Quote:
Originally Posted by FF2®
OSHA is all well and good, but is often time over ruled, as Bush did to the meat packers in 2001. They aren't as all powerful as you think.
|
Really? Mind sharing what your personal first hand experience is with OSHA? I deal with them on a regular basis. You're going to have to come with something stronger than a single inaccurately depicted anecdote from 12 years ago out of the thousands of OSHA-driven actions that take place every year to sway me towards your opinion from what I
know (not what I think). OSHA most definitely is not "often time over ruled", I assure you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FF2®
also, if you are an OSHA fan, can I assume you prefer national government agencies to solve problems, rather than it being handled between the two parties?
|
Your first fallacy here is the assumption that I'm an OSHA fan. I do recognize that they do serve a meaningful purpose, much like the FDA, but sometimes go about it in ineffective and harmful ways. I respect them mostly, but I believe there's certainly room for improvement. So no, I'm not a "rah rah OSHA" guy, nor do I want to see them eliminated.
Additionally, my opinion of OSHA certainly has no bearing on my opinion of other regulatory agencies and government action that have completely different purposes, jurisdictions, leadership and implementation methods. This isn't an all or nothing game.
OSHA does wield a very large stick. In addition to promoting and enforcing safety culture in working America, they, unlike any union, have the means for actual recourse for safety violations, injuries, fatalities, etc. No union can fine a company millions of dollars. No union can unilaterally shut down operations, no questions asked, at the drop of a hat. No union can prosecute those who endanger the lives or safety of others. OSHA can and does. Prevention is of course the primary focus, but they also have the ability to act when safety is violated.
Add to that the layer of litigation in civil courts, poor public relations and other repercussions, and employers in this country have more than enough incentive to communicate with and protect their people. This notion that unions are required for the "protection of the safety American employees" is as meaningless as it gets. Argue all you want that unions serve other purposes, but spare us that tired line with no basis in reality. That may have been the case in the post-Industrial Revolution era, but OSHA has been here since 1970, and we've come a long way in mass media. Hazardous work will always be present as long as human beings are employed. But risks are assessed, mitigated and communicated. And no one if forced to take them against their will.