>>Mike Lee wrote: > > > What about workers who put profit over their own lives? > > > > >> > Huh? >> >> Your assumption is that employers are adults and employees are stupid >> children unable or unwilling to look out for their own best interests. >> >> There may be cases where hidden hazards cannot be perceived by employees, >> but these are the exception, not the rule. Employees have a responsibility >> to refuse to work in conditions they deem too dangerous. When they ignore >> dangers, then they are putting their own profit over their own lives. >> >> -Mike > >That's a great laissez-faire argument, which I might even accept if >unemployment were sufficiently low that it was clear that employees >had some other options. > >The present situation is like musical chairs, with jobs as the chairs. >Some poor sap is going to get stuck with a job that is more dangerous >than it needs to be. > >When the market messes up, and people start dying from risks they >did not have a chance to freely accept, then Government SHOULD >intervene. > > ---David > >Overly simplistic economic theory, Maru?
I think the safety people on the list will speak to this better than I will, but there are abuses and checks/balances well between some of the extremes. The government does intervene when someone dies (in a big way from what I remember hearing years ago). Part of the "industry monitoring" I do relates to the OSHA website. I wish I could find the announcement (might be from Jan/Feb time frame) where OSHA sends out warnings to thousands of industries with problematic rates, etc. but instead- base website is www.osha.gove more at- http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=NEWS_RELEASES&; p_id=10786 In all fairness I do see people effectively "trade in their bodies" for "hard/heavy" jobs that pay well and then accustom their lifestyle to the overtime pay, etc....... as well as those that live frugally trying to balance life and family (barely). My personal bias is that ergonomic changes to make jobs easier/less prone to injuries is a "gimmie" on cost recovery in many jobs, but many companies don't make the same decisions. In some ways, with an aging work force, some of the companies who will survive the next several decades may be those that best navigate profits without losing them to injuries/fines. Dee
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
