3 ms·

It wasn't in response to the OP, it was in response to the parent comment. A financial incentive [payout] from employee deaths is the opposite incentive you'd

It wasn't in response to the OP, it was in response to the parent comment. A financial incentive [payout] from employee deaths is the opposite incentive you'd want for any business that is paying for any kind of safety equipment. You'd want an incentive for the opposite behavior which no one really offers. https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owasrch_news_releases.search_form?p_doc_type=NEWS_RELEASES&p_toc_level=0&p_keyvalue=&p_status=CURRENT https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owasrch_news_releases.searc... You can regularly see companies being cited so "numerous" is reasonable.

tptacek 12y ago
The OSHA violations you're citing have nothing to do with life insurance. Has anyone reported on a company that got cited for OSHA violations and had life insurance policies on their employees? Also: wouldn't this be a pretty straightforward basis for the insurers not to pay out claims? I find this argument approximately as credible as the one that says that, having taken out a life insurance policy on employees, the company now has an incentive to have those employees murdered. And again: aren't they disallowed from taking out policies on anyone outside the top 35% best paid employees? What are the OSHA concerns for office workers?
- opendais 12y ago
  Okay let me try explaining this in a different way since you seem to be materially misrepresenting what I’m saying: 1) A significant number of employers pay the bare minimum for worker safety [hence OSHA violations being relevant, such companies clearly exist and some miscalculate. I doubt these people are malicious, merely misjudged the minimum] 2) Life insurance policies being paid out on employees creates further incentive to do the bare minimum to comply with OSHA. In addition to not having to spend additional $$s on safety training & equipment, you now also have an investment vehicle to reinforce this behavior. 3) Many companies have more than 65% of their workforce [construction for instance] doing work in situations that require safety training & equipment. The limitation is based on a payroll %. I'm confused why this requires spelling out this verbosely, but there it is. Notice how at no point am I saying any of the stuff you are claiming I am?
  - thedufer 12y ago
    I think the misunderstanding is that you're trying to say "hey, this bad thing is possible" but you're wording it in such a way that it sounds like you're saying "hey, this bad thing is happening" and tptacek is taking offense to that claim not coming with any evidence.
    - opendais 12y ago
      I was talking about incentives and I provided evidence for the one claim I made [that numerous companies already do the bare minimum]. So I'm just confused how he could read it that way. But alright, I guess it is on me to be clearer then. :P

tptacek 12y ago

The OSHA violations you're citing have nothing to do with life insurance. Has anyone reported on a company that got cited for OSHA violations and had life insurance policies on their employees? Also: wouldn't this be a pretty straightforward basis for the insurers not to pay out claims? I find this argument approximately as credible as the one that says that, having taken out a life insurance policy on employees, the company now has an incentive to have those employees murdered. And again: aren't they disallowed from taking out policies on anyone outside the top 35% best paid employees? What are the OSHA concerns for office workers?

opendais 12y ago
Okay let me try explaining this in a different way since you seem to be materially misrepresenting what I’m saying: 1) A significant number of employers pay the bare minimum for worker safety [hence OSHA violations being relevant, such companies clearly exist and some miscalculate. I doubt these people are malicious, merely misjudged the minimum] 2) Life insurance policies being paid out on employees creates further incentive to do the bare minimum to comply with OSHA. In addition to not having to spend additional $$s on safety training & equipment, you now also have an investment vehicle to reinforce this behavior. 3) Many companies have more than 65% of their workforce [construction for instance] doing work in situations that require safety training & equipment. The limitation is based on a payroll %. I'm confused why this requires spelling out this verbosely, but there it is. Notice how at no point am I saying any of the stuff you are claiming I am?
- thedufer 12y ago
  I think the misunderstanding is that you're trying to say "hey, this bad thing is possible" but you're wording it in such a way that it sounds like you're saying "hey, this bad thing is happening" and tptacek is taking offense to that claim not coming with any evidence.
  - opendais 12y ago
    I was talking about incentives and I provided evidence for the one claim I made [that numerous companies already do the bare minimum]. So I'm just confused how he could read it that way. But alright, I guess it is on me to be clearer then. :P