I don't know, if you employ peoples to do a job with a such a risk to their lives, IMO it's your responsibility to ensure that protection is used not just provided.
I didn't say that dangerous work should be banned. When a job has risks, the necessary precautions should be taken to minimize that risk. That's what a union would be asking for in negotiations, right? They shouldn't have to.
It is more important to some people's sense of fairness that other people are forced to work, even if this is ultimately fatal to them, than everyone in society is kept as safe as reasonably possible. This causes so many problems.
If you look up the mortality rates for things like mining, fishing, or logging in the US, you'll find that they tend to run between 0.01% and 0.05%. You're proposing a risk 100 to 500 times what the most dangerous ground-based jobs run.
I have no doubt there are some people who would accept that risk, but the political problems with it don't end just because they're not government employees.
Millions of men and woman are exploited every day doing regular factory/office work. Factory workers risk their limbs and lives every day they go to work. So you obviously want to stop that as well right? Or if not: Why not?
"The most we can do is force workers to trade pay for safety, which they might not want to do."
This is a weird way to frame things, as though workers don't really mind being killed or injured on the job. Safety is management's responsibility, not an employee choice.
The government's duty to protect your life does not extend beyond protecting it from the use of force by other people.
If you choose to work in a place, that's your choice. Even if you fail to make sure it's safe before you work there, or decide to work there despite the risk.
Anyway, even if OSHA were legitime, this app is not effective at achieving anything, even if executed well.
The question is not whether workers mind being killed or injured. The question is which they mind more - lower pay, unemployment, or an increased risk of injury or death.
There are many things we could do to reduce your first world risk of death - mandate that all cars are have a mechanically enforced speed limit of 20mph, for example. We choose not to. Why?
I didn't imply they should shut down. I just wanted to point out that the risk that the workers are taking is significantly higher if you take into account how likely they are to get seriously ill. Their protection should be prioritized.
Thats a very virtuous and noble stance. According to the BLS, among the top 10 most dangerous jobs in America (warehouse worker didn't make the list) are loggers, pilots, fishermen, farmers, construction workers, roofers, trash collector and extraction workers.
Can I assume that out of concern for these workers you also don't buy food, don't fly commercially, you dispose of your own refuse, never use anything made out of wood and never enter a man made structure?
But everyone is obligated to minimize their risk of dying in most companies!
You don't see people expressing their freedom to do as they please when working with high voltage equipment, chemicals, or anything remotely hazardous. Even when it's only themselves who'd be affected.
It's unacceptable to "mitigate risk enough" because laborers are motivated by the fact that they have needs and dependents' needs that have to be met. That is their motivation for working anywhere.
They have no other recourse but to engage in the time <-> compensation transaction.
Because of this, people lose their agency to act a truly free agent in that transaction.
Companies have the privilege of total knowledge of their facilities and processes. They also know there is a teeming pool of people that will take shit jobs because food and shelter is a necessity.
There is an asymmetry in that relation that allows some pretty evil things to happen as history has shown.
We've decided that pulling the "it was truly informed consent" card is a dishonest way to describe that transaction, because desperate people will be injured and killed so an employer can save a buck.
Would you be OK allowing two consenting adults to fight to the death for pay? Most people would not be for allowing this. A lot of people are willing to work in very risky environments because they feel they have no alternative. Should companies be allowed to have dangerous work environments because there are people desperate enough to be willing to work in them?
Conversely, people can stop working jobs that value economy over safety. I guess they must make enough money to not worry about the risk, which is somewhat sad.
Actually I'd prefer OSHA set some sane limits on hours worked instead of assuming an Invisible Hand will stop employers from working laborers to death.
reply