(c) 2017 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.

Thursday, December 19, 2013

Economists’ flawed argument on OSHA’s “flawed” analysis of proposed rule to protect silica-exposed workers

Silica exposure and the its epidemic of disease predates asbestos exposure in the workers' compensation arena. The early maneuvering by Industry to limit its liability was the geneses of true occupational disease litigation in workers' compensation. Industry has been dancing around for decades trying ignore and not adequately protect or provide benefits to occupationally exposed workers. Today's post is shared from ,
Two economists, funded by right-wing, university-housed think tanks, recently submitted their views on OSHA’s proposed rule to protect silica-exposed workers. Michael L. Marlow with George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, and Susan Dudley of George Washington University’s Regulatory Studies Center, describe OSHA’s proposal as flawed, sloppy, weak and unsubstantiated. Funny, those are some of the terms I used to describe their analyses.
Marlow offers a litany of cockimany reasons that OSHA should scrap its proposed rule. He says, for example, that OSHA needs to consider a wider set of alternatives. Well, OSHA already describes eight different options.  I imagine the agency could come up with 20 options or 50 options, and none would satisfy Mr. Marlow. He also insists “OSHA has failed to make a sufficiently strong case for the regulation.” I guess it isn’t enough for him that tens of thousands of U.S. workers every year develop lung disease related to silica...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]