For my write-up today on Clear and Present Dangers: A Conservative View of America's Government (copyright 1975), I'll use as my starting-point something that M. Stanton Evans says on page 76, in a footnote:
"A
principal horror story in this department has been written by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration----OSHA for short. This
agency has been given sweeping powers to fine businesses and in some
cases shut them down for every kind of alleged violation concerning
toilet seats, guard rails, stairways, ladders, garbage cans, window
shades, doorways, furnaces, air conditioners, and countless other
items. Employers are subject to surprise visits by compliance officers
and may be heavily fined for alleged violations by their employe[e]s,
even if these violations are concededly beyond the power of the employer
to control. In pursuit of these objections, OSHA one day in 1971
published 375,000 words of rules and regulations in the Federal Register----laws that small businesses all over America, most of whom have never heard of the Register, are supposed to know and adhere to on pain of instant punishment."
I've
heard and read similar stories. I myself support the existence of
government regulations, for I think that there is a temptation among
businesses to cut corners for financial gain. Yes, employers probably
recognize that an unsafe business environment could result in financial
harm for the business, since a person getting injured on the job would
cost the business time and money in terms of retraining the injured
worker's replacement as well as workman's comp. That's why there are
libertarians who believe that regulation is not necessary: they think
that businesses will police themselves because the businesses have a
financial motive (and other motives, such as public relations) to keep
their work-environments safe. But is that realization enough to keep
businesses on the straight and narrow? There are still businesses that
try to cut corners, and this is so even though there are regulations.
Why do they do so? Perhaps it's because they want the short-term
financial gains that come from disregarding regulations, and they don't
take seriously the possibility that an accident can occur.
But,
although I believe that government regulations are necessary, I wonder
if there can be a way to reform them. If, say, a toilet seat works fine
for a business and has resulted in no injuries, yet it does not accord
perfectly with OSHA regulations, is it really necessary to fine that
business? And is there a way to educate small businesses about
regulations?
Flexibility may have downsides, though. After all,
it's probably easier for OSHA to define what constitutes a safe toilet
seat, than it is for OSHA to tolerate a number of conceptions of what
constitutes a safe toilet seat. My hunch is that the former is more
easily enforceable. But is there a way to fashion regulations that are
not as oppressive?
(UPDATE: On my blogger blog, my friend Davey left informative
links to web sites that defend OSHA or stipulate what certain OSHA
regulations actually are: see here and here.)