Can regulation improve safety?

[Kacper]

OSHA fines are largely token slaps on the wrist compared to insurance payouts on workplace deaths, of course some of those fines are symbolic action anyway because a lot of these accidents happen directly as a result of the injured/killed employees' own negligence. OSHA just cites the employer for failure to supervise, etc, when employees screw themselves. We had a local factory experience 5 deaths and 3 major injuries in less than two years and every one involved middle aged employees who had worked there 15-20 years taking shortcuts like an electrician working on a machine with the power still on, a mechanic failing to use safety harness, etc. One of them involved a man who crawled up somewhere nobody was supposed to be to take a nap on the job who got crushed because the other workers didn't know he was there.

[The Xl]

Most rules cap punishments, works for the rule breakers.

[Chris]

Any rule that came out of Washington DC.

Why are you against small business when its a well known fact that the vast majority of all regulation is proposed to eliminate competition from smaller more efficient companies. Every rule proposed ends up putting a small company out of business since they cannot meet the onerous requirements.

...

Sort of my point. Central planners in DC cannot possibly know what local business planners do and so rules are made that do more harm than good.

[Captdon]

What would you consider a stupid rule?

Being forced to wear a mask when in the presence of sodium oxide dust but the mask say they are only for comfort. OSHA approved them.

[Peter1469]

According to who though, self-anointed experts in DC or the people who run businesses, factories and such?

This is where I depart from pure libertarians.

Bye.

[Chris]

This is where I depart from pure libertarians.

Bye.

OK, well, as a libertarian anarchist, I'm just pushing the Overton Window. Not all libertarians would go so far. But that does still leave the question open, who should decide?

[Bob the Slob]

The conceit of the self-anointed, so says Stossel in this video, claim we're safer because of OSHA amd point to evidence workplace fatalities have dropped since. Thing is workplace injuries were alredy for a long time dropping before it:



What OSHA did was make it very costly to hire lawyers to read the complicated rules, and difficult for many entry-level entrepreneurs.

OSHA has all but been dismantled by republicans since Reagan. We don't have safety in the workplace. But when we did, people did not die at job sites.

[Bob the Slob]

Being forced to wear a mask when in the presence of sodium oxide dust but the mask say they are only for comfort. OSHA approved them.

No, the republican pro-corporations approved them because they are the HEADS of OSHA...we haven't had a worker OSHA leader in decades.

[Chris]

OSHA has all but been dismantled by republicans since Reagan. We don't have safety in the workplace. But when we did, people did not die at job sites.

I've marked off the Reagan presidency, approximately:



Now you were saying what exactly?

[DGUtley]

For the regulations to be the reason for the increased safety you must believe two things
(1) Companies truly do not care about their employees and would gladly allow them to die if it meant more profit.

(2) Regulations can completely eliminate accidents

i represent companies in suit by employees against their employers. In Ohio, that has to be an intentional tort to survive. Unfortunately, I have seen companies be lackadaisical in terms of worker safety to maximize profit. I have seen employers be reckless.

Regulations cannot completely eliminate accidents. Not by a long shot.