(click on ads for more details)

Anne Northup Was Right On The Ergonomics Issue

by Theresa Fritz Camoriano

          Who has a greater interest in a worker’s safety – a business owner who relies on that worker to produce profits for his business, or a bureaucrat in Washington who does not know the worker and who has no personal stake in the worker’s success?  Since the health and safety of the worker puts money in the business owner’s pocket but does nothing for the bureaucrat’s wealth, the answer should be obvious.  However, many people continue to trust the bureaucrat to protect the safety of workers and to consider the business owner to be an enemy of the worker.  The most recent attempt to enact ergonomics rules, which was defeated by the Republicans, including our own Anne Northup, is another example of the difference in points of view, between those who see business owners as evil and bureaucrats as the saviors of workers, and those who see people from all walks of life as being motivated by their own self interest – including employers, employees, and bureaucrats.

          While many of us were raised on the myths about evil business owners who plunder workers, and about the wonderful government that swoops in to protect us, let’s look past the myths and just consider basic human nature and basic economic incentives.  The fact is that we are all concerned about our own profits and will tend to take the actions that increase those profits.  While the profits of employers and employees both depend upon keeping employees healthy and productive, the profits of bureaucrats do not.  In fact, the bureaucrats’ success has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting  employees.  For example, one way many bureaucrats obtain their “profits” is through fines levied on businesses.  So, the financial success of many bureaucrats depends upon creating complex rules that are difficult to follow, catching businesses who fail to follow all the rules, and then collecting fines (or “profits”) from those businesses.  The proposed ergonomics regulations were intended to add to the complexity to benefit the bureaucrats, not the workers.

          I have the opportunity to deal with many owners of small-to-medium-sized manufacturing companies.  If I mention OSHA to them, these usually pleasant, mild-mannered people tend to bristle.  From their point of view, OSHA is not much different from a Mafia protection racket, except that it is worse, because it is backed by the force of law.  These employers say that the OSHA regulations are so complex that it is impossible to be in total compliance, so, no matter how careful and safety-conscious they are, they always end up being fined, and the amount of the fines appears to have more to do with the profitability of the business than with the severity of the infraction.  Here are a couple of examples:

          **One employer owned a mechanics' shop.  His mechanics found the shop to be uncomfortably hot in the summer and brought their own fans to work.  When the OSHA inspector found the fans in the workplace, he fined the employer, saying that the fans were not in compliance with the regulations.  The workers obviously wanted the fans and thought they improved their work environment.  They wanted them so much that they were even willing to spend their own money to buy them, but OSHA said "NO!", and it levied a hefty fine on the employer for allowing his employees to try to make their workplace more comfortable.

          **Another employer had stored something in the attic above his business.  OSHA asked to see the engineering calculations that had been done to ensure that the attic could support the stored load.  Since the employer could not show the calculations, he was severely fined by OSHA, even though nobody suggested that there was any real danger posed by storing this product in the attic.

          The fines in these cases were quite severe, and they did nothing to improve the safety of the workers.  However, they did produce income for the bureaucrats.

          Even if a bureaucrat really did care about worker safety, he would not be in a good position to assess the individual needs of workers so as to improve the safety for each individual worker or to continually improve the work environment as technology improves.  Government regulations are by their nature rigid and one-size-fits-all.  They cannot be adjusted depending upon the special needs of the situation or to take advantage of improving technology, and this is not beneficial to real flesh and blood people.  Take as an example the regulations requiring air bags in automobiles.  By now, we know that air bags can be very dangerous for children and small adults and have actually killed several people.  So, for some people, air bags prove to be quite deadly.  However, the government still forces us to buy them.  OSHA regulations are very similar, but much more complex and oppressive.

          When businesses compete for workers, one of the benefits they can offer workers is a safe, pleasant work environment.   Everything else being equal, good workers will be attracted to the safest work environments, so businesses that provide a dangerous environment will find it difficult to attract good workers.  They will also find themselves losing money due to workers’ increased medical costs and lost time.  Thus, the businesses have a great incentive to make the workplace safe.  If the government wants to help workers, it will provide information to employers that will help them improve the safety of their workplaces, but it will eliminate the complex, oppressive rules that are simply punitive in nature and do little or nothing to improve workplace safety.