Copyright 2000 The Kansas City Star Co.
THE KANSAS
CITY STAR
November 15, 2000, Wednesday METROPOLITAN
EDITION
SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. C1 ;JERRY HEASTER
LENGTH: 594 words
HEADLINE:
Ergonomics rules would be a pain
BYLINE: JERRY HEASTER;
The Kansas City Star
BODY:
If federal officials
think new ergonomics regulations will save
businesses more
money than the mandates will cost, they're ignoring
how seeking riches in
the courts has become a national pastime.
Once Uncle Sam adds to the
already considerable array of
workplace safety rules, it's not hard to
imagine that perceived
opportunities to seek litigative rewards will expand
accordingly.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration estimates
the
annual cost of implementation at less than $5 billion,
but it says
nearly twice as much will be saved from lower workers'
compensation
costs and reduced medical treatment outlays. Foes of the
regulations,
which are due to take effect in January, predict that
implementation
and compliance costs will be 20 to possibly almost 30 times
official
estimates.
In truth, nobody knows for certain what the
added overhead will
be, but if history is any guide, the promised savings
aren't likely
to materialize. Regulations are, in essence, a tax on doing
business
ultimately paid by the public. Some regulations may be justified,
but
many are Mickey Mouse nuisances existing only because power granted
must be power exercised, even if it's for no justifiable purpose.
Opponents of the new regulations will no doubt fight a rear-guard
action to prevent implementation, but they shouldn't expect much
relief,
even if their cause makes it to the Supreme Court. The
Supremes signaled
where they're coming from recently when hearing
challenges to the clean-air
laws based on cost-benefit
considerations. Business groups say environmental
regulators should
be required to balance the compliance costs of their
mandates against
the expected health-benefit results.
Neither the
court's conservatives nor its liberals, however,
seemed convinced by
arguments that regulatory costs should bear some
relationship to the good
they are intended to accomplish. This is
historically consistent, according
to analysts, which is unfortunate
given the tenor of the times.
The
problem with regulations in the modern regulatory age is that
Congress
legislates what seem well-intentioned laws to protect the
public but fails
to provide specific legislative guidance on
implementation. It thus leaves
it to bureaucrats to fill in the
blanks, and the result is usually
bureaucratic overreach.
Until the Supreme Court decides to address the
problem of
Congress' granting too much of its power to unelected
functionaries,
the regulatory burden is likely to grow, at considerable cost
to the
public.
It's not just the cost of implementation, either. In
a society as
litigation-oriented as ours has become, excessively ambitious
regulatory initiatives invite more lawsuits for increasingly trivial
reasons. Business therefore has not only the cost of compliance, but
also defending against litigative depredations encouraged by the
regulation.
The biggest problem with regulation isn't its intention,
which
always sounds noble, but the tendency of regulatory advocates to cast
business in the bad-guy role and assume that the designated
beneficiaries of regulations never take unfair advantage of their
power.
This approach ignores the fact that all of us are human.
- Jerry
Heaster's column appears Wednesdays, Fridays, Saturdays
and Sundays. To
reach him, write the business desk at 1729 Grand
Blvd., Kansas City, MO
64108. To share a comment on StarTouch, call
(816) 889-7827 and enter 2301.
Send e-mail to jheaster@kcstar.com
LOAD-DATE: November
15, 2000 
