Republican Congressman Introduces Bill Seeking Abolishment of OSHA | Hacker News Reader

Republican Congressman Introduces Bill Seeking Abolishment of OSHA

hipaajournal.com

53 pointsthrow0101c31 comments

Seems like the opposite of what's being discussed in Canada now as a result of the recent tariff stuff: inter-provincial trade is hampered by different rules and regulations, and now there's incentive and a real push to harmonize them across the country to reduce the difference in order to increase flow of trade within the country. One news article mentioned something like 600 licensing/professional regulatory bodies in the country, each with different rules which hamper both trade and professionals seeking to work in another part of the country.

I know it's not a direct comparison, but feels similar in a way.

This proposal (haven't read it to be fair, only read comment here) seems to go in the opposite direction and at first glance would be a race to the bottom in some places at least (as mentioned by another commenter here) than improve the situation overall.

Good point. This could conceivably negatively affect interstate trade. A classic knee-jerk ideological move on the part of a politician without thinking through the consequences.

Ideology prevails over practicality in both political parties.

Seems like the only thing this will achieve is a reduction in safety standards (states racing to the bottom for profitability), and a increase in the complexity of handling inter-state business.

So both the workers and the business' are getting screwed? If it's meant to boost productivity the additional labour of remaining compliant across state regulations works against this.

Best case scenario this turns out like how California effectively sets automotive emissions standards nation-wide. No state is perfect, but I'd trust California more than any other state [large enough to have this power].

For anyone "California effectively sets emissions standards" is news to: California has the most onerous restrictions. OEMs can pull out and leave California (infeasible due to population), they can meet-but-not-exceed regulations in every state (infeasible due to the explosion of product lines and how each vehicle must then go to a specific state), or they can just meet California's regulations and call it good (what typically ends up happening).

Keeping one set of rules in the company books is hopefully such a simplification that large companies say "Screw it, we'll hit California's standard and just run that everywhere". If America's really lucky, smaller companies in less restrictive states will struggle to hire if they're using the less-safe standards, and the worker-safety floor will rise to "Whatever California says"

Similarly but on a global scale, there's the the Brussels Effect with the EU: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect

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.

Having a patchwork of safety standards seems like a mess versus a federal policy that applies across the country

It'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.

Which turns into Florida and Texas making mandatory water breaks illegal. It’s a bad argument that only serves to ruin workers lives and health .

Not sure why it makes sense to redo the same work 50 times

Nor for companies to have to 50 different compliance rulesets to follow.

Not 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.

Some statistics on US health and safety before and after OSHA:

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/can-you-give-me-an-apples-t...

Thank you for that. I hadn't seen Perplexity before, and I admit that's impressive. (Assuming it is correct. I haven't followed up on all of the source material, but I can say that they are at least valid sources.)

I have been skeptical of LLMs for anything non-trivial. This is the best counter-evidence I've seen.

It's mostly a wrapper around various LLMs and you can pick the model. The answer in the parent post came from DeepSeek-R1. You can chose between various OpenAI models, Claude, Grok-2 etc.

Guess we'll all get a lesson in Chesterton's fence over the next so-many years.

Oh thanks for mentioning this! I'd completely forgotten about that.

Can we get kids back in factories again while we are at it?

It certainly would increase competitiveness. So bring the price of items produced lower. I for one support this. And also jailing more people so there is more cheap slaves.

Then we from Europe have more cheap sources for goods.

Don't forget mines too.

And lawn darts.

And get rid of seat belts too while we're at it.

Already have.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/03/child-labor-...

https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2024/02/23/feds-allege-child...

https://ambrook.com/research/labor/child-labor-Iowa-Arkansas...

Very old anecdote: "The problem with this country is stupidity. I don't propose that we introduce a capital punishment for stupidity, but what if we simply take warning label from everything and let the problem solve itself?" (c)

I guess someone in the trumpement didn't got a memo that it was a joke, not an instruction :)

Make healthcare non-existent again. Less safe working conditions -> less able workers -> full employment

Members of congress can introduce pretty much whatever bill they want.

Many of these bills have little chance of becoming law and often the bill's sponsor knows this.

Why introduce a bill with little chance of passing? Because it allows the member to say "I'm taking a stand on an issue" or "I'm doing something about it."

In addition it can garner coverage in the press and curry favor with other members of their party. They may believe it increases their chances to stay in power by increasing support with their constituents, despite having no direct effect.

I feel like this is being introduced now because it has a high chance of passing in the current political climate. And if it doesn't pass, DOGE will just have OSHA defunded anyway.

There's no better time for general strike than now.

Sometimes even xkcd doesn't have the right one for that.

But this one is worth 1000 words and we are most CERTAINLY headed there.

https://images2.imgbox.com/95/de/9arByl4r_o.jpg

> “OSHA’s existence is yet another example of the federal government creating agencies to address issues that are more appropriately handled by state governments and private employers,” said Rep. Biggs when first introducing the NOSHA Act.

From the Economic History Association:

> Before the late nineteenth century we know little about the safety of American workplaces because contemporaries cared little about it. As a result, only fragmentary information exists prior to the 1880s. Pre-industrial laborers faced risks from animals and hand tools, ladders and stairs. Industrialization substituted steam engines for animals, machines for hand tools, and elevators for ladders. But whether these new technologies generally worsened the dangers of work is unclear. What is clear is that nowhere was the new work associated with the industrial revolution more dangerous than in America.[1]

But sure, let's make workplace safety a state right.

[1] https://eh.net/encyclopedia/history-of-workplace-safety-in-t...

This bill is NSFW

Reply on news.ycombinator.com