[The ergonomics standard is a] overbroad, overdrawn, bureaucratic mess.
[The Clinton health care initiative is] washed-over old-time bureaucratic liberalism, or centralized bureaucratic socialism.
LPA is pleased to submit testimony in strong opposition to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA's) proposed ergonomics standard, and in particular, the work restriction protection provisions, which would effectively replace state workers' compensation laws for injured employees. As estimated by the Employment Policy Foundation, at $100 billion, the standard is likely the most costly in OSHA's history…
[According to Chamber of Commerce] the regulations create a new ‘unclassified’ workplace violation, giving the state agency the ability ‘to strong-arm employers for higher penalties.’
I was more scared than angry or frustrated. I've felt like a lot of this stuff coming down from the EPA isn't really well thought out -- they're off in the clouds.
This regulation, whenever it is issued and takes effect, will be one of the most far-reaching workplace rules ever issued by any federal agency. Ultimately it will affect every business in the country.
AB 1127 … would place a powerful hammer in the hands of over-zealous prosecutors to intimidate businesses into pleading to lesser Labor Code violations when threatened with Penal Code prosecution.
For the last few years, Cal/OSHA has attempted to create a partnership with employers to create safe workplaces for all employees. This partnership has been focused on working together to solve problems rather than merely serve as an enforcement driven agency. The agency’s consultation service is evidence of the efforts. AB 1127 would, with the stroke of a pen, erase years of hard work and co-operation between business and the agency by focusing on the prescription of regulations rather than the creation of workable answers to true workplace safety issues.
Be prepared for the creation of an intrusive bureaucracy to police the ordinance by examining the books and payroll ledgers of businesses…
Why, then, would [the Boston City Council] threaten to drive away businesses by signing on to a murky, unpredictable, and divisive ordinance that requires employers and their subcontractors to open their books, including wages, deductions, and fringe benefits, to all "applicable" city departments? The Internal Revenue Service and the state Department of Revenue are required to keep such information confidential. The city ordinance requires it to be made public, placing businesses at a competitive disadvantage.
