This approach assumes that all consumers want the same thing. As others have pointed out, the ‘consumer interest’ is not a monolithic interest which is easily identified. While some consumers may want safe, high quality products, other consumers may wish to sacrifice these qualities for a lower price tag.
Everyone is affected by its [OSHA’s] pervasive coverage, orientation toward imposing penalties and its incredibly complex regulations and standards.…However, OSHA standards are complex and often require expert interpretation. For smaller businesses, the cost of deciphering which regulations apply to them and then determining if they conform can be excessive.
Employers do not deliberately allow work conditions to exist which cause injury or illness. Safety is good business… The goal is to have meaningless standards eliminated and achieve a law which recognizes business efforts to provide safe work places and provides fair treatment for all.
And current enforcement procedures are penalty-oriented…. This does not square with notions of due process and fair play.
A strike is an economic struggle between employer and employee, testing to see who will succumb to the economic pinch first and seek settlement. But if one side is relieved of economic hardship by tax-supported subsidy programs, the struggle is undermined.
The Federal Government should not be in the business of supporting strikers. And employers should not be forced to pay for strikes against themselves.
Welfare money in the pockets of strikers is money out of the hands of the truly needy. But the needy must still be provided for. How? By increasing taxes.
Clean air, land and water are vital to all of us. But so are jobs, food, clothing and housing. We have to weigh the total impact on the environment along with the economic and social costs in order to clean up.
One month [after the law took effect] a special edition of the Federal Register was published containing close to 250 pages of safety and health standards. Businessmen were given three months to familiarize themselves with these standards before the majority of them were to be effective.
Prior to the passage of this legislation [the OSH Act], certain special-interest groups (i.e. unions) testifying in support of punitive legislation attempted to describe American business management as irresponsible and unsympathetic to safety on the job….We continue to maintain that standard setting should be carried out by an independent board of experts who are not subject to the pressures of special-interest groups.
