That isn't really what these regulations would do though; if that is the goal then an inspection program would achieve them more effectively and with better outcomes.
All pre-start paperwork does is filter out people who are diligent at paperwork, because they have to do a lot more to get to the starting line.
And how does this contradict what I am advocating?
I'm not saying that there won't be an inspection. What I am saying is that there are plenty of steps in the process that could be done with less gate-keeping.
I was thinking something more akin to routine inspection program carried out by independent personnnel applicable to all procedures, not just the reviews that are necessitated due to screw ups.
I like the idea. But isn’t it a common complaint that at a company there are very few people there that really have a wholistic view? That it would be as hard to bring a regulator in to inspect as it would be a new hire?
Compared to engineering where you often see the same things from job to job.
I basically like this idea too, although rather than the worst-kept 20%, I'd define a standard at the beginning of the year and then do any that don't meet that standard at inspection time, no matter what percentage it ends up being.
The state of Washington is an interesting case. They had annual inspections and then somebody ran the numbers and found that so few cars were being flagged, that it was an enormous waste of resources. They got rid of their inspection requirement.
More programs should be run like that. Set a goal, create a program, then periodically evaluate if the goal is still the same and if the program is effective.
Nah, the assholes are the exception, not the rule. This level of bureaucracy is never for the good of the people.
You could have a process that approves things optimistically and have inspections coming later. You could have some form of certification program that let's you say "It's not my first rodeo. I know what I am doing, please let me do it and I take full responsibility for any shit that might happen if I deviate from the best practices."
We could call this process "receiving inspection" and have dedicated staff who perform this inspection who follow some type of written "work instruction" to inspect the receipt before approval.
How about they stop demanding paperwork before any production is made, and instead go after actual trespassers by doing blind tests?
Because, you know, as a consumer I fail to see how paperwork protects me from anything. Being expert at paperwork doesn't mean you're an expert of being a fair tradesman.
Paperwork collectors mentality is precisely what we should beat off of bureaucracy.
But without some inspection scheme would there be more bad or borderline cases? The existence of some outrageous cases doesn't prove that the law is useless. (I know I haven't proved that the law is useful either).
Also the failure to have the inspection might be easier to prosecute and show was deliberate than particular safety breaches.
The reality, as in so many other areas with regard to the US, is crappy enforcement. If inspection authority was enforced at the state level (while still being funded by the federal government) I suspect you'd see much greater results.
Unfortunately in many industries, companies are allowed to regulate/inspect themselves. Because they supposedly have more experience with it than the government, and it saves on government spending.
All pre-start paperwork does is filter out people who are diligent at paperwork, because they have to do a lot more to get to the starting line.
reply