6 ms·

The reason we have OSHA is because when workplace safety is the responsibility of each individual to negotiate it becomes non-existent. Putting the responsibil

The reason we have OSHA is because when workplace safety is the responsibility of each individual to negotiate it becomes non-existent. Putting the responsibility on individuals leads to a race to the bottom: every job can be horribly dangerous as long as the alternative jobs are too.

ryandrake 9y ago
Of course, any time you have a so-called negotiation between partied with severely different bargaining power, it will be a race to the bottom to the detriment of the powerless party. This is why we need regulations, OSHA, unions, consumer protection laws, product safety rules, etc.
- criddell 9y ago
  Surely you wouldn't characterize NFL players as being on the bottom? For most of the recent kneeling-during-the-anthem controversy, people are ripping on the players because they are in such a privileged position. The characterization is that they are at the top of everything.
khalilravanna 9y ago
Totally agree. Another aspect of this is that the decision they're making is one that humans are very bad at: prioritizing their future over their present. "Ok maybe I have headaches when I'm in my 50s but today I get paid way more than everyone I know." Knowing that humans have an unbelievable penchant for putting their present well-being over their future well-being, I think it behooves us (society) to protect these people from making these decision that will in many cases destroy their lives.
- aje403 9y ago
  That logic is garbage. We should ban cigarettes? Smoking marijuana should not be legalized (risk factor for lung cancer)? Why not alcohol too? Where else can we stretch that? Maybe we should perform evaluations on people to determine what career paths they should follow to protect their best interests! Society should behoove itself to mind its own business.
  - oreo81 9y ago
    >Society should behoove itself to mind its own business. This
  - xg15 9y ago
    How does fixing work safety issues to banning alcohol? This looks like a slippery slope argument. There are many options to take a sensible position somewhere between the extremes.
    - aje403 9y ago
      Where do you see the words “work safety “ anywhere in the comment I’m responding to?
      - foobarchu 9y ago
        Nowhere, but the grandparent comment literally contains the phrase "workplace safety" and talks about OSHA. This entire comment chain is about people having agency to choose a highly dangerous profession in exchange for good compensation.
        aje403 9y ago
        Yes, exactly, and I think the grandparent OSHA argument has merit, however, the parent comment completely distorted it into a case for big brother - which I do not believe has any merit.
  - Retra 9y ago
    This is the business of society. It is the only business of society. There's no point in having a government that doesn't look out for the welfare of its people.
    - aje403 9y ago
      The business of society is ensuring that nobody else f$%^s with my business - not telling me what to do with it. The only gray area is when I'm doing something that affects others.
- ebullientocelot 9y ago
  Shall we automatically turn off televisions and restrict the pounds per person garbage food sold each month to protect people from themselves as well? Oh, I know, let's have a new tax-funded agency that is constantly going in and out of people's homes ensuring that only those couples financially capable of raising a child are having unprotected sex.
- khedoros1 9y ago
  > I think it behooves us (society) to protect these people from making these decision that will in many cases destroy their lives. OK. Where's the limit? That kind of protecting people from making their own decisions (including objectively bad ones) has always struck me as dystopian. I think it's a good idea to educate people on the costs of their actions, and that we should find ways to impress on an emotional level how present actions will affect someone's future. I think it's a bad idea for society to make the decision for them, though.
  - mindcrime 9y ago
    I think it's a bad idea for society to make the decision for them, though. It's not just a bad idea, it's totally immoral and unacceptable. Denying a person their agency is denying the very essence of what makes them human. It's no different than slavery in principle. Either you have self-ownership or not, there is no middle ground.
    - birksherty 9y ago
      I disagree. e.g. Doping in sports. Should we allow everything? Then people will start using all kings of drugs for money and fame. This will encourage everyone in the future to use them. Also, athletes who want to participate without drugs, will have no choice. Things will go downhill fast. And it's not just about the individuals. Their whole family will have to suffer. A single person without any family, can do everything he wants in their personal space. That will not harm anyone else. If they do that, earn a living and get famous, that will hurt their family and future generations too. That's why we need law and regulations.
      - khedoros1 9y ago
        "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins". The idea of having laws to regulate behavior is so that one person, through exercise of their own agency, doesn't deny someone else the exercise of theirs. Taking your example of sports: An organized league is something that an athlete joins by choice. The athlete agrees to abide by certain rules as a condition of participating in that league; they aren't being forced to give up their right to choice, they're choosing to. The comment you responded to isn't arguing against laws and regulations, it's arguing against laws that take away agency for some reason besides protecting equal rights (e.g. someone's swinging fists aren't going to hit anyone else, but "we" don't like that, so we'll prohibit them from swinging their fists, because we feel it's for their own good). Society shouldn't dictate what's good for the individual; the individual must.

ryandrake 9y ago

Of course, any time you have a so-called negotiation between partied with severely different bargaining power, it will be a race to the bottom to the detriment of the powerless party. This is why we need regulations, OSHA, unions, consumer protection laws, product safety rules, etc.

criddell 9y ago
Surely you wouldn't characterize NFL players as being on the bottom? For most of the recent kneeling-during-the-anthem controversy, people are ripping on the players because they are in such a privileged position. The characterization is that they are at the top of everything.

khalilravanna 9y ago

Totally agree. Another aspect of this is that the decision they're making is one that humans are very bad at: prioritizing their future over their present. "Ok maybe I have headaches when I'm in my 50s but today I get paid way more than everyone I know." Knowing that humans have an unbelievable penchant for putting their present well-being over their future well-being, I think it behooves us (society) to protect these people from making these decision that will in many cases destroy their lives.

aje403 9y ago
That logic is garbage. We should ban cigarettes? Smoking marijuana should not be legalized (risk factor for lung cancer)? Why not alcohol too? Where else can we stretch that? Maybe we should perform evaluations on people to determine what career paths they should follow to protect their best interests! Society should behoove itself to mind its own business.
- oreo81 9y ago
  >Society should behoove itself to mind its own business. This
- xg15 9y ago
  How does fixing work safety issues to banning alcohol? This looks like a slippery slope argument. There are many options to take a sensible position somewhere between the extremes.
  - aje403 9y ago
    Where do you see the words “work safety “ anywhere in the comment I’m responding to?
    - foobarchu 9y ago
      Nowhere, but the grandparent comment literally contains the phrase "workplace safety" and talks about OSHA. This entire comment chain is about people having agency to choose a highly dangerous profession in exchange for good compensation.
      - aje403 9y ago
        Yes, exactly, and I think the grandparent OSHA argument has merit, however, the parent comment completely distorted it into a case for big brother - which I do not believe has any merit.
- Retra 9y ago
  This is the business of society. It is the only business of society. There's no point in having a government that doesn't look out for the welfare of its people.
  - aje403 9y ago
    The business of society is ensuring that nobody else f$%^s with my business - not telling me what to do with it. The only gray area is when I'm doing something that affects others.
ebullientocelot 9y ago
Shall we automatically turn off televisions and restrict the pounds per person garbage food sold each month to protect people from themselves as well? Oh, I know, let's have a new tax-funded agency that is constantly going in and out of people's homes ensuring that only those couples financially capable of raising a child are having unprotected sex.
khedoros1 9y ago
> I think it behooves us (society) to protect these people from making these decision that will in many cases destroy their lives. OK. Where's the limit? That kind of protecting people from making their own decisions (including objectively bad ones) has always struck me as dystopian. I think it's a good idea to educate people on the costs of their actions, and that we should find ways to impress on an emotional level how present actions will affect someone's future. I think it's a bad idea for society to make the decision for them, though.
- mindcrime 9y ago
  I think it's a bad idea for society to make the decision for them, though. It's not just a bad idea, it's totally immoral and unacceptable. Denying a person their agency is denying the very essence of what makes them human. It's no different than slavery in principle. Either you have self-ownership or not, there is no middle ground.
  - birksherty 9y ago
    I disagree. e.g. Doping in sports. Should we allow everything? Then people will start using all kings of drugs for money and fame. This will encourage everyone in the future to use them. Also, athletes who want to participate without drugs, will have no choice. Things will go downhill fast. And it's not just about the individuals. Their whole family will have to suffer. A single person without any family, can do everything he wants in their personal space. That will not harm anyone else. If they do that, earn a living and get famous, that will hurt their family and future generations too. That's why we need law and regulations.
    - khedoros1 9y ago
      "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins". The idea of having laws to regulate behavior is so that one person, through exercise of their own agency, doesn't deny someone else the exercise of theirs. Taking your example of sports: An organized league is something that an athlete joins by choice. The athlete agrees to abide by certain rules as a condition of participating in that league; they aren't being forced to give up their right to choice, they're choosing to. The comment you responded to isn't arguing against laws and regulations, it's arguing against laws that take away agency for some reason besides protecting equal rights (e.g. someone's swinging fists aren't going to hit anyone else, but "we" don't like that, so we'll prohibit them from swinging their fists, because we feel it's for their own good). Society shouldn't dictate what's good for the individual; the individual must.