Why are the Republicans so upset over the new ergonomic standard?

Why?

Wouldn’t you be?

Because they’re greedy.

From Slate’s “Today’s Papers”:

That and also Republicans tend to abhor most forms of government regulation, and would like to leave things up to the free market to decide.

      • More regulations on business, made by an appointee with no concern for cost and unreviewed by congress? No thanks. - MC

Yeah, all that regulation really bites. I mean, can you imagine poor Henry Ford when they told him he couldn’t work people more than 40 hours a week without paying overtime? Hard to believe he was able to keep the plant open . . .
This is on its way to Great Debates, but what the hey . . .

Oh yeah, and when OSHA clamped down on asbestos in 1972, that was probably a bad idea too . . .

FWIW, according to one newpaper article, the Clinton administration said that it would generate several billion dollars in revenue annually.

Actually, John, I don’t think this was headed to GD until you showed up and offered something other than the factual information that the OP was looking for.

Well, Friedo, perhaps you were right. Perhaps I missed a step. Here is perhaps the “factual answer” (or at least part of it):

“OSHA has traditionally advocated workers’ rights by use of regulation. Often, OSHA takes the lead role on an issue which is either too obscure or too policitcally-sensitive for Congress to address through legislation. Of course, this dynamic is representative of a classic democrat/republican or liberal/conservative debate – should we allow unelected agency members to promulgate pseudo-legislative activity, or should we leave the matter to only what Congress can/will do (which is often nothing) and thereby leave matters to the free market? For the same reasons that the actions of the EPA are often praised by environmentalists and cricitized by the conservative/business interests, OSHA’s ergonomic initiatives are praised by unions and workers’ rights groups and criticized by employers.”

Of course, I don’t know that you can have any more of an “objective” debate about this than who won the election. I think it’s a half-empty or half-full argument; just how you interpret the facts, or, more appropriately, what your philosophy is on these issues.

So to the extent I jumped the gun by going straight to the endgame, I apologize . . .

Am I too late to make a Reagernomics pun?

actually, tho’ the Republicans are sponsoring the bill, it seems more of a Business/labor dispute than partisan (to the extent that both parties have some interest in appeasing both labor and business)

According to the article, the new regulations were aimed at preventing some 9 billion dollars annually in preventable repetitive stress injuries.

Gosh darn, seems like a win/win to me - prevent preventable injuries, save on workers comp claims, insurance rates could go down, more productivity from workers who are happy to be hurt less - yea, I can see why that’d be something to avoid.

Seriously, the other side, which isn’t examined in the article is the initial costs of transition. and the business owner may see this capital outlay as the determining factor. (how’s that for a balanced approach?)

      • I do not see mandates by appointees as something politically desirable. I see it as elected officials saying that they want to do things not economically viable or generally desired, and not pay the consequences next election. We pay lawmakers to make laws; they should make ALL the laws and be required to take the blame when any of those laws fail in their intent, or are oppressive outside of it. If a problem is “too obscure or too politically sensitive” that Congress doesn’t wish to deal with it, then it probably shouldn’t be addressed by action at the federal level.
        If you think something should be required by law, you usually have more than one level of government to appeal to: in the US, almost everybody has four (fed, state, county and city). The justification for allowing appointees for anything other than personal assistants to elected lawmakers is very poor. - MC

Until someone can let me know what this thread is about (what the heck is an ergonomic standard?), I’m closing it. Depending on the answer I get, it might remain closed, it might be re-opened here, or it might be moved to GD.