4 ms·
It feels that way, but this legislation is ideologically consistent with reducing regulations which constrain companies and force them to take the externalities
by rectang 1y ago
It feels that way, but this legislation is ideologically consistent with reducing regulations which constrain companies and force them to take the externalities of their actions into account.
- haiku2077 1y agoThe CSB is not a regulatory agency. It doesn't enforce anything against companies. It investigates major disasters and publishes recommendations. It's like the NTSB but for industries that use hazardous chemicals.
- rectang 1y agoI still think it's ideologically consistent with insulating companies from externalities. Without official investigations, companies can assert their own interpretations of events. Boeing did this with the NTSB recently: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/boeing-punished-by-ntsb-for-releasing-information-about-737-max-investigation/ar-BB1p1cYp https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/boeing-punished-by-ntsb-fo...
- mulmen 1y agoOk but the NTSB's response was to refer to DOJ because NTSB has no teeth.
- throwaway173738 1y agoIn a hazard investigation you don’t want the investigators to have teeth. It’s not about finding wrongdoing it’s about determining what happened and how to avoid it in the future. If a company takes negligent actions referring to DOJ should be enough.
- mulmen 1y ago> In a hazard investigation you don’t want the investigators to have teeth. Did I say I want the NTSB to have teeth? > Without official investigations, companies can assert their own interpretations of events. They can do this with investigations too. Just as Boeing did. NTSB can't do anything about it. The "punishment" was a referral to DOJ who can.
- vjvjvjvjghv 1y agoJust the knowledge about chemical risks is a threat to profits.
- z3c0 1y agoYou say "force them" like that's actually going to happen. Historically, companies are terrible at auditing themselves.