TOTD 2018-09-21: Lawyers vs. Regulators

I’ve often wondered about the control of public menaces and hidden hazards (such as an undisclosed vat of toxic chemicals in the workplace, or a lack of purity in medicine) if we got rid of government regulatory bodies.  I’m not sure how a person would deal with a major public menace without filing a bankruptcy-inducing lawsuit.  It gets worse if the hazard is not immediately obvious.  Now you have to bring in an expert to make your case and get the data.  Better sell off your organs now before the chemicals damage them too much to be of value.

The government has tons of useless regulations, and some that are actively harmful.  (I’d bet losing 5% completely at random would not cause severe harm) However, I do not see why state governments doing regulation, with the feds stepping up for interstate cases, is worse that having to sue any time someone is not working safely, or polluting, or distributing contaminated medication.  In fact, the standard gives the employer some peace of mind – there is actually an achievable standard to meet as opposed to whatever a jury will think

1+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar

3 thoughts on “TOTD 2018-09-21: Lawyers vs. Regulators”

  1. Relevant to the O.P., here is an excerpt from the EPA memo on PCBs in fluorescent lights:

    It should be noted that procedures outlined on this page (with the exception of disposal requirements) are a guide to assist building owners and operators. States may have mandatory and more stringent requirements than EPA.

    0

Leave a Reply