Do you obey the law because it is the law....or

[Joe Guy]

Um, ever heard of OSHA? The New York Labor Law? How about state and federal wage and hours laws? There are numerous workplace rules that are designed to protect you from doing stupid things to yourself (both physical and economic) .

Please explain how OSHA and your cited laws protect people from doing stupid things to themselves.

[Sue U]

Please explain how OSHA and your cited laws protect people from doing stupid things to themselves.

Requiring workers' use of fall protection, safety clothing, respirators, etc. Preventing workers from accepting employment for substandard wage and excessive hours, etc. Do you really not understand this?

[Joe Guy]

Requiring workers' use of fall protection, safety clothing, respirators, etc. Preventing workers from accepting employment for substandard wage and excessive hours, etc. Do you really not understand this?

You obviously have never experienced what it is like to take any job you can get in order to afford to live somewhere other than on the streets.

Otherwise you would understand why people accept jobs that have risks attached to them.

Further, those labor laws are not about requiring workers to protect themselves.

They are laws that require employers to provide a safe work environment for their employees.

btw - please cite a law that "Prevents workers from accepting employment for substandard wage and excessive hours."

[BoSoxGal]

In Montana you are expressly allowed to exceed the posted speed limit by 10mph in order to pass another vehicle.

I just love that.

[Scooter]

Requiring workers' use of fall protection, safety clothing, respirators, etc. Preventing workers from accepting employment for substandard wage and excessive hours, etc. Do you really not understand this?

You obviously have never experienced what it is like to take any job you can get in order to afford to live somewhere other than on the streets.

Otherwise you would understand why people accept jobs that have risks attached to them.

Further, those labor laws are not about requiring workers to protect themselves.

They are laws that require employers to provide a safe work environment for their employees.

You're playing semantic games. If the law prevents an employer from hiring under such conditions, then it prevents workers from accepting employment under such conditions. The fact that penalties apply only to employers and not to workers in such circumstances doesn't change that, but speaks to the recognition of who has the power in those situations, and thus reinforces the notion that such laws are being passed to protect workers from their own desperation.

btw - please cite a law that "Prevents workers from accepting employment for substandard wage and excessive hours

Any law that sets a minimum wage and establishes a ceiling on the maximum number of hours per week that can be worked. But again, I think you knew that and are playing word games.

[Joe Guy]

You're playing semantic games. If the law prevents an employer from hiring under such conditions, then it prevents workers from accepting employment under such conditions. The fact that penalties apply only to employers and not to workers in such circumstances doesn't change that, but speaks to the recognition of who has the power in those situations, and thus reinforces the notion that such laws are being passed to protect workers from their own desperation.

It is you who are playing semantic games. Those laws are not aimed at workers. Workers can take on jobs with dangers that are not obvious. Those employees are not breaking the law for doing so. But their employers can be held liable for damages for not keeping a reasonably safe work environment.

[Scooter]

And in the cases where the dangers/substandard pay are obvious, the law serves to protect workers from their desperation as much as it does to punish employers who would take advantage of them. Sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "la la la" doesn't change that.

[Joe Guy]

the law serves to protect workers from their desperation as much as it does to punish employers who would take advantage of them

Speaking of word games...

Again, laws that are there to ensure a safe work environment are regulating employers, not employees. A result of the law may be protection of workers, but that's because the employer is being held responsible for that protection.

Sue U's post implies that workers are breaking the law when their employer doesn't provide them a safe work environment.

[Scooter]

Again, laws that are there to ensure a safe work environment are regulating employers, not employees.

Which is protecting workers from their own desperation. Keep those fingers tightly implanted in your ear canals, and sing LA LA LA as loud as you can.

Sue U's post implies that workers are breaking the law when their employer doesn't provide them a safe work environment.

No, she implied no such thing. Once again, you read something into a post that wasn't there, based your disagreement on that, and are now are refusing to accept the valdity of what she actually said out of stubborness and refusal to admit that you misread what she wrote.

[Joe Guy]

Again, laws that are there to ensure a safe work environment are regulating employers, not employees.

Which is protecting workers from their own desperation.

Which, as I already wrote, is the result of laws regulating employers.

That's the point you won't accept.

I will agree to disagree since I don't want to have to keep repeating the same point and reading your repeated response.

[Sue U]

Joe, you're being more than a little disingenuous here. It is the ironworker worker who is required to wear a harness and tie off when working at heights, not the employer; it is the chemical plant worker that is required to wear a respirator when working with hazardous inhalants, not the employer; it is the welder who is required to wear the hood and apron, not the employer. The fact that the law makes the employer the enforcement mechanism for such requirements and holds the employer responsible for their violation is not only a hedge against employer abuse, but simply a frank recogniition of who has ultimate control over practices in the workplace.

[Joe Guy]

Joe, you're being more than a little disingenuous here. It is the ironworker worker who is required to wear a harness and tie off when working at heights, not the employer; it is the chemical plant worker that is required to wear a respirator when working with hazardous inhalants, not the employer; it is the welder who is required to wear the hood and apron, not the employer. The fact that the law makes the employer the enforcement mechanism for such requirements and holds the employer responsible for their violation is not only a hedge against employer abuse, but simply a frank recogniition of who has ultimate control over practices in the workplace.

That sounds like you are agreeing with me in a roundabout way.

You are recognizing the fact that the employer is responsible for making sure that workers wear the appropriate clothing or accessories. Although I don't agree that employers are an 'enforcement mechanism'. They are required by law to make the work environment safe.

Uh oh...

I'm starting to repeat myself again.

[Scooter]

Which, as I already wrote, is the result of laws regulating employers.

Laws regulating the workplace.

As Sue and I have both stated, that penalties for non-compliance are directed at employers speaks only to who has the power to enforce such regulations. Employees don't have the power to demand access to a gas mask or whatever, or to refuse to work 90 hours per week, unless employers are threatened wtih penalties for forcing employees to work under such conditions. What would be the point of penalizing employees for giving in to their own desperation, other than to vicimize them twice?

[Joe Guy]

Employees don't have the power to demand access to a gas mask or whatever, or to refuse to work 90 hours per week, unless employers are threatened wtih penalties for forcing employees to work under such conditions.

So, you're both saying that EMPLOYERS are the ones who would be PENALIZED for not keeping their work environments safe for their employees.

Which means the 'enforcer' is our government.

Okay.

I agree.

[Scooter]

We'rfe both saying that employees are unable to work in conditions to which they might otherwise subject themselves if the law would permit it. Therefore employees are being protected from their own desperation.

Glad to see that you finally agree.

[Joe Guy]

We'rfe both saying that employees are unable to work in conditions to which they might otherwise subject themselves if the law would permit it. Therefore employees are being protected from their own desperation.

I think you're a little too hung up on that 'desperation' idea you've come up with.

Not everyone who takes a job is desperate and being subjected to a dangerous situation in order to make a living.

Even an office worker's employer must maintain a safe environment or be subject to penalties imposed by our government.

So, if we agree, it's because you've finally understood my point.

[Scooter]

Funny, but wasn't it you who said:

You obviously have never experienced what it is like to take any job you can get in order to afford to live somewhere other than on the streets.

Glad to see that you understand the need to protect workers from accepting dangerous jobs when they are that desperate (oops, there's that word again )

Even an office worker's employer must maintain a safe environment or be subject to penalties imposed by our government.

Indeed they must, otherwise even office workers might be desperate (damn, there it is again!) enough to take a job where their safety was being compromised.

[Scooter]

Not everyone who takes a job is desperate and being subjected to a dangerous situation in order to make a living.

You're quite right. Some people who would take a job with unsafe conditions, substandard pay, etc. are simply unaware, indifferent, or just plain stupid.

And fortunately for them, the law protects them against their own ignorance, indifference and stupidity.

[Joe Guy]

Funny, but wasn't it you who said:

You obviously have never experienced what it is like to take any job you can get in order to afford to live somewhere other than on the streets.

Glad to see that you understand the need to protect workers from accepting dangerous jobs when they are that desperate (oops, there's that word again )

Of course, out of context, it might sound like I believe, as you appear to believe, that everyone who takes a job is desperate. But if you were to read my post in the context of which it was offered, it was obvious that I was making the point that people do take on dangerous jobs - but those people are not the ones who are being regulated by our government.

Even an office worker's employer must maintain a safe environment or be subject to penalties imposed by our government.

Indeed they must, otherwise even office workers might be desperate (damn, there it is again!) enough to take a job where their safety was being compromised.

So you believe that an office worker might take a job in which the employer has air conditioning that secretly pumps in agent orange if that person wasn't being protected from himself.

Or would work in an office that he doesn't realize has no fire safety devices, such as sprinklers and fire extinguishers.

Or would work in a building that has asbestos insulation.

I see what you mean.

It's the EMPLOYEE'S FAULT if he works in an unsafe environment - whether he realizes it or not.

We need to protect those dummies by enabling employers to punish them for not knowing stuff.

[Scooter]

Of course, out of context, it might sound like I believe, as you appear to believe, that everyone who takes a job is desperate.

Where did I say anything remortely resembling "everyone who takes a job is desperate"? Other than in your own head, that is.

It's the EMPLOYEE'S FAULT if he works in an unsafe environment - whether he realizes it or not.

Once again, rather than respond to the words on the screen you put them into the blender that is your brain and regurgitate what comes out.