carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (05/16/85)
Your tax dollars at work: [from Chicago Tribune 5/10/85] WASHINGTON--Top officials of the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration acknowledged to Congress Thursday that they referred to their employees as "commies." OSHA chief Robert Rowland, under fire for reputed conflicts of interest and lax enforcement of safety standards, was asked at a House hearing whether he recently told a group of the agency's top managers: "OSHA is full of commies, and I'm going to root them out and [obscenity]." ... Rowland denied making the comment precisely as quoted by [Rep. Gerry] Sikorski, but later said many people use the term "commie" in a joking way, and he may have made a similar statement. OSHA's critics say Rowland cares little about maintaining worker safety and is instead antagonistic toward employees who are dedicated to that goal. References to Communists were acknowledged by another OSHA official, Leonard Vance, director of health standards. Vance was asked whether he had told a team working on lead standards in 1982 that their draft proposal sounded "communistic" or that its author sounded as if she had "been trained in Moscow." ... Vance attracted attention last year when House members threatened to subpoena records they said might show that he had consulted with a regulated industry before writing a regulation. Vance said at the time that his dog had vomited on the documents and that he had to destroy them. Thursday's stormy hearing also included discussion of a top-level OSHA seminar about internal management. One manager at the seminar later wrote an unsigned memo saying that agency leaders were told to disregard civil-service rules and fire "troublemakers." The employees could then fight in court to get their jobs back, the seminar reportedly was told. ... Rowland's failure to enact a long-delayed safety standard for farm workers requiring sanitation facilities in the field was condemned by labor groups last month. Rowland, appointed 18 months ago and not yet confirmed by Congress, is under an ethics review for his ownership of more than $1 million in stock in chemical, pharmaceutical, petroleum and other firms. One of these firms is Tenneco Inc., which has agribusiness subsidiaries that could be directly affected by the field-sanitation regulation. ___________________ So I propose the following topic for consideration by net.politics: If your dog vomits on an important government document, is the document recoverable? Is it exempt from subpoena? Does it depend on what your dog eats, or on the nature of the document? I think that net.politics is well suited to answer this type of question, particularly since the more prestigious think tanks don't ordinarily address such issues. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig) (05/17/85)
> > So I propose the following topic for consideration by net.politics: > If your dog vomits on an important government document, is the > document recoverable? Is it exempt from subpoena? Does it depend on > what your dog eats, or on the nature of the document? I think that > net.politics is well suited to answer this type of question, > particularly since the more prestigious think tanks don't ordinarily > address such issues. > Please do not clutter net.politics with this sort of discussion. Please move all followups to net.pets where they belong. Mark Modig ihnp4!sftri!mom
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (05/18/85)
There's a simple solution to all of this -- get rid of OSHA. Mike Sykora
carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (05/25/85)
In article <> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: >There's a simple solution to all of this -- get rid of OSHA. One thing for which I admire libertarians is their ability to come up with a simple solution for almost any problem you can name. Mike points out that you can get rid of all the problems associated with the existence of OSHA by getting rid of OSHA. How come we never think of these things. The 1984 Libertarian Party platform makes a similar recommendation: We call for the repeal of the OSH Act. This law denies the right to liberty and property to both employer and employee, and it interferes in their private contractual relations. OSHA's arbitrary and highhanded actions invade property rights, raise costs, and are an injustice imposed on business. Heaven forbid we should impose an injustice on business, but what about the problems of worker safety and health that OSHA was intended to address? Millions of workers are daily exposed to such toxic substances as lead, cyanide, silica dust, cotton dust, pesticides, asbestos, and radioactive materials, and many workers are required to risk their physical safety in various ways. According to my understanding, libertarians deeply deplore the fact that thalidomide was not allowed to be marketed in the US; they profoundly regret the fact that crib safety standards have interfered with the right of infants to strangle themselves; and they are outraged by government-imposed safety standards for both airlines and nuclear power plants. Does this antiregulatory stance extend to the prohibition of all workplace safety and health regulation as well? Let us have [trumpets, please] the Libertarian Solution to the problems of occupational risk. And make sure it's a simple one. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (05/27/85)
>/* carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) / 5:08 pm May 24, 1985 */ >. . . How come we never think of these things. Pay closer attention, Richard, and maybe you'll learn something. :-) >Heaven forbid we should impose an injustice on business, but what >about the problems of worker safety and health that OSHA was intended >to address? Millions of workers are daily exposed to such toxic >substances as lead, cyanide, silica dust, cotton dust, pesticides, >asbestos, and radioactive materials, and many workers are required to >risk their physical safety in various ways. I believe that most libertarians are atheistic, so the heavenly reference is probably inappropriate. Required by whom? If I say that you are required to do A, are you going to do it just because I said so? However, if I require you to do A in order to obtain B from me, you have two choices: you can do A, or forget about the deal. But it's YOUR choice. >. . . and they are >outraged by government-imposed safety standards for both airlines and >nuclear power plants. Does this antiregulatory stance extend to the >prohibition of all workplace safety and health regulation as well? Yes. >Let us have [trumpets, please] the Libertarian Solution to the >problems of occupational risk. And make sure it's a simple one. Thanks just the same for the trumpets, but we prefer substance to sensationalism. >Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes Mike Sykora
nrh@inmet.UUCP (05/29/85)
>/**** inmet:net.politics / gargoyle!carnes / 5:08 pm May 24, 1985 ****/ >In article <> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: > >>There's a simple solution to all of this -- get rid of OSHA. > >One thing for which I admire libertarians is their ability to come up >with a simple solution for almost any problem you can name. Mike >points out that you can get rid of all the problems associated with >the existence of OSHA by getting rid of OSHA. How come we never >think of these things. Oh, I don't know. I find that some liberals have marvelously simple solutions to things: workers paid too little? Simple: just make it illegal to pay them that little. Prices getting too high? Why just make it illegal to charge those prices. Given the two types of solutions, that is, eliminating government agencies or making things you don't like illegal, I find myself more comfortable with the former. You don't like SIMPLE solutions? Do you by some chance write any that human lives depend upon? If so, let us know, but I find that my digital watch (number of moving parts = 1) works better than my old mechanical (number of moving parts >> 10) watch, is cheaper, and can be read in the dark by pushing a button (arguably the only moving part). The libertarian solution, a mixture of liability and publicity, has fewer "moving parts" (government regulations), but more subtle and correct feedback mechanisms. > >The 1984 Libertarian Party platform makes a similar recommendation: > > We call for the repeal of the OSH Act. This law denies the > right to liberty and property to both employer and employee, > and it interferes in their private contractual relations. > OSHA's arbitrary and highhanded actions invade property > rights, raise costs, and are an injustice imposed on > business. > >Heaven forbid we should impose an injustice on business, but what >about the problems of worker safety and health that OSHA was intended >to address? Millions of workers are daily exposed to such toxic >substances as lead, cyanide, silica dust, cotton dust, pesticides, >asbestos, and radioactive materials, and many workers are required to >risk their physical safety in various ways. Let's continue this logic, shall we? It'll be tough to have action movies because stunt men must not be allowed to risk their lives. It'll be illegal to get fish from the sea because of the possible danger to fishermen of their working environment. It'll be illegal to be a bicycle delivery person in New York, because of the triple whammy of unsafe conditions (NY traffic), bad environment (toxic junk in air from NY traffic) and dangerous persons (Taking the subway to avoid the two previous hazards lets you in for a fight with subway criminals, right)? The interesting thing about Carnes' paragraph above is that he merely IMPLIES that libertarians advocate exposing people to toxic chemicals. It's possible that Carnes stops at implication because he knows that libertarians do NOT advocate such exposure, but merely the freedom to take hazardous jobs freely, and the responsibility of employers not to mislead (use fraud upon) their employees regarding the danger of a given job. Fraud, of course, is something libertarians frown upon to the extent of making it actionable, whether in Minarchist courts or Anarchist arbitration. In other words, libertarians (and here I mean, of course, "libertarians who agree with me") feel that jobs known to be hazardous should be presented as such, and jobs NOT known to be safe should probably be insured anyhow (How much more would we know about how to measure such things if there were a great deal of money to be made by a private firm which was 99% accurate the about the safety of a given job?) >According to my understanding, libertarians deeply deplore the fact >that thalidomide was not allowed to be marketed in the US; they >profoundly regret the fact that crib safety standards have interfered >with the right of infants to strangle themselves; and they are >outraged by government-imposed safety standards for both airlines and >nuclear power plants. Does this antiregulatory stance extend to the >prohibition of all workplace safety and health regulation as well? For such a foe of simplicity, you certainly apply a lot of it. Here, for example, you mention Thalidomide, which caused birth defects in the children of pregnant women who used it. You didn't mention Beta Blockers, which could have saved 10,000 lives/year in the US, but didn't, because the FDA didn't approve of them (See Milton & Rose Friedman, "Free to Choose", pp 196-197). If we absolutely MUST have government agencies evaluating drugs, why must we give them CONTROL over access to the drugs? One alternative is to cede the agency the right to post warnings on drug packages, for example "UNTESTED", "THOUGHT TO BE SAFE" "KNOWN TO BE SAFE", "THOUGHT TO BE DANGEROUS". This would have made Beta Blockers AND thalidomide available to those willing to take risks. The net effect? Well, as I recall, thalidomide was a mild tranquilizer, thought to be free from side-effects. Few would have risked a drug marked "DANGER - *NOT* FDA-APPROVED", as a means of relaxing themselves. On the other hand, the people who could have been saved by Beta Blockers (they help prevent death after heart attacks) might well have taken them in defiance of the warning. So we'd have a few more deformed children, and (I suspect) a great many more live adults. As for nuclear power plants, the same government you like for giving us OSHA also arbitrarily limits the possible damages of a nuclear accident to some artificially low figure. Why? Because insurance agencies would hardly insure reactors in cities for the amounts of damage they might actually cause. As it is, of course, the government has spoken, and it is the government, not the market, which must be blamed for any artificially imprudent placement or construction of nuclear power plants. As for airline safety, I leave it as an exercise for the reader, but I give you one hint: airlines with records of danger are not going to be more popular than cars with a record of exploding. [I can just hear Carnes screaming: "How many airliners would have to crash before Howard will concede that I'm right?" To which I reply that nothing would keep Ralph Nader from publishing a report "Unsafe at any Altitude" about some dangerous airlines, that there tend to be safety standards even when NOT required by government, and that insurance companies take a vigorous interest in the safety practices of their industrial clients.] >Let us have [trumpets, please] the Libertarian Solution to the >problems of occupational risk. And make sure it's a simple one. The envelope, please..... Ah here we are. The winner is: LIABILITY FOR FRAUD COMBINED WITH A FREE PRESS. What's that? You prefer the government solution? Including, I assume, a government that may not be prosecuted for exposing people to asbestos during their work on WWII ships, nor for the aftereffects on people of the supposedly safe "Agent Orange".
mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (05/29/85)
>From: carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) >Let us have [trumpets, please] the Libertarian Solution to the >problems of occupational risk. And make sure it's a simple one. If you die from toxic exposure at your job, you won't work for that guy anymore. Eventually he'll kill enough people to drive himself out of business. You gotta admit, it *is* simple.... Mike Kelly
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (05/30/85)
In article <198@ttrdc.UUCP> mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly) writes: > > >From: carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) > >Let us have [trumpets, please] the Libertarian Solution to the > >problems of occupational risk. And make sure it's a simple one. > > If you die from toxic exposure at your job, you won't work for that guy > anymore. Eventually he'll kill enough people to drive himself out of > business. You gotta admit, it *is* simple.... Isn't it strange then that people are still contracting black lung in coal mines and brown lung in cotton mills, as they have for centuries. Except that the incidence has gone down since OSHA regulations were enacted. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (05/31/85)
>/* mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly) / 12:36 pm May 29, 1985 */ >>From: carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) >>Let us have [trumpets, please] the Libertarian Solution to the >>problems of occupational risk. And make sure it's a simple one. >If you die from toxic exposure at your job, you won't work for that guy >anymore. Eventually he'll kill enough people to drive himself out of >business. You gotta admit, it *is* simple.... > >Mike Kelly Actually, in Libertaria, an employer who deceives an employee concerning such matters (e.g., lies to the employee about the dangers of toxic exposure on the job) in a situation such as the one you describe would probably get the death penalty. Seems to me that the employer has a considerably larger incentive than the bureaucrats then to make sure such dangers do not exist on the job. Mike Sykora
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/04/85)
> The 1984 Libertarian Party platform makes a similar recommendation: > > We call for the repeal of the OSH Act. This law denies the > right to liberty and property to both employer and employee, > and it interferes in their private contractual relations. > OSHA's arbitrary and highhanded actions invade property > rights, raise costs, and are an injustice imposed on > business. > > Heaven forbid we should impose an injustice on business, but what > about the problems of worker safety and health that OSHA was intended > to address? Millions of workers are daily exposed to such toxic > substances as lead, cyanide, silica dust, cotton dust, pesticides, > asbestos, and radioactive materials, and many workers are required to > risk their physical safety in various ways. > Occupational risks (as measured by injuries per hour) have been declining since early in this century --- at a time when the government's actions in pursuit of occupational safety were few and far between. This has been largely because of the efforts of labor unions to protect industrial workers from crippling and lethal accidents. While I am not great fan of labor unions, they are a natural part of a free market, and I trust them to be more concerned with worker safety than *any* government bureaucracy. > According to my understanding, libertarians deeply deplore the fact > that thalidomide was not allowed to be marketed in the US; Banning thalidomide eliminated a very effective medication for several groups that could have used it safely: men, women not of child-bearing age, and children. I have read that because thalidomide had been approved by the British government's equivalent of the FDA, the legal standards meant that the manufacturer of thalidomide was *not* liable for anything but a small part of the money sought by parents of the injured children; only the bad publicity caused the British manufacturers to increase their settlement from the equivalent of $5 million to $200 million. > they > profoundly regret the fact that crib safety standards have interfered > with the right of infants to strangle themselves; If the crib safety standards make sense, you shouldn't need to impose them coercively; has anyone forced RS-232 standards on manufacturers? > and they are > outraged by government-imposed safety standards for both airlines and > nuclear power plants. Airlines would certainly have created safety standards in the absence of government regulation for two reasons: dead people's estates file *very* expensive suits. (You may recall some years ago the airline crash in Chicago. I believe the final bill came to over $200 million. If that doesn't get the attention of a hard-eyed accountntintype, how will a few fines from the federal government?) > Does this antiregulatory stance extend to the > prohibition of all workplace safety and health regulation as well? > I suggest you do some reading concerning occupational safety, especially in regard to workman's compensation. In California (and many other states), the workman's compensation system took away the right of the injured party to sue the employer. If you aren't happy with the settlement that Workman's Compensation Board gives you --- you are out of luck. A recent example: a woman who drives a bus for Rapid Transit District was attacked by one of her riders. She requested assistance. After 34 minutes, her supervisor decided she really needed help, so he called the police. Of course by then, her assailant had raped her. Workman's Compensation granted her the standard amount for someone unable to work; she wanted to sue her employer, a public agency, that had been negligent in their actions. The courts told her she did not have a right to sue; the only process available to her was Workman's Compensation. You see, the current system was established just after the turn of the century because employers in high risk industries got tired of being sued when an employee was hurt on the job. The new system helps to socialize the risks and costs involved, reducing the incentive for an employer to make things safer in the workplace. > Let us have [trumpets, please] the Libertarian Solution to the > problems of occupational risk. And make sure it's a simple one. > > Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes Perhaps you should actually *read* about some of these issues. You might find that the world isn't anywhere near as simple a place as you seem to think.
rwsh@hound.UUCP (R.STUBBLEFIELD) (06/05/85)
[] In response to Richard Carnes' defense of government regulation: >> >>According to my understanding, libertarians deeply deplore the fact >>that thalidomide was not allowed to be marketed in the US; they >>profoundly regret the fact that crib safety standards have interfered >>with the right of infants to strangle themselves; and they are >>outraged by government-imposed safety standards for both airlines and >>nuclear power plants. Does this antiregulatory stance extend to the >>prohibition of all workplace safety and health regulation as well? Nat Howard says: > >As for nuclear power plants, the same government you like for giving us >OSHA also arbitrarily limits the possible damages of a nuclear accident >to some artificially low figure. Why? Because insurance agencies would >hardly insure reactors in cities for the amounts of damage they might >actually cause. As it is, of course, the government has spoken, and it >is the government, not the market, which must be blamed for any >artificially imprudent placement or construction of nuclear power >plants. Peter Beckmann says: "Contrary to widespread misconceptions, liability insurance for nuclear accidents is fully private with not a cent either contributed or confis- cated by the government (with the unimportant exception of small reactors under 100 MW, used mainly at universities and research labs). Liability up to $160 million is covered by a pool of private insurance companies, and any excess over that figure--which has never materialized and is unlikely to occur in the future--would be taken from a fund which utilities would con- tribute up to $5 million per licensed reactor or, with the present 92 li- censed units, up to $460 million, bringing the liability coverage to a total of $620 million." ACCESS TO ENERGY, May 1985 (Vol.12, no.9) Box 2298, Boulder CO 80306 I share Nat Howard's loathing of government intervention in economic affairs, but my study of the facts has led me to conclude that nuclear power has been hamstrung rather than subsidized by the government. The fact that some libertarians are quick to rally to the popular anti-nuclear cause is one of the things that makes me uneasy about the movement. Bob Stubblefield ihnp4!hound!rwsh
fagin@ucbvax.ARPA (Barry Steven Fagin) (06/05/85)
In article <558@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >In article <198@ttrdc.UUCP> mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly) writes: >> >> >From: carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) >> >Let us have [trumpets, please] the Libertarian Solution to the >> >problems of occupational risk. And make sure it's a simple one. >> >> If you die from toxic exposure at your job, you won't work for that guy >> anymore. Eventually he'll kill enough people to drive himself out of >> business. You gotta admit, it *is* simple.... > >Isn't it strange then that people are still contracting black lung in >coal mines and brown lung in cotton mills, as they have for centuries. > >Except that the incidence has gone down since OSHA regulations were >enacted. >-- > >Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh Will someone out there who disagrees with the libertarian position on job safety AND WHO HAS READ ONE OR MORE OF OUR POSTINGS addressing the issue please discuss it, if you are so inclined? The kind of strawman nonsense shown above accomplishes nothing. (My apologies if the postings haven't reached your site yet) --Barry -- Barry Fagin @ University of California, Berkeley