Well now then you have some states that have adopted OSHA to regulate for themselves and there are states that allow the OSHA to regulate. In the states that regulate their own OSHA program, there could be a discriminatory enforcement toward certian sectors of the labor force and business groups. At this level, the On the federal level, the local clout could presumably sway the inspectors systematically therefore providing a heavy weighted business concentration towards one way or another. That is, excessive labor supply and weak business and job availability or weak labor supply and stong business. The two extremes may also be viewed as strong, compentent and high output labor with weak business or the opposite.
Now in the states where OSHA is the at the federal level and have little or no control over the OSHA regulatory process, there may exist a more stable balance between business and labor force.
So then, thereoretically the agency will act accordingly toward their own agendas while managing the directions of the policy implementations in order to better satisfy their agendas. The agendas being the goals of OSHA to futher their agency and better fund their programs.
But if you ask me personally, I think OSHA has their head on their shoulders. You may view the agency as a big brother with big muscles and the authority to flex those muscles and tell you what to do and when to do any action as they see fit. But this big brother has all the information, resources, research and intellegency to watch out for you and yours.
What would you rather have? A jobsite without any regulations where everything is sorta willy nilly? Or a jobsite where workers are required to wear hearing protection, wear steel toe boots, check their electrical cords for breaks or tears..ect. Me, I would rather have someone watching my back (low risk) then work in an unregulated environment.. place of higher risk
No comments:
Post a Comment