From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 16 Nov 92 15:40:48 GMT
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan

In article <1992Nov13.190437.16721@informix.com>, davek@informix.com (David Kosenko) writes:
|> In article <KVC=yK=@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
|> [in response to:]
|> >|>     4) How about safety legislation?  Should companies be permitted
|> >|>        to just forget safety (since it clearly impinges on profits)
|> >|>        just to make a bigger buck, and let the workers be damned?
|> >|>        Back to the sweatshops of the 1890s, huh?  
|> >|> 
|> >
|> >Health and safety legislation generally followed improvements made
|> >by companies (see Hayek, et. al. in "Capitalism and Historians" and
|> >T.S Ashton's "The Industrial Revolution" for more info).  Safety
|> >is obviously a concern to employees, although safety can be overdone.
|> >Companies that provide a safer work environment will be able to 
|> >attract more workers than those who don't, assuming workers value
|> >safety.  
|> 
|> I'd venture to say this is a misguided statement, as it assumes 100%
|> mobility of the work force.  To take a recent example as illustration,
|> those people who were killed or injured in that chicken processing
|> plant fire down south would no doubt have preferred a safer working 
|> environment than the one they had, but economic opportunity being poor,
|> they took what they could get.  

Look at that case a little closer.  The plant was violating laws on
the books.  Did those laws make the workers any safer?  You may argue
that with more funds, there could be more frequent inspections.  While
this may be true, I think the bigger problem is that the inspectors
have no interest in the safety of the workers.  They can be bought
off or simply perform poor inspections.  However, if the safety
rules were part of a contract there would be a strong interest in
the workers (or their union) to more carefully inspect the plant
for violations.  Government imposed safety rules create an mindset
that the world must be safe because government is protecting me.
In fact, the government isn't protecting anybody.

|> Did they "value safety?"  Let's be
|> realistic, everyone values safety. Sometimes we have to choose "less
|> safe" in order to make a living.  Personally, I find this to be very
|> sad, but in cases like this  chicken processing plant, the lack of
|> safety was inexcusable!

Clearly the plant was operating in an unsafe manner.  More importantly,
the workers were most likely unaware of the safety risks.  This was
not a case of a worker voluntarily agreeing to trade off some level of
safety for some other benefit.  However, as I mentioned, what good
did it do to have safety laws.  The company violated them.  Sure the
company may be 'punished', but that didn't exactly help those who
died.  I believe that workers would be better protected if safety
was a contractual concern and inspections were handled by representatives
selected by the workers themselves.  Since government inspectors are
really hired by nobody in particular, they are accountable to nobody.
A private inspector would likely lose his job and possibly be sued if
he failed to meet his obligations to the workers.

|> Plucking chickens should not be a risk-choice
|> occupation (as opposed to something like steelwork, where certain dangers 
|> are inherent in the job itself, e.g. falling).  "Safety can be overdone"?
|> "You culdn't pay me enough to take that job, it's far too safe!"  I realize
|> you mean that safety measures can be more extensive than YOU feel
|> necessary.  I can't say that I agree.
|> 

Exactly my point.  You and I will most likely not agree on the level of
safety we consider appropriate for any given task.  This is why it is
not the job of government to impose rigid safety standards.  Different
people have different levels of risk tolerance.  Some would gladly
exchange some level of safety for more income.  I have no problem with
this *as long as the risks are understood*.  Clearly in the case of the
chicken plant, the workers weren't aware of the safety problems.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17563 alt.politics.democrats.d:647 alt.politics.elections:24207 ba.politics:7299 talk.politics.misc:61149