workplace safety regulations?

[WalterMitty]

not tough enough.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That's why we need to wipe out all those pesky unions so they can never fight for tougher safety regulations.

[John Dibble]

I don't really know - kind of depends on the workplace in question. An office doesn't have many safety concerns, while a coal mine has many safety concerns.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That's why we need to wipe out all those pesky unions so they can never fight for tougher safety regulations.

Actually the reverse is true.  Can you imagine how strong the labor union movement would be if workers had to depend on labor unions instead of the government to gain decent workplace safety regulations?

[Verily]

Pretty much right. Mining is dangerous, but people volunteer for it, and it would be very difficult to make the mining industry safer than it currently is.

[??????????]

Just right and in some areas overkill. I deal with OSHA and their rules & regs on a daily basis where I work.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

it would be very difficult to make the mining industry safer than it currently is.

Nonsense.

[WalterMitty]

That's why we need to wipe out all those pesky unions so they can never fight for tougher safety regulations.

of course we need a right to work law.

i dont believe in extortion.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Keep the same as now but actually enforce. No perks for megacorps in laxer enforcement.

[Nym90]

not tough enough.

I agree with you entirely Walter, and I don't mean to harp on this like others have unfairly done to you, but it is true that unions have been largely responsible for what we have now.

Same goes for health care coverage, as well. Even non union-members get much better health insurance than they otherwise would, because they need to provide greater benefits in an effort to stave off unionization. The existence of unions create a ripple effect that benefits all workers by creating some degree of equity in the employer/employee relationship rather than leaving employees 100% at the mercy of their employers.

If being forced to be a union member is extortion, then being forced to pay taxes is, too. It's really the same concept; if people were allowed to choose to opt out of either taxes or union membership, they of course would choose to do so, since they would perceive that they'd still get the benefits of others contributing without them personally having to sacrifice anything. But if that were the case, the benefits would entirely disappear.

[David S]

The main issue I have with government regulations is that if government finds that a little bit of regulation is good then alot must be better. That's when they go overboard. As an example, at one time OSHA was considering regulations to prevent carpal tunnel which would have applied to home offices. OK OSHA stay out of my home and my office. Regulations which prevent people from getting fingers and or hands amputated by presses are good. Laws which put OSHA in my house are bad.

But I wonder if there aren't better ways of giving businesses a financial incentive to improve workplace safety by making them financially liable for injuries and possibly subject to fines too. That would give them a financial interest in finding the most cost effective means of reducing injuries.

A related area of government safety regs is automotive safety. There is no doubt that seat belts save lives and they aren't too expensive either. The next step was airbags. Airbags also save lives overall but not nearly as many as seatbelts and airbags have also taken some lives. The immediate fix for that was to allow auto manufacturers to use less powerful airbags, although that forced them to allow less severe crash tests too. Government also warned people not to sit too close to the airbag and not put childseats near airbags. That effort greatly reduced airbag related deaths. But government wasn't happy yet. The most recent generation of airbags were designed to meet government rules intended to reduce  injuries caused by airbags without any thought by the occupants. The new rules are much more complicated and expensive and its questionable whether they will work any better. In that respect I think they are approaching the point of diminishing returns or perhaps have passed it.
But I think a big problem is that they force manufacturers to do what the law requires and not to develop innovative approaches that might be more effective.

[SADM]

The Problem I have is with the Unions themselves, which are often in many ways in league with the Corporations themselves, and therefor need to be subject to change if need be.

[MasterJedi]

Some things are fine, some aren't tough enough.

[MODU]

Option 4:  Other.

Being one that has worked in dangerous conditions, workplace safety standards are a must, but they must also be sensible.  For example, must I carry a canister lamp with me when entering cargo hold when a pocket flashligt that is just as bright and lasts longer would be a sensible alternative? 

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Overall, good enough - so get rid of all the unions finally.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

No need to get rid of them. Turn them into national unions under state control like how Fascists in Italy and Germany did.

[Nym90]

The main issue I have with government regulations is that if government finds that a little bit of regulation is good then alot must be better. That's when they go overboard. As an example, at one time OSHA was considering regulations to prevent carpal tunnel which would have applied to home offices. OK OSHA stay out of my home and my office. Regulations which prevent people from getting fingers and or hands amputated by presses are good. Laws which put OSHA in my house are bad.

But I wonder if there aren't better ways of giving businesses a financial incentive to improve workplace safety by making them financially liable for injuries and possibly subject to fines too. That would give them a financial interest in finding the most cost effective means of reducing injuries.

A related area of government safety regs is automotive safety. There is no doubt that seat belts save lives and they aren't too expensive either. The next step was airbags. Airbags also save lives overall but not nearly as many as seatbelts and airbags have also taken some lives. The immediate fix for that was to allow auto manufacturers to use less powerful airbags, although that forced them to allow less severe crash tests too. Government also warned people not to sit too close to the airbag and not put childseats near airbags. That effort greatly reduced airbag related deaths. But government wasn't happy yet. The most recent generation of airbags were designed to meet government rules intended to reduce  injuries caused by airbags without any thought by the occupants. The new rules are much more complicated and expensive and its questionable whether they will work any better. In that respect I think they are approaching the point of diminishing returns or perhaps have passed it.
But I think a big problem is that they force manufacturers to do what the law requires and not to develop innovative approaches that might be more effective.

Oh, no doubt that regulations can go too far in some cases.

But simply making them liable for workplace injuries wouldn't make any sense without some subjective standard for determining whose fault it is (the business's or the employee's). That's why you need some specific standards and regs; they actually help protect the business too from unjustly being blamed for something that's not their fault.

And of course the very existence of even fines or other government punishments for liability is in and of itself anathema to many economic libertarians.

Overall, good enough - so get rid of all the unions finally.

If that happened, do you really think the regulations would continue to remain on the books for very long?