6 ms·

Would you think that imposing heavy fines, and perhaps even criminal penalties when workers are not properly informed, would be a better alternative to banning

Would you think that imposing heavy fines, and perhaps even criminal penalties when workers are not properly informed, would be a better alternative to banning an economically advantageous product?

lll-o-lll 3y ago
Also, bring back Asbestos, properly handled it is perfectly safe. Radium also gets a bad rap from the “think of the children” brigade. And don’t get me started on leaded fuel! What an overreach from the government on that one! How dare these union thugs get in the way of clear economic progression that provides far more benefit than harm!
mitemte 3y ago
This is probably going to cause the price of large format porcelain bench tops down. They have less silica content than artificial stone and granite. I believe they are also cut to size off-site.
- kortilla 3y ago
  You mean up, right? Forcing demand into a product drives the price up.
  - account42 3y ago
    Only short-term unless the supply is static.
    - kortilla 3y ago
      That’s not at all how economics works. Unless a technology breakthrough comes in that reduces cost at scale, increased demand increases price. The only exception is if producers are already selling at essentially the marginal cost of production for the whole industry. This scenario is extremely rare, especially in base materials.
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        Economies of scale can happen just fine without technological breakthroughs.
        kortilla 3y ago
        They didn’t happen before engineered stone, why?
rtpg 3y ago
Not to be too glib but I think here the reasoning is that letting market forces duke it out (even with fines and penalties) is considered to not be fast enough compared to the number of people whose health is being put at risk. Like here there are a bunch of people who have lung cancer now. And there's probably a bunch more who will get it from doing all the work up until now. And this has been in the news for a while I think. I imagine that despite all of this, there's still stuff coming up. The first case was reported back in 2015. 8 years is a pretty long time to think "hey, maybe we should do stuff so our workers won't get lung cancer". The fact that that is not incentive enough is probably a signal that there's not really much left to do, honestly.
- kortilla 3y ago
  Criminal liability is not “let the market forces duke it out” in any meaningful sense.
  - rtpg 3y ago
    Yeah I agree that it’s way more powerful than civil infractions or the like. I meant more that the feedback loop is quite slow
  - junaru 3y ago
    Your comments puts cheaper kitchen tables above potential lifelong worker health issues. No amount of 'criminal liability' will bring back loved ones.
    - rbanffy 3y ago
      Nothing will bring those people back. If that’s the only goal, then banning is also frivolous. It’s also unclear whether there is a similar safe alternative, so banning one type of product might just shift the problem to a new toxic and dangerous material. The only solution is to enforce safety regulations and/or come up with better ones. At one time, when I decided I’d sand a wall in my house, I ended up attaching a vacuum cleaner to my sander so that the dust wouldn’t go everywhere. Wearing the filter mask was also extremely uncomfortable, so it might be worth to design better breathing PPEs that are more human-friendly to drive acceptance up.
2muchcoffeeman 3y ago
Not informed? You think that trades people were not properly informed to wear PPE at all times? I’m have a3D printer as a hobby and I wear all the PPE when sanding or spray painting. These people know perfectly well they need to take precautions.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
sjy 3y ago
This is addressed in the linked source, although that wouldn’t be obvious if you’re not familiar with Australian work health and safety law: > the re-emergence of silicosis in engineered stone workers is also due to a failure of compliance with existing WHS laws … PCBUs [persons conducting a business or undertaking, who are subject to WHS laws] have not done all that is reasonably practicable to eliminate or minimise those risks, and workers have not taken reasonable care for their own health and safety and that of others [which is a criminal offence]. Finally, there has been insufficient compliance and enforcement actions by WHS regulators to drive behaviour change in the sector … A lower silica content engineered stone is not expected to result in improvements in compliance. The features of the sector that have contributed to the current levels of non-compliance remain – the sector is comprised of mostly small businesses with few barriers to entry and a lower understanding of WHS obligations.
- defrost 3y ago
  The "ban" (proposed for July 2024 and after) is actually conditional upon the building industry getting their act together with respect to worker safety and compliance: National Dust Disease Taskforce Final Report - June 2021 https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/national-dust-disease-taskforce-final-report?language=en https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/national-du... [PDF] https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2022/07/national-dust-disease-taskforce-final-report.pdf https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2022... Page 11: (Recomendations ...) D) Commence the processes required to implement a full ban on the importation of some or all engineered stone products if, by July 2024: – There is no measurable and acceptable improvement in regulatory compliance rates for the engineered stone sector as reported by jurisdictions; and - Evidence indicates preventative measures are not effectively protecting those working with engineered stone from silicosis and silica-associated diseases In short - (We recommend to) Ban this stuff UNLESS building sector improves safety AND demonstrates effective change.
  - Hawxy 3y ago
    > is actually conditional upon the building industry getting their act together I don't think this is correct. The SafeWork report (recommending a complete ban) superseded this health report, and the ministers appear to have aligned on the SafeWork recommendation.
rgmerk 3y ago
This doesn’t take into account the realities of people in that industry. It’s highly fragmented, dominated by men and specifically younger men, who self-select for a high tolerance of risk and a low tolerance of rules. By the time they find out that they’re not invulnerable and rules exist to protect them, it’s too late.
DoItToMe81 3y ago
People are dying slow, painful and horrific deaths because fines have not worked to dissuade these companies. Bans are the only option left.
rvba 3y ago
A lot of manual workers ignore protective equipment even after training and while constantly supervised

Would you think that imposing heavy fines, and perhaps even criminal penalties when workers are not properly informed, would be a better alternative to banning an economically advantageous product?

lll-o-lll 3y ago

Also, bring back Asbestos, properly handled it is perfectly safe. Radium also gets a bad rap from the “think of the children” brigade. And don’t get me started on leaded fuel! What an overreach from the government on that one! How dare these union thugs get in the way of clear economic progression that provides far more benefit than harm!

mitemte 3y ago

This is probably going to cause the price of large format porcelain bench tops down. They have less silica content than artificial stone and granite. I believe they are also cut to size off-site.

kortilla 3y ago
You mean up, right? Forcing demand into a product drives the price up.
- account42 3y ago
  Only short-term unless the supply is static.
  - kortilla 3y ago
    That’s not at all how economics works. Unless a technology breakthrough comes in that reduces cost at scale, increased demand increases price. The only exception is if producers are already selling at essentially the marginal cost of production for the whole industry. This scenario is extremely rare, especially in base materials.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      Economies of scale can happen just fine without technological breakthroughs.
      - kortilla 3y ago
        They didn’t happen before engineered stone, why?

rtpg 3y ago

Not to be too glib but I think here the reasoning is that letting market forces duke it out (even with fines and penalties) is considered to not be fast enough compared to the number of people whose health is being put at risk. Like here there are a bunch of people who have lung cancer now. And there's probably a bunch more who will get it from doing all the work up until now. And this has been in the news for a while I think. I imagine that despite all of this, there's still stuff coming up. The first case was reported back in 2015. 8 years is a pretty long time to think "hey, maybe we should do stuff so our workers won't get lung cancer". The fact that that is not incentive enough is probably a signal that there's not really much left to do, honestly.

kortilla 3y ago
Criminal liability is not “let the market forces duke it out” in any meaningful sense.
- rtpg 3y ago
  Yeah I agree that it’s way more powerful than civil infractions or the like. I meant more that the feedback loop is quite slow
- junaru 3y ago
  Your comments puts cheaper kitchen tables above potential lifelong worker health issues. No amount of 'criminal liability' will bring back loved ones.
  - rbanffy 3y ago
    Nothing will bring those people back. If that’s the only goal, then banning is also frivolous. It’s also unclear whether there is a similar safe alternative, so banning one type of product might just shift the problem to a new toxic and dangerous material. The only solution is to enforce safety regulations and/or come up with better ones. At one time, when I decided I’d sand a wall in my house, I ended up attaching a vacuum cleaner to my sander so that the dust wouldn’t go everywhere. Wearing the filter mask was also extremely uncomfortable, so it might be worth to design better breathing PPEs that are more human-friendly to drive acceptance up.

2muchcoffeeman 3y ago

Not informed? You think that trades people were not properly informed to wear PPE at all times? I’m have a3D printer as a hobby and I wear all the PPE when sanding or spray painting. These people know perfectly well they need to take precautions.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

sjy 3y ago

This is addressed in the linked source, although that wouldn’t be obvious if you’re not familiar with Australian work health and safety law: > the re-emergence of silicosis in engineered stone workers is also due to a failure of compliance with existing WHS laws … PCBUs [persons conducting a business or undertaking, who are subject to WHS laws] have not done all that is reasonably practicable to eliminate or minimise those risks, and workers have not taken reasonable care for their own health and safety and that of others [which is a criminal offence]. Finally, there has been insufficient compliance and enforcement actions by WHS regulators to drive behaviour change in the sector … A lower silica content engineered stone is not expected to result in improvements in compliance. The features of the sector that have contributed to the current levels of non-compliance remain – the sector is comprised of mostly small businesses with few barriers to entry and a lower understanding of WHS obligations.

defrost 3y ago
The "ban" (proposed for July 2024 and after) is actually conditional upon the building industry getting their act together with respect to worker safety and compliance: National Dust Disease Taskforce Final Report - June 2021 https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/national-dust-disease-taskforce-final-report?language=en https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/national-du... [PDF] https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2022/07/national-dust-disease-taskforce-final-report.pdf https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2022... Page 11: (Recomendations ...) D) Commence the processes required to implement a full ban on the importation of some or all engineered stone products if, by July 2024: – There is no measurable and acceptable improvement in regulatory compliance rates for the engineered stone sector as reported by jurisdictions; and - Evidence indicates preventative measures are not effectively protecting those working with engineered stone from silicosis and silica-associated diseases In short - (We recommend to) Ban this stuff UNLESS building sector improves safety AND demonstrates effective change.
- Hawxy 3y ago
  > is actually conditional upon the building industry getting their act together I don't think this is correct. The SafeWork report (recommending a complete ban) superseded this health report, and the ministers appear to have aligned on the SafeWork recommendation.

rgmerk 3y ago

This doesn’t take into account the realities of people in that industry. It’s highly fragmented, dominated by men and specifically younger men, who self-select for a high tolerance of risk and a low tolerance of rules. By the time they find out that they’re not invulnerable and rules exist to protect them, it’s too late.

DoItToMe81 3y ago

People are dying slow, painful and horrific deaths because fines have not worked to dissuade these companies. Bans are the only option left.

rvba 3y ago

A lot of manual workers ignore protective equipment even after training and while constantly supervised