion guys. Great points on both sides and very informative.

 

Thanks; I really enjoy these types of discussions around ideas, not just political maneuvers.

[cm husker]

 

I hate the word "deserve." Who dictates what a person deserves or doesn't deserve?

 

and it also seems like you're just drawing different lines in what is the "acceptable level of treatment." How is that different than the people who are "poisoned" in your view? Seems like just a matter of degree; not principal.

 

Please explain how "Flint" took advantage of its residents.

Bold = I didn't say they did.

 

I personally believe that if I hire someone, they should have at least some form of faith that I am not knowingly putting them in a dangerous situation that they don't know about.

 

 

Sorry, misunderstood your sentence. I actually think you raise a great point about how us foisting home ownership on most people is a terrible thing for them (because it restricts labor mobility) and the economy as a whole.

 

As to your second sentence, that's a VERY important distinction that you draw, which is not at all what I described (in fact, it's the opposite). As I clearly stated, the risks need to be understood by both parties, including not just the type of risk but also the degree of that risk in a specific context. If an employer is secretly subjecting his/her employee to risk known to him/her and not disclosing that to save money one wages, then the employer should absolutely be punished (preferably by being sued by the employee who exchanged labor for inadequate compensation).

 

Basically, what you're describing would be fraud, too.

 

BTW......this is WAY off topic of restricting trade.

 

Same principles... we just shifted into restricted trade on the domestic front, rather than internationally. But happy to go back to talking about why "keeping jobs at home" is really terrible for American consumers and the world's economy. If you want to explain why requiring people to pay 200% more for socks at Walmart is actually a boon to Americans, that would be a good way to shift it back into that context.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

I actually think you raise a great point about how us foisting home ownership on most people is a terrible thing for them (because it restricts labor mobility) and the economy as a whole.

 

 

People are more than free to not buy a house and instead rent.

 

 

 

 

As to your second sentence, that's a VERY important distinction that you draw, which is not at all what I described (in fact, it's the opposite). As I clearly stated, the risks need to be understood by both parties, including not just the type of risk but also the degree of that risk in a specific context. If an employer is secretly subjecting his/her employee to risk known to him/her and not disclosing that to save money one wages, then the employer should absolutely be punished (preferably by being sued by the employee who exchanged labor for inadequate compensation).

 

 

 

How can an employee be sure they fully understand the risks involved?

[cm husker]

I really need to figure out how to break up quotes on this site.

 

To your first point, I agree and we should actually encourage renting (or at least not encourage buying) by removing subsidies that are awarded to buying (but really usurped by people involved in the housing industry).

 

An employee can't be sure. Neither can an employer. There's risk on both sides. But to the extent a workplace danger is known, then it needs to be disclosed. To the extent it was unknown at the time, but later led to damages, there needs to be a form of compensation for the damaged party. I admit that it's not always a clear cut tradeoff, but what I also know is that the current regime is far too bloated.

 

Not to make your argument for you, but there is some advantage to regulatory system in that they aggregate information. By requiring all employers to do XYZ, then a potential employee doesn't have to waste effort researching whether the company does XYZ. However, I think there are more efficient ways to have companies accurately complete and report XYZ than using the government regulatory arm to do so.

[BigRedBuster]

An employer has one hell of a lot better chance at knowing if there are certain risks on the job than the applicant for a job.

 

I really need to figure out how to break up quotes on this site.

 

To your first point, I agree and we should actually encourage renting (or at least not encourage buying) by removing subsidies that are awarded to buying (but really usurped by people involved in the housing industry).

 

An employee can't be sure. Neither can an employer. There's risk on both sides. But to the extent a workplace danger is known, then it needs to be disclosed. To the extent it was unknown at the time, but later led to damages, there needs to be a form of compensation for the damaged party. I admit that it's not always a clear cut tradeoff, but what I also know is that the current regime is far too bloated.

 

Not to make your argument for you, but there is some advantage to regulatory system in that they aggregate information. By requiring all employers to do XYZ, then a potential employee doesn't have to waste effort researching whether the company does XYZ. However, I think there are more efficient ways to have companies accurately complete and report XYZ than using the government regulatory arm to do so.

[cm husker]

Yes, I know.

 

And he/she would have a duty disclose/discuss with an employee known risks and those risks that they should have reasonably known.

 

Look, off the bat, we need to acknowledge that no system is perfect, but we know, as you've described, that osha is awful. I think it's awful because of the incentive structure that is inherent in government regulatory agencies, so no amount of "swapping out people and policies" will lead to fundamental change. Eventually, even the knew people, with the best of intentions, would run into the incentives to "find and fine" excessively.

 

We need to think about whether there's a better system, not just swapping out the parts to the old system.

[BigRedBuster]

Yes, I know.

 

And he/she would have a duty disclose/discuss with an employee known risks and those risks that they should have reasonably known.

 

Look, off the bat, we need to acknowledge that no system is perfect, but we know, as you've described, that osha is awful. I think it's awful because of the incentive structure that is inherent in government regulatory agencies, so no amount of "swapping out people and policies" will lead to fundamental change. Eventually, even the knew people, with the best of intentions, would run into the incentives to "find and fine" excessively.

 

We need to think about whether there's a better system, not just swapping out the parts to the old system.

And...who makes sure they do that?

[cm husker]

The consequence of punishment/lawsuits if they fail to.

 

For the most part, people aren't sadistic. They are trying to run their businesses in a cost efficient yet ethical way. The question is, as you yourself pointed out, does OSHA improve safety in a way that justifies the cost imposed on an industry? Note, this is a cost that could go to paying workers more, investing in other improvements or passed on as savings to a customer.

 

Does a $6000 fine for a light socket cover make sense? Absolutely not. And the solution is to eliminate the system that empowers a regulatory agency to impose such a fine, not just adjust the fine down to $60.

[BigRedBuster]

You can make wholesale changes in a system without getting rid of the system.

 

It is extremely difficult for people in poverty to file a law suit. And, even then, it can be years before anything is decided and paid out.

[cm husker]

You can make wholesale changes in a system without getting rid of the system.

 

It is extremely difficult for people in poverty to file a law suit. And, even then, it can be years before anything is decided and paid out.

 

Then how do you change the system? What are the proposals? Just write better rules? I have to think that the original and current rule writers have the same good intentions we do, and if they don't, it's because they are part of a system that incentivizes bad rules/behavior on their part (often under the guise that they are doing good for society).

 

And it's extremely difficult for agencies to head off work place dangers, despite the billions that are poured into the effort. For example, the peak of asbestos was the late 70s (almost 10 years after OSHA was put in place), with OSHA playing catch up to what labor and plaintiffs law was already pushing for. Even today, asbestos isn't banned in the US, but is in the EU. It's an absolute mess to sort out what the rules should be, so we should really be focused on how to encourage good behavior and how to compensate those who are harmed.

 

I just think regulatory agencies are a very clumpsy tool for that task.

 

A better use of the money that would be saved in regulatory compliance and enforcement might be a general insurance fund for those who are injured on the job.