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.