Are you going to make an argument? Or sit back and cast aspersions? Because I've noticed you like to go "see that organization that conservatives have been defunding and castrating for decades? Look, they made a mistake, therefore THEY ARE COMPLETELY WORTHLESS" and it's bullshit. You're better than that, rd95 is better than that, we're all better than that. I think you've never interfaced with OSHA. I think you don't understand that workplace safety isn't about how many people are dying it's about safety and health. OSHA, for example, regulated asbestos. They regulated welding. They regulated noise. Because while everybody knew all this shit was dangerous, OSHA regs for noise exposure (for example), predated civil noise code by 15 years. And see, my great uncle welded non-OSHA. He was blind by 50. I welded OSHA. I see fine. More than that, I have a functional respiratory system. And I've worked on non-OSHA sets, and I've worked on OSHA sets, and on a non-OSHA set one of my coworkers tore his fucking patella off. Up'n'down, mutherfucker. A half dozen times a day. You can't see it from the photo, but it's 18" up, and then another 18" to the deck, and it's covered in frost, and that frost never melts, and I did it for five weeks, and he did it for one, because he spent the other four in bed rest. Not getting paid. That's a picnic table. You're above it. It's night. It's 10 below. It's covered in frost and ice and it's 18" wide and it's unlit. And your job is to walk it a dozen times a day. That truck? You need a CDL to drive it, by the way, but since we were on private property you don't, but then someone complained to OSHA, and the producers sat behind the poor kid they interviewed for two fucking hours to intimidate him into giving the right answers because you know what? The law exists such that OSHA complaints are handled that way. Because OSHA is a failure, right? Throw it all out. Because while the fatalities are going down, they were obviously going down before so the whole artifice is a sham, right? It's like the FDA. I mean, it's not like thalidomide was a big deal. The fact that it was never approved in the US is a blow against capitalism or some shit. And yeah. Vioxx. But between thalidomide and Vioxx were people such as - well, we've been here before. See, I work in the world. Where dangerous shit happens. And I know how helpful it is to be able to say "sorry, man, I'd love to climb that 3-story scaffold without a safety harness to hang a microphone but, you know, it's against my union regs." Because I can say that - SOMETIMES - and sometimes I can't and for you to sit there and pretend there's no difference? I mean, really. I'm being polite. It's difficult. There are times where it is clear you are speaking from a position of ideology, rather than experience or knowledge, and those times are unattractive. I've fallen off a 10' ladder. I didn't enjoy it. And I've been given tasks that, when handled poorly, lead to injury. And when it's abundantly clear that OSHA, for example, is a part of the equation, I don't get those tasks anymore. And that's a cause worth fighting for. Worth fighting YOU for.
Thank you for sharing your views, as always vivid and memorable. You are right that I have little experience or knowledge of OSHA and much to learn. I haven't intentionally picked on organizations that were weakened by budget cuts. According to PBS, the OSHA budget appears fairly steady. I have little doubt that irregular funding makes it harder for agencies to be effective. That is a point against the public model, not in favor, as long as there is risk of Congressional mismanagement. This sentence leaves me confused. If you don't agree that the rate of death is a useful measure of safety, we may have such divergent expectations of what a workplace safety agency should do that it hardly matters whether we agree or not.you like to go "see that organization that conservatives have been defunding..."
workplace safety isn't about how many people are dying it's about safety and health
The rate of injury matters far more than the rate of fatality and the rate of chronic health problems matters more than that. A "dangerous" job is one where you're likely to get hurt. A job that is likely to kill you is a self-limiting problem. Pretty soon nobody does it. A job that might kill you is one that likely won't be changed because the problems rarely reveal themselves. However, I personally have designed sound systems for boutique clothing chains that will produce a PEL of 80dB because an 8-hour exposure of 85 or more is a violation of OSHA. It's the flip side of designing industrial environments such that workers can walk around and do their jobs all day without having to wear hearing protection. Now explain to me how this is going to get better by handing it to the private sector. I can't wait.
You'll have to find someone else to make the argument for this claim, because it's not mine. I am not sure it's true, nor its negation. I don't know, and I would rather share the ideas I have on the subject with people who don't already seem to have all the answers. Yesterday you said you are ready for a fight. I'm not interested in a fight. I often have difficulty comprehending your language. And when I write "the effectiveness of OSHA is at least questionable" you read "THEY ARE COMPLETELY WORTHLESS." I enjoy many of your contributions here, especially the wise and worldly advice you give to people with less experience. Surely we both have better things to do than throw words at each other.Now explain to me how this is going to get better by handing it to the private sector.
Yeah I'm not buying it. You don't say "the effectiveness of OSHA is at least questionable" in response to a discussion about workplace safety, unionization, hourly compensation or anything within the scope of OSHA. You use it as a counterargument to the vast, sweeping and unasserted That's someone stating a belief in government oversight, and you ask "do you have any EVIDENCE" for that "BELIEF." Then you throw out that canard about OSHA, as if a four-page study somehow invalidates any "belief" in "proper regulation." Maybe you don't know. But you don't use your lack of knowledge as a bridge to exploration. You use it as a "some people are wondering" sideswipe to call into question the very idea of "proper regulation." Yes, we have better things to do than throw words at each other. But surely you have better things to do than make ideologically disingenuous arguments about libertarianism. I'll have that discussion with you - and I invite you to have that discussion with anyone - but I'm not willing to believe that your bag of dirty tricks comes from a place of naiveté.I do believe that proper regulation very much protects us as consumers and citizens, whether we're talking EPA, OSHA, lending laws, etc. I really feel that the majority of businesses out there don't give two shits about the public good unless there are real deterrents in place to make them think twice about screwing people over. Saying that the free market will set everything straight in the long run strikes me as pretty naive.
TIL: Talk about heroes in public service. Vioxx gets a bit more of a pass because the company withheld data from its studies, which points to the need for more regulation of clinical trials, not less.I mean, it's not like thalidomide was a big deal. The fact that it was never approved in the US is a blow against capitalism or some shit.
In the United States, pharmacologist Frances Oldham Kelsey M.D. withstood pressure from the Richardson-Merrell company and refused Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to market thalidomide, saying further studies were needed.[81] This reduced the impact of thalidomide in United States patients. Although thalidomide was never approved for sale in the United States at the time, millions of tablets had been distributed to physicians during a clinical testing program. It was impossible to know how many pregnant women had been given the drug to help alleviate morning sickness or as a sedative.[96]
Kelsey was a badass. My point, if I have one other than vitriolic bile, is that between Kelsey's FDA and the FDA that let Vioxx through were generations of legislators and lobbyists reducing their scope and fettering their investigations. I'm willing to bet you interface with the FDA a hell of a lot more than I ever have, but the FDA I knew was an organization of timid bureaucrats.
It strikes me that monied persons and their numerous spokespersons (lobbyists, captured regulators, corrupt public officials, etc.) act like a torrent of rain on any dike of regulation. The public interest is eroded away constantly, a process rendered near-certain simply because of how capital's interests are aligned. I know the issue is not served well by simple metaphors, but regulatory capture / deregulation is a tough problem in and of itself. Add to the brew a myopic population--weighed down by poverty and shitty food and systemic racism--and when I see someone (above, not you) argue tacitly for pushing even further the Koch Brothers' agenda, all I'm left with is exasperated metaphors.My point, if I have one other than vitriolic bile, is that between Kelsey's FDA and the FDA that let Vioxx through were generations of legislators and lobbyists reducing their scope and fettering their investigations.