This particular article is actually pretty informative ... until the dialog at the end. And in it, he's approving of a _strict liability_ scheme. I doubt most

This particular article is actually pretty informative ... until the dialog at the end. And in it, he's approving of a _strict liability_ scheme. I doubt most other pro-business ideologues would approve of a law that 'simplifies' legal disputes by mandating that the business always lose the case. (In fact, there's currently an effort to overturn New York's Scaffolding Law, and the arguments fall in line with that detailed in the article -- victims are being negligent or careless, so why should contractors pay?) The article is not without flaws ... Workers comp was a compromise that created strict liability, but also limited the compensation workers could receive for on-the-job injuries, so it can be argued that it was actually a windfall for owners at the expense of workers.