-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Under Bush, OSHA Mired in Inaction
- Thread starter Crabtownboy
- Start date
dragonfly said:
He is not suggesting they closed because they failed to obey the law. They closed because the law are heavy handed and to costly for small businesses to stay in business. The regs are shutting them down because of the costs associated with them. Not enforcement. For instance in 2000 OSHA worked to implement a program to address ergonomic issues. OSHA insisted it would cost employers about 200.00 to implement a basic ergonomics program. However, the SBA insisted that it would in fact cost just under 3000.00. Regulations are not without their costs.
Last edited by a moderator:
Allow me to provide a small example.dragonfly said:
As you may (or may not) be aware, the U.S. military is required to abide by OSHA standards. The Air Force now requires its members to wear reflective belts just about everywhere. Primarily after the hours of darkness, and not just on the flightline or in work areas. In fact, I'm in a training situation right now where we were told that if we are in uniform after sunset, we are required to wear the reflective belt. We also have physical training uniforms that have reflective areas on them; but we're required to wear a reflective belt with them anyway.
Average cost of a reflective belt is $10.
End result: one million Air Force members required to have a $10 reflective belt. In a lot of cases, two. I personally have three. Average cost to the taxpayers: $20-30 million.
Additional effect: military members with a new mindset. As we were putting on our armor vests and helmets in preparation for a light road march, I actually heard one of our people saying, "who's wearing the reflective belts for the road guards?"
Can you imagine this guy getting over to Iraq or Afghanistan, and wearing his reflective belt because that's the way he's been conditioned?
These are the effects of the utterly ridiculous lengths that OSHA requirements go to.
And no, I don't wear my reflective belt. Yes, it's a direct violation of an order. And yet, no one's written me up or even verbally corrected me.
Last edited by a moderator:
Warning: OSHA Can Be Hazardous to Your Health
By Raymond J. Keating
How could anyone find fault with a government agency whose stated mission is “to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources”?[1]
As is typical with government agencies brandishing impossible missions, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has become a burdensome regulatory body, seemingly more concerned with pushing paper and imposing fines rather than in establishing safer working environments. Indeed, since OSHA's first month in existence in 1970, when it instituted 4,400 job safety and health rules, the agency has played the role of adversary to American business.[2]
In reality, the private sector possesses every incentive to maintain a safe and healthy working environment for employees. Indeed, beyond a commonly held concern for one's employees, the financial incentives are substantial. That is, after factoring into the equation lost production and productivity costs, health-care costs, insurance costs, possible lawsuits, and so on, it is clear that safety pays.
Unsafe workplaces have always been and remain the exception rather than the rule. Of course, OSHA acts under the opposite assumption, thereby imposing significant and unnecessary costs on business and the economy. Such costs translate into less entrepreneurship, slower economic growth, and fewer jobs.
There is substantial evidence that OSHA has strayed far from its much-touted educational, advisory, and cooperative relationship with business. Indeed, OSHA's concern for real safety is lost in a bureaucratic and regulatory haze of citation quotas, tax collection, and remarkably inane regulations. For example:
• OSHA imposes an incredible paperwork burden on U.S. business. In 1994, seven of the top ten most frequent OSHA citations were related to paperwork. OSHA has perfected the government “make-work” scheme—generate a paper blizzard of regulations and then fine businesses for not complying.
• In 1976, 95 percent of OSHA citations were classified as “nonserious,” while in recent years 70 percent of citations have been classified as “serious.”[3] It remains difficult to fathom that “serious” violations have grown so much, especially considering the general decline in workplace deaths and injuries. More likely, a considerable, ongoing redefinition of OSHA violations has been undertaken. Such a development reflects the arbitrary and subjective nature of OSHA citations.
• With the 1990 budget deal, OSHA stepped up its role as a revenue collector for the federal government. OSHA's maximum allowable penalties were increased seven-fold, and $900 million in additional revenues were expected over five years.
OSHA's maximum penalties range from $7,000 per violation—for “serious” and “other than serious” classifications—to $70,000 for the “willful and repeat” classification. These are dollar levels that can put many small- and medium-sized businesses out of business. OSHA can levy an “egregious penalty,” where fines can be arbitrarily increased by counting each employee possibly exposed as a separate violation—another example of the arbitrary nature of OSHA citations.
The current administration's so-called plan to “reinvent” OSHA noted a few examples of ridiculous OSHA regulations:
• Plastic gas cans can be used on manufacturing work sites, but not on construction sites, even if they have been approved by local fire marshals.
• OSHA only allows for radiation signs with purple letters on a yellow background, while the Department of Transportation calls for black on yellow.
• OSHA requires that work-site first-aid kits be approved by a physician.
Unfortunately, in the midst of all the talk about government “reinvention,” OSHA has been busily preparing additional regulations. The federal budget offers program statistics for each agency. “Standards promulgated” (i.e., regulations imposed) are estimated at 12 annually for 1995 and 1996 by OSHA—a kind of regulation quota. OSHA has committed substantial resources to three particular areas in recent years—indoor air quality, ergonomics, and mandatory workplace safety commissions. Scientific evidence pertaining to indoor air quality and ergonomics is weak, if not non-existent, while mandatory worker safety commissions amount to nothing more than a sop to labor unions. If implemented, such regulations will cost tens of billions of dollars annually—translating into fewer resources for investment, employee compensation, and job creation.
Another glaring problem with government regulation and inspections of any industry or workplace is that most, if not all, regulators lack expertise in particular industries. If such individuals were experts, they would hold productive, private sector jobs. They are government bureaucrats. Bureaucrats know paperwork. Hence, the most cited violations by OSHA are paperwork related. The phenomenon was noted by Mr. Vitas M. Plioplys—safety services manager at R.R. Donnelly & Sons Company, the world's largest commercial printer—before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Workforce Protections of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities:
Any time an OSHA inspector comes into one of our facilities, it is probably the first time they have ever seen a large commercial printing press. In our plants where the presses are 100 feet long and three stories high, the OSHA inspector doesn't know where to start. In every case the inspector will invariably find a guard off, or some other minor, readily apparent violation, but will pass by process equipment which, if it failed, could blow up our facility. Because they are not experts in the industry they cannot know the critical issues we deal with on a daily basis. . . . Our informal conferences end up being training sessions on safety in the printing industry to the local OSHA offices. They do not know our industry, yet try to cite us as if they do.
Even after noting the many OSHA horror stories, regulations, paperwork burdens, and costs, some still claim that OSHA's benefits outweigh its costs. In a May 16, 1995, speech President Clinton linked OSHA with reduced workplace deaths: “The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has been at work in this cause since it was created with bipartisan support in 1970. Since that time, workplace deaths have been cut in half.”
Of course, workplace deaths were on the decline for decades before OSHA was created. Fewer workplace deaths reflect many changes in our economy—greater automation, shift in employment from manufacturing to the service sector, leaps in technology, enhanced knowledge, et al. There exists no clear and substantial evidence that OSHA has played any significant role in preventing workplace injuries or death.....
http://feetest.aristotle.net/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=3058
Sorry about all the facts.
By Raymond J. Keating
How could anyone find fault with a government agency whose stated mission is “to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources”?[1]
As is typical with government agencies brandishing impossible missions, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has become a burdensome regulatory body, seemingly more concerned with pushing paper and imposing fines rather than in establishing safer working environments. Indeed, since OSHA's first month in existence in 1970, when it instituted 4,400 job safety and health rules, the agency has played the role of adversary to American business.[2]
In reality, the private sector possesses every incentive to maintain a safe and healthy working environment for employees. Indeed, beyond a commonly held concern for one's employees, the financial incentives are substantial. That is, after factoring into the equation lost production and productivity costs, health-care costs, insurance costs, possible lawsuits, and so on, it is clear that safety pays.
Unsafe workplaces have always been and remain the exception rather than the rule. Of course, OSHA acts under the opposite assumption, thereby imposing significant and unnecessary costs on business and the economy. Such costs translate into less entrepreneurship, slower economic growth, and fewer jobs.
There is substantial evidence that OSHA has strayed far from its much-touted educational, advisory, and cooperative relationship with business. Indeed, OSHA's concern for real safety is lost in a bureaucratic and regulatory haze of citation quotas, tax collection, and remarkably inane regulations. For example:
• OSHA imposes an incredible paperwork burden on U.S. business. In 1994, seven of the top ten most frequent OSHA citations were related to paperwork. OSHA has perfected the government “make-work” scheme—generate a paper blizzard of regulations and then fine businesses for not complying.
• In 1976, 95 percent of OSHA citations were classified as “nonserious,” while in recent years 70 percent of citations have been classified as “serious.”[3] It remains difficult to fathom that “serious” violations have grown so much, especially considering the general decline in workplace deaths and injuries. More likely, a considerable, ongoing redefinition of OSHA violations has been undertaken. Such a development reflects the arbitrary and subjective nature of OSHA citations.
• With the 1990 budget deal, OSHA stepped up its role as a revenue collector for the federal government. OSHA's maximum allowable penalties were increased seven-fold, and $900 million in additional revenues were expected over five years.
OSHA's maximum penalties range from $7,000 per violation—for “serious” and “other than serious” classifications—to $70,000 for the “willful and repeat” classification. These are dollar levels that can put many small- and medium-sized businesses out of business. OSHA can levy an “egregious penalty,” where fines can be arbitrarily increased by counting each employee possibly exposed as a separate violation—another example of the arbitrary nature of OSHA citations.
The current administration's so-called plan to “reinvent” OSHA noted a few examples of ridiculous OSHA regulations:
• Plastic gas cans can be used on manufacturing work sites, but not on construction sites, even if they have been approved by local fire marshals.
• OSHA only allows for radiation signs with purple letters on a yellow background, while the Department of Transportation calls for black on yellow.
• OSHA requires that work-site first-aid kits be approved by a physician.
Unfortunately, in the midst of all the talk about government “reinvention,” OSHA has been busily preparing additional regulations. The federal budget offers program statistics for each agency. “Standards promulgated” (i.e., regulations imposed) are estimated at 12 annually for 1995 and 1996 by OSHA—a kind of regulation quota. OSHA has committed substantial resources to three particular areas in recent years—indoor air quality, ergonomics, and mandatory workplace safety commissions. Scientific evidence pertaining to indoor air quality and ergonomics is weak, if not non-existent, while mandatory worker safety commissions amount to nothing more than a sop to labor unions. If implemented, such regulations will cost tens of billions of dollars annually—translating into fewer resources for investment, employee compensation, and job creation.
Another glaring problem with government regulation and inspections of any industry or workplace is that most, if not all, regulators lack expertise in particular industries. If such individuals were experts, they would hold productive, private sector jobs. They are government bureaucrats. Bureaucrats know paperwork. Hence, the most cited violations by OSHA are paperwork related. The phenomenon was noted by Mr. Vitas M. Plioplys—safety services manager at R.R. Donnelly & Sons Company, the world's largest commercial printer—before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Workforce Protections of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities:
Any time an OSHA inspector comes into one of our facilities, it is probably the first time they have ever seen a large commercial printing press. In our plants where the presses are 100 feet long and three stories high, the OSHA inspector doesn't know where to start. In every case the inspector will invariably find a guard off, or some other minor, readily apparent violation, but will pass by process equipment which, if it failed, could blow up our facility. Because they are not experts in the industry they cannot know the critical issues we deal with on a daily basis. . . . Our informal conferences end up being training sessions on safety in the printing industry to the local OSHA offices. They do not know our industry, yet try to cite us as if they do.
Even after noting the many OSHA horror stories, regulations, paperwork burdens, and costs, some still claim that OSHA's benefits outweigh its costs. In a May 16, 1995, speech President Clinton linked OSHA with reduced workplace deaths: “The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has been at work in this cause since it was created with bipartisan support in 1970. Since that time, workplace deaths have been cut in half.”
Of course, workplace deaths were on the decline for decades before OSHA was created. Fewer workplace deaths reflect many changes in our economy—greater automation, shift in employment from manufacturing to the service sector, leaps in technology, enhanced knowledge, et al. There exists no clear and substantial evidence that OSHA has played any significant role in preventing workplace injuries or death.....
http://feetest.aristotle.net/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=3058
Sorry about all the facts.
Facts? Where are they? It is like reading a newspaper designed to stir up the emotions of people. There are only two sources cited in the footnotes (one of which is a second hand source) and you call that credible? The article is exactly what the book, "How To Lie With Statistics" is all about. "How To Lie With Statistics" ought to be mandatory for every student in America to read. If a student of mine turned in a paper like that it would be handed back immediately and the student would be told to document his sources. It is sad that so many Christians buy into everything that is in print as though it were the truth.Bro. Curtis said:
Thanks for posting it though because it is an excellent example of an article not telling the whole truth with the intent to mislead. It will be good fodder for the discussion in a lesson I teach on ethics. It is a good article to show how people can be misled by statements that are ambiguous and not entirely true.
The recent bailout disproved his main points of how everything is okay without enforcement and nobody is an expert.
I can remember the time that some friends of mine (my dad included) who are farmers told me that they could not use so much chemical on their land. A few years later they told it was a good thing because they found out that they did not need so much. They doubted and complained at first, but later they found out the truth. People do not like change.
Let me illustrate the point about change. In 1998 I stared pastoring a church and it started growing a lot. They had never experienced such growth. At first the people were excited until it meant they did not know many of the new people and they could not find a parking place unless they came early. Then some of the leaders started complaining and started blaming the growth problems on me. After I left they no longer have those problems because the church is declining. The same thing happened to a man I know.
That article was written in May 1996. Anything more recent than something over 12 years old? OSHA has changed a lot since 1996.
Last edited by a moderator:
OSHA actually made my job easy when I was in manufacturing because it forced us to do things that I know my boss did not want to do. What we found out was that productivity increased and when that happened he changed his mind.Bro. Curtis said:
That is about as good as saying that the marketplace will take care of itself. We saw how well the crooks rose up last month to help the average citizen by allowing them to pay for “The Bailout”.Anyone has got to know that if there were no speed limits and if there were speed limits but no enforcement that it would be chaos on the interstates and accidents would increase.
Go to India and China and make that assumption about people. That idea makes about as much sense in saying that all people are good and that all people are saved because they are good. Talk to any worker from those places and listen to them talk about the value of life.Is that what we want? Did you read the dialog between Bill Moyers and the companies represented at http://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/
A friend of mine does over one billion dollars in business each year and business has never been so good for him. He employs one safety man. Is that too much for that much business while other businesses employ a CEO who is paid millions each year? Is safety more important than the cost of CEO?Businesses today would like the public to believe that regulation is the cause of failure and they cannot afford such things. The average worker in Europe is paid $4.00 per hour more than the average American. How can they continue to produce goods and sell them in America at a profit while the America companies cannot?
Not one citation to prove his point and I have never seen such a thing. I have never worked in any manufacturing facility or construction site where plastic cans were ever allowed. We always had to have safety cans and they were metal.
Europe has much higher standards than America. Ask a European about what they think of all the waste in America.
Isn’t that kind of like saying that those who built the atomic bombs destined for Japan were the biggest bunch of dummies? Isn’t that kind of like saying the military is stupid? I know people who are experts in their field and choose to work for the government. I worked under a lady who worked in industry and had previously worked for OSHA. The industry hired her because she knew the regulations and had worked for OSHA. She left the industry because they did not follow her recommendations. Eventually they were heavily fined by OSHA and she had told them for quite awhile about the problem which was unsafe. I now for work for the state teaching at a university after having my own business since 1979 and having a total of 35 years in the field by 2004. The faculty members who teach with me, have no less than 25 years in the field each. Think of all the teaching hospitals in America. I guess those doctors are dumb and stupid too. The author did write, “Another glaring problem with government regulation and inspections of any industry or workplace is that most, if not all, regulators lack expertise in particular industries.” This is such an ambiguous, inflammatory statement.He even states his uncertainty when he wrote, “is that most, if not all” If he believes that then why not have every expert donate their time to the regulatory agency just like an Army draft? Nobody can be an expert in everything. However money would go a long ways to get more experts in the field. I would bet that if they paid each person what the average CEO in America is paid then the experts would be easy to get. I have always said that money would do a lot to get people in the door. When I taught high school after studying under one of the top craftsmen in the world I was paid much less than my garbage collector, less than my students would make upon graduation, and I took a 70% cut in pay when I left the workplace.The man I studied under recently was asked to come to America to teach. He did and recently retired at the age of 80. He retired from a California junior college. People from all over the world came to study there.
Regulation and higher wages forced automation because automation allows for parts to be made cheaper and better while eliminating labor costs and workers. Many of those machines are working at night while those who maintain them are at home asleep. When a machine breaks it is doubtful that anyone would be hurt, when nobody is around. Machines have taken the place of labor. He did fail to mention that the computer has had a lot to do with that. He also failed to mention that automation has had nothing to do with accidents in the construction industry. Accidents in the construction industry have been greatly reduced. It is obvious that his experience is very limited to the printing industry. I can remember the days when men walk steel beams and would have been killed or seriously maimed if they fell. They would have been unable to ever work again and possibly be a vegetable and could not even think correctly. I can remember the time when men rode the load up on a crane. You would never see that today.
Today the programs are generated in the U.S. while the parts are made in countries like China. Take a look at the material floating on top of the water and the pollutants in the water in those countries and the air quality. China has a huge problem within their own country. To even suggest that businesses are failing because of so much regulation is nonsense. To even think that they are failing what would make one think that they would clean up their act without enforcement if they will not now with enforcement. That is like saying a fox in the hen house will protect the chickens. That is like saying man will always do the right thing.
The recent bailout disproved the foundation of your article well.
I rarely see anyone with missing limbs today and people fired because they were hurt.
gb93433 said:
Good for your job. Everyone doesn't have your experience with these guys.
The marketplace would take care of it'self, if people like Barney Frank & Chris Dodd would let it. But that is O/T.
We aren't India. We value life in America. I don't want to go anywhere else, and I don't care to address what other governments do.
Again, a single experience. I'm not going to address this by case by case, rather, and envelope of if it is good, or bad.
Hardly proof. Find a link.
I don't care what they think of us over there, either.
No it's not at all. Beurocrats are beurocrats.
Again a single personal experience. The rest I won't address, except to say I haven't changed my mind. You've put enough words in my mouth for one thread.
See ya.
Crooks never will. I have been particular about who I worked for and how I was as an employer to my employees. Never once have I or the places I worked at ever been cited. One of the places I worked at was the largest employer in America in that business. We made a very good profit without cheating customers and we followed the regulations in that industry. It was a business stared by one man. Later the company was sold to some greedeaters and they could not make a profit they liked so they sold it. It is doing well again with the new owners.Bro. Curtis said:
My Bible teaches that man is selfish and evil. Most of America are not Christians and even the church has troubles it does not solve. So explain to me how your suggestion would work.
There was a time when life in America was not valued by the capitalists. Should we have stayed at that point by letting the capitalists dictate what America does and does not regulate? Should we have silenced Ralph Nader when he pushed for having seat belts in cars and the car companies said it would have cost them too much? Should we have let the American car companies dictate the air quality standards when they said they would have not been able to exist if they were required to improve their cars?
Would you make the same claim about denominations and the pedophiles, thieves, and homeosexuals who are in them. are the churches bureaucracies too? Does that mean that denominations and churches should not exist because there are "bad apples." Does that mean we should shut down all of the high schools, colleges and universities because there are bad apples in them too. Anytime something gets large it is harder to manage and may need change. Just look at the church in America and it is not a public entity.
I suggested that if you think we should do away with regulatory organizations then I suggest that you take a look where regulatory agencies seldom exist and see the consequences. Places such as Bhopal and places in China. Those same conditions existed in America until rather recently. Some still exist today. I think one of the solutions would be that those who are responsible should see jail time. If the CEOs of the companies such as Enron were to see about 20 years of jail time then perhaps a lot of the problems would cease.
I suggested that you ask a European because they think that we are stupid for selling our soul for the dollar.
History depicts a lot of things. By studying the workings of man and the results we can learn a lot but if you do not want to that is your choice. Even the American church has decided to keep itself ignorant and has refused to see what has happened in Europe in regards to Christianity and what has taken place over there because the Christians allowed their ignorance to take over their soul. In Europe initially it was the Christians who supported Hitler. I believe we are ripe in America for the same thing as the church weakens and becomes like a carnival where people enjoy entertainment and do not know their Bible and God.
When I was a kid I can remember the pollution floating on top of the water. Are you suggesting that we should not regulate that. Recently a company was fined for price fixing on some things. What makes you think they will not do similar things when it comes to regulation issues when left to fix things themselves. Business is about making a profit not a non-profit organization.
Did you actually read the transcript of the link I gave about some chemical companies? If you did I wondered what yur response was.
I find it hard to believe that you really think that things such as tobacco is actually good because companies have told the American public that it is not harmful. Do you really believe they were telling the truth and that no regulation was needed? How would American companies self regulate tobacco?
When Holland deregulated drugs the drug usage went up. When they regulated it then the drug usage went down. In Minnesota when it was made a law that the parents were to be notified that a girl wanted to have an abortion then the teen pregnancy went down. When parents were not required to be notified then the teen pregnancy went up.
Abortion is big business. Shall we let it go unregulated and let the market set the standard?
Help me understand your point of view. Give me some concrete suggestions to improve the American way of life without regulation. Perhaps because I am old enough to have heard the lies from the companies and politicians and seen things that are awful as a result of the negligence it gives me a different point of view. So I am curious as to what you would suggest.
Certainly I agree with you in that at times things can be ridiculous but at the same time how much should we allow if it costs lives and benefits businesses in getting a profit at the same time.
I was hoping that you would have looked at http://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/Bro. Curtis said:
and then told us about how we value life in America.