3 ms·
The argument is that it's better handled at the state level, and having a centralized federal authority for that is of little to no value.
by shin_lao 2y ago
The argument is that it's better handled at the state level, and having a centralized federal authority for that is of little to no value.
- chipgap98 2y agoHaving a patchwork of safety standards seems like a mess versus a federal policy that applies across the country
- api 2y agoIt'll allow states to race to the bottom in worker safety, which I suppose is the idea. It might also make compliance overall more expensive by creating a fragmented patchwork of regulations and practices, which increases complexity. Look at the effect of different states having different fuel formulation requirements on the oil refining industry. A lot of the cost of regulatory compliance comes from complexity, fragmentation, and cognitive load. Simple uniform regulations are cheaper and easier.
- miltonlost 2y agoWhich turns into Florida and Texas making mandatory water breaks illegal. It’s a bad argument that only serves to ruin workers lives and health .
- qgin 2y agoNot sure why it makes sense to redo the same work 50 times
- sofixa 2y agoNor for companies to have to 50 different compliance rulesets to follow.
- anotherhue 2y agoNot just that, but one central institution can employ experts and do studies due to the larger budget. 50 small ones are just going to scrape by with the minimum. Maybe there's a middle ground where states can have local-overrides - if their residents agree.