- Old Timer on CMC Celeb: Isaac Goldberg: "This interview is going to the first of many skeletons in the closet f..."
- Who Dat? on CMC Celeb: Isaac Goldberg: "Goldberg plays a smooth 2nd base, and has mastered the swinging bunt...."
- A Mitch on Photo Essay: Swim and Track Meets: "good lines, maybe try some canted framing to make the races feel more ..."
- Kimberly M. on CMC Celeb: Isaac Goldberg: "The ex-Navy Seal is the best part of the Washington Program. <3..."
- Adam Smillie on CMC Celeb: Isaac Goldberg: "Isaac Goldberg, you're me hero......"
A CMCer at OSHA?
At Claremont McKenna, we salute those who join the civil service. This tradition stems from CMC’s founding when our first president, George C. S. Benson dreamed of creating men of action, thought, and enterprise, who would direct the administrative state towards better ends for all.
But we rarely question the positions in government they go on and take up. More often than not, we congratulate our own for their achievements without considering the implications of their jobs. We assume that they’ll be men of action and thought, rather than cogs in the government bureaucracy in which they serve.
So it is with CMC alum, Jordan Barab, CMC ‘75, who is acting head the Office Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). But with Barab, we have the opportunity to not only examine the implication of his appointment but also surmise what he will do in office by carefully considering his and OSHA’s history.
During the past eight years, Barab spent his time excoriating the Bush administration’s laissez faire labor policies from his blog, Confined Space. Left unexamined, of course, is whether those same labor policies account for us having one of the lowest unemployment level in U.S. history during the Bush years.
Among other things, Barab argued that the Bush administration was refusing to enforce OSHA regulations and statutes that allegedly would have helped workplace safety. He published scary (and utterly unfounded) statistics printed by organized labor.
More than 15 workers are killed every day on the job in this country and a worker becomes injured or ill on the job every 2.5 seconds. The overwhelming majority of deaths, injuries and illnesses could have been easily prevented had the employers simply provided a safe workplace and complied with well-recognized OSHA regulations or other safe practices.
Assuming that the figure is accurate, which it is probably not, there are many questions that just this paragraph leaves unanswered such as whether this figure is high or low relative to all time standards, and whether or not OSHA regulations have any effect, positive or negative, in decreasing workplace accidents. In fact, as the U.S. moves from an agricultural to industrial to knowledge based economy, the number of deaths have been declining every single year.
Like the minimum wage laws that lead to unemployment about lower level workers, the outcome of all these OSHA regulations is to drive up the cost of hiring workers, a policy which gives more power to the union members that have already been hired. If companies are mandated to spend millions to improve the workplace environment, they’ll be less likely to hire the workforce they need. People often price their lives differently and are willing to work dangerous, humiliating jobs for the pay off. Shouldn’t they be allowed to make choices about what they deem precious and valuable? (Just ask Carl Peaslee, illegal immigrants, or anyone who has ever worked a job from Craigslist.)
Barab is critical of the “president’s cronies” in his final blog post – a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, given that Barab worked for some of the most radical unions in the country, the AFL-CIO. He decries the Bush Administration and the Republican congress’s efforts to repeal a costly, hastily imposed Clinton-era regulation that would have forced employers to cover the cost of employees’ carpal tunnel. (Just how do you tell if the secretary got her stiff hand from working on the job or surfing the internet at home?) The costs were estimated by some to be as high as $100 billion and earned the dishonor of being what U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO, Tom J. Donahue, called, “the most costly, burdensome, and far-reaching government regulation in U.S. history.” Even unions estimated that the cost of compliance would be in excess of $8 billion.
Don’t expect Barab to be persuaded that OSHA is a waste of money and beholden to the unions he formerly worked for. Barab, in the days since he became acting OSHA head, has promised that “OSHA is back.”
Back from where? And just what kind of OSHA can we expect from Barab? Here it is instructive to look at his record, but before we do that, it’s worth pointing out his Facebook (publicly accessible from here) where he lists himself as a fan of the so-called “Employee Free Choice Act” and George Orwell. I guess that I read 1984 as a warning and that he read it as an instruction manual. Ah, sometimes you cannot make this stuff up. Given that even the liberal, left-leaning, former presidential candidate, George McGovern has come out against an effort to eliminate the secret ballot from America’s workplaces.
Either Barab hasn’t looked into the actual track record of OSHA — or worse, he just doesn’t care. Had he, he would see OSHA’s record of utter and abysmal failure which he should have recognized when he worked with it from 1998 to 2001 when he served as special assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA until 2001.
After spending two years on a request from an employer about complying with OSHA from at home — now that’s speedy regulation! — OSHA finally responded and told the employer community that OSHA standards applied to those working at home as well as those working at the office. Public outcry forced them to reconsider, but that was after employers wasted an estimated $1000 dollars per home getting them up to OSHA standards and after it took OSHA two years to respond. All of this stopped more flexible work arrangements by forcing employers and employees to bear the cost of a stupid regulation. Many of those who were adversely affected were women, who wanted to stay at home with their kids and still have a career from their home office.
Not egregious enough for you? Let’s look at what happened in 2000, when Barab was also working for OSHA. Many CMCers will go on to work in the for-profit sector and like me, have aspirations of working on your own start up. At first, many of your employees will be paid hourly wages if they work on a new firm, that is, of course, until you all make serious bank when the company goes public, thanks to your diligence and hardwork. But thanks to OSHA’s unclear and silly regulations in 2000 which mandated that stock options be included in overtime pay, many firms just turned around and refused to award stock options to their hourly employees. It was simply too complex and not worth the legal hassle. It wouldn’t be too far of a stretch to argue that some of the early programmers who were denied those stock options might not have been too incentivized to work their hardest on the new firms that had hired them. In the free lance economy of Silicon Valley, this couldn’t have been good for start ups looking for people to move through the ranks.
Of course, OSHA, being a government entity, doesn’t regulate one of the most unsafe workplace environments in the entire federal government, the totally wasteful, U.S. Postal service, which according to Reason Magazine, “accounted for 29 percent of all federal agency workers’ compensation claims in fiscal 1994. In the same year, it paid out over $521 million in workers’ comp, death benefits, and medical expenses.” Putting it simply, we’re not only paying for the 750,000 employees of the Postal service’s generous government benefits and subsidizing the whole government-run business, we’re ignoring the very real human costs that it puts on the workers out there who would undoubtedly be safer in competitive firms that had to compete on safety, wages, etc. for the best workers.
Now to be fair, Mr. Barab wasn’t around in 1994, but that policy is still in effect. Will he change it? I doubt it. To his credit, Barab was critical of the lavish display of attention when the shuttle Columbia exploded, decrying the double standard between the attention spent on astronauts and dead industrial workers who often get ignored by the mainstream media. He missed the lesson from this, of course. Space exploration is simply too dangerous to be left up to governments, and so, apparently is delivering the U.S. mail.
By forcing companies to pay more and more money to solve a problem that has been declining every year, OSHA harms the very U.S. workers it is supposed to help. The effects of not being able to receive a job due to regulation are difficult to measure, but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t real. So you’ll forgive me if I wish Barab were just like all those other CMC alums right now – out on the market looking for a job.
32 Comments
2009-06-25
14:07:35
Charles I hope you were being sarcastic when you said this: "Space exploration is simply too dangerous to be left up to governments..." I mean that sounds pretty fucking unAmerican to me. What would you have had us just give the moon to the Soviets?
More substantively, clearly the Post Office is a natural monopoly. It will never be profitable to have mail service to say rural towns in the Dakotas. Do you hate rural America?
2009-06-25
17:12:23
Hey Patrick,
I would have let the Soviets have the moon. Hopefully, we could send some of modern liberals there as well. I say some, because we'll still need the rest to tell us how bad America is (unless their guy is in) or scare us from global warming.
So you ask silly questions, get silly answers.
As for seriousness, I think you could supplement those rural Americans places with some subsidies. It would be a heck of a lot cheaper. Or, alternatively, maybe people wouldn't settle in those random remote places. Or FedEx would pick up the slack.
2009-06-26
14:19:22
Charles I ask you flippant questions because you say stupid things. In a battle for hearts and minds like the Cold War, symbolic actions matter. Just ask Reagan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjWDrTXMgF8. The country that first landed on the moon would be technologically superior in the eye of the world - thus validating their system. That shit matters. More generally, the government, despite all the cool stuff that the private sector is doing in terms of prizes and innovation, is the only entity with deep enough pockets to finance and accept the risks associated with true science-driven space exploration. Maybe you don't think that's worthwhile. But say that. Don't say government is the problem simply because its government.
So while it might be fun to throw out thoughtless ideological politico-babble, solving policy issues actually require more thought than simply government=bad / free market=good.
2009-06-26
14:31:05
Sorry, but I don't buy that showmanship diplomacy actually works. Many people around the world didn't even own a TV, let alone watch the landings on the moon. And so what if the Soviets got to the moon first? Countries that took on the Soviet approach failed because of the economics associate with it. We weren't going to suddenly persuade everyone in the world to adopt the free market, democratic capitalist state model because we put a few white dudes on the moon. It's not all about America all the time. As for quoting Reagan, I think it's cute because you're expecting me to worship at his altar but Reagan was also a big spender who cared a little too much about national greatness campaigns.
I find it fascinating how those of us who argue that the market works so often have to argue against people who see policy as almost always equaling more government. I challenge you to come up with a single instance in which you believe the public policy reform requires less government or regulation. Can you do it?
It's you that's babbling, my friend. (See your latest post.) I'm the one that is making sound arguments. Why doesn't OSHA investigate NASA? Because government agencies are exempt from accountability.
2009-06-26
14:33:54
Oh, and while we're at it, if you sincerely believe it was about national prestige, you're dumbed than I thought. It was about ICBMs. The same technology that puts a man into space can deliver a nuke to its target, which explains why India, China, and Japan are all launching things into space. NASA was a military project in civilian, scientific garb.
2009-06-26
15:09:32
"I challenge you to come up with a single instance in which you believe the public policy reform requires less government or regulation. Can you do it?" I'll focus on California because I pay attention to my beloved state's policy issues more than the nation's.
California state government could do without the General Services Administration (which could easily be replaced by contract specialist consulting firms), the Office of Public Research, and some of the myriad of education entities/departments (California Department of Education, Office of the Secretary of Education, Postsecondary Education Commission ), which should be reorganized/consolidated. In general, I think that we should have more public/private partnerships (the relationship between local water agencies and professional services/engineering firms is good example here) and smarter incentives to energize bureacracy, but I try to actually think about the situation rather than having a knee jerk pro-free market response (I notice you don't dispute your tendency there).
California's convoluted regulatory framework is too complex for me to understand. It is too complex for most businesses and people to understand. That complexity breeds rentseeking and hurts compliance. Government isn't good about revisting old stale issues, so I think we should attach 5-10 year sunset clauses on regulations. If they're still needed, we can pass them again.
California also needs a commission to reorganize the thousands of local and special districts into a coherent framework that recognizes the need for regional policy planning. It's suggestions should be subject to an up or down vote a la the military base closure commission at the end of the Cold War.
I'm actually a big fan of the free market (man's best tool for aggregating individuals' wisdom in allocating goods/services) ; I just think that good ideas matter - not blind ideology.
2009-06-26
15:17:31
@Patrick,
That's interesting to me that you mentioned things that weren't less government at all. Public-private partnerships? Who do you think retains most of the control? The public or the private? Just ask GM's current management.
"California needs a commission"? Sounds like a big government solution to me! "Energize bureaucracy with smaller incentives"? What does that mean?
I confess to liking the sunset regulations clause, but I'm less than convinced it would ever get passed. Part of the thing that people don't understand about regulatory bodies is that they often get "captured" by the very industries that they were supposed to regulate. That's clearly happened in California and D.C.
As for knee jerk, I'm many things, but the one thing you can't say (at least with any credibility) is that I haven't thought things through. You've admitted as much to me before. I encourage you to take it back.
2009-06-26
15:24:54
"So while it might be fun to throw out thoughtless ideological politico-babble, solving policy issues actually require more thought than simply government=bad / free market=good."
Patrick +1, Charles 0
2009-06-25
20:33:00
I thought CJ was going to use this site for things relevant to CMC???? Or at least political topics the average CMCer would care about???
2009-06-25
22:37:24
While I disagree with CJ's analysis, I think there are plenty of CMCer's (myself included) who are interested in a CMCer who's running OSHA. There's a lot of things you could say about this article, but "irrelevant" isn't really one of them.
And if you don't think OSHA is relevant to you, may I suggest not getting a job... ever.
2009-06-25
23:22:24
Thanks for the help, Comparison. I suspect some people just aren't comfortable with criticizing an alum. May I ask what you don't agree with in my analysis? I'm curious.
2009-06-26
07:35:36
Dont be proud of Jordan Barab's affiliation. He's not that bright. He and his comrades are running the agency and the country into the ground. They are working on (you cant make this up folks) putting out a new enforcement program to go after employers who over-report or under-report their workplace injuries. How would you like to be fined $75,000 (not an exxageration) for classifying a stress headache as a recordable, etc etc etc? Like Obama said, "...it's war with business..."
2009-06-26
08:55:55
@OSHA Guy,
Wow. Do you have a source for that? How do they decide what is the Goldilocks amount of reporting?
-Charles
2009-06-26
15:30:49
I love how no one is actually discussing the content of the piece and OSHA. Does that mean that people have conceded it? If so, thanks!
2009-06-26
16:49:18
No, it means that we aren't going to go out and read up on the issues to form our own opinion, and that we know better than to rely on your account of anything political. You are one of these Rush Limbaugh-Keith Olbermann types: easier to ignore and tune out than argue against. We let you far-right and far-left nuts get angry and mouth off while we smile, nod, and live happy lives.
It doesn't really matter whether you're a right-wing crazy or a left-wing crazy. Fanaticism is fanaticism.
But really, asking anyone to base an opinion on your politically twisted, biased rant is pretty absurd. Who cares enough to go research some random bureaucrat just because he went to CMC anyway? You, but not I.
2009-06-26
20:26:18
Sigh. Fanaticism is such a loaded word and yesterday's fanatics often end up being today's visionaries.
Something to chew on when you're demonizing me for being a Rush Limbaugh or whatever. (I don't listen to talk radio or watch TV for the record.)
2009-06-27
09:43:31
Ah, the soothing power of the revolution to be: "Fanaticism is such a loaded word and yesterday’s fanatics often end up being today’s visionaries." But at what point does your lust for purity - and the vigilance thus required - become merely a breeding ground of proto-fascistic urges?
"The Fascist loves his neighbor, but the word 'neighbor' does not stand for some vague and unseizable conception. Love of one's neighbor does not exclude necessary educational severity; still less does it exclude differentiation and rank. Fascism will have nothing to do with universal embraces; as a member of the community of nations it looks other peoples straight in the eyes; it is vigilant and on its guard; it follows others in their manifestations and notes any changes in their interests; and it does not allow itself to be deceived by mutable and fallacious appearances." -BM
2009-06-27
16:26:00
Your article demonstrates brilliantly exactly what it accuses Barab of doing - flying off the cuff on unsubstantiated facts, questioning rigorously researched data while providing nothing concrete to counter it. Any self respecting safety and health professional pays serious attention to the AFL-CIO Death on the Job report that is 'probably' the most comprehensive report on workplace fatalities in the world. It's shameful that you call into question someone's character without substantiating your allegations while flying in the face of common sense and practical reality that safety and health professionals face every day.
The next time you "examine" a lifetime of achievement or reports - do your homework and provide substantive arguments - and that's advice for your own good
2009-06-27
17:14:22
@Komilla John,
AFL-CIO as a serious report? You must be joking. They wouldn't have any incentive to inflate the numbers of workers would they. You tell me. You worked for them in New Jersey before going on to OSHA. https://email.rutgers.edu/pipermail/mler_/2008-February/000542.html
Oh, and the next time you post here, you should let people know that you're employed by OSHA. It helps so that we can "examine" your bias. After all, if OSHA disappeared, you'd be out of a job.
2009-09-14
15:47:53
You obviously missed the point about my comment and didn't bother to read the complete link that you so proudly display - thereby "examining" my bias. I respect and follow a wide variety of columnists and reporters who have the conviction of well founded belief and argue logic and substance but don't attack character and integrity.
I never hid the fact that I WORKED for a state OSHA agency before my current position with the NJ State AFL-CIO.
May you continue to prosper on your career in navel gazing. One can only hope there are more responsible journalists out there.
Meanwhile there are those like Jordan Barab who will continue to work towards better working conditions and ensuring that we can regain our position as a country at the forefront of all things that contribute to a higher standard of living.
2009-07-02
07:30:14
Charles Johnson’s recent Forum screed against Jordan Barab (CMC’75), Acting Director of the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) at the Department of Labor, is incorrect, ill-tempered, and disrespectful. Charles couldn’t even get the name of the agency right, much less describe its importance in defending the lives of workers. CMC’ers should be justly proud that one of our own is a lifelong advocate for worker safety and currently the nation’s top leader in the struggle for safer workplaces.
Here are facts Charles chose to ignore. Jordan Barab should be praised as a CMC role model, not excoriated for his devotion to duty. After CMC graduation, Barab spent many years advocating for safer workplaces, including 16 years directing the nation’s largest public employee union health and safety program, defending and expanding the rights of one and a half million local, state, and federal public workers. In 1998, he was appointed a Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for OSHA, serving as national Labor Liaison, ergonomics coordinator and other duties. He then consulted for the AFL-CIO Health and Safety Department and served at the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. Barab joined the House Education and Labor Committee staff in February 2007 as senior labor policy adviser, only to return to OSHA as Acting Director in January 2009. Now he is working hard to undo the injustices of the Bush era and expand worker health and safety protectionss.
Too often at CMC, we pay homage to those in the private sector and ignore our public servants. Our CMC school motto Crescit cum commercio civitas is usually translated “Civilization Prospers with Commerce”. But an alternative reading is “Commerce and Civilization Together Prosper”. Jordan Barab’75 has dedicated his life to civilizing the American commercial workplace which still kills 6,000 workers annually and maims many thousands more every year. His career is an exemplary record of service to others. You will never get rich in these kinds of positions. But you get paid in satisfaction knowing you help millions of American workers defend and improve their rights on the job to a safer workplace. CMC is lucky to have alumni like Jordan Barab.
2009-07-02
07:49:26
Ah, Patrick, here we go again.
Just which facts did I get wrong, Patrick? Can you point to any? It seems to me that you just went and copied and pasted his resume, which incidentally, I read. You give little evidence as to what the net effect of his policies were and what he actually did. You cite titles and PR; I cite facts and data. You give conclusions unsupported by facts; I make my arguments based upon research. I understand why you feel the need to parrot the talking points of AFL-CIO and Jordan Barab. It is, after all, much harder to actually look at policies. Your citation of the 6000 workers annually -- assuming it is correct, which it probably is not -- doesn't give any thought to 1) the fact that workplace deaths have been declining in spite of OSHA 2) that this figure is minuscule compared to the millions of jobs performed annually and more likely reflects the choices of the workers who engage in that risky job behavior.
"Devotion to duty"? Seriously? Can you refute any of the charges I have made above? Instead, it looks like you'll just publish a screed against me. I understand why: It is much harder to accept that a governmental body for which you have pretensions of working. Never you mind, I'll publish something in the near future going after the AARP, but perhaps not on this website.
2009-07-02
09:30:34
There is no way that Crescit cum commercio civitas translates to "Commerce and Civilization Together Prosper". The verb would need to be plural first of all (an nt ending, not a t ending). Also, there is no together ( simul I think) in the motto. While I agree with your other statements, do not try to pick on a dead language. There is little open to interpretation.
2009-07-02
19:34:47
@ Latin Stickler (who clearly did not take Latin in college), latin translations are very open to interpretation... that's the point of the study of classics and the reason so many published translations exist for any given famous latin work. Patrick's translation is valid.
2009-07-02
23:26:05
That would be fine and dandy if the verb were crescint, the 3rd person plural. But alas, its 3rd person singular crescit. Translation are very much open to interpretation, especially since there is no espoused word order hence the ambiguity. But on this there can be no debate. Crescit is a 3rd person singular conjugation of a verb, not 3rd person plural. If Patrick meant they both prosper together, we'd need a plural verb.
2009-07-03
02:37:16
Wow, "there can be no debate." This is the internet, after all. Don't be a douche.
We don't "translate" from Latin, we interpret. It's a very complicated language with many nuances and few hard set rules, so this isn't an argument you can win or lose. Latin prose and verse often break with common usage. Read some Vergil (if you know any Latin) and get back to me.
2009-07-03
11:13:19
I'm so pleased to see a (somewhat) lively debate of Latin grace the message boards of the Forum. It's far more interesting to read than the tired, does-regulation-kill-jobs debate that every CMCer has 10 times a day during freshman and sophomore year but never again...
2009-07-03
12:19:02
@Simon Shogry,
I agree Simon! Forget those poor people. It's not like they need jobs anyways. Obama can provide them for everyone! Just like he can give everybody a car and pay for the mortgage. It's totally not as relevant a topic as Latin declensions. I mean, come on, you must have settled the issue in sophomore year...
2009-07-03
15:14:21
The term "declension" refers to the inflection of nouns and adjectives. At issue, however, is the inflection of a verb, i.e., crescit. Therefore, the topic is not, as you state, one of Latin declensions, but one of Latin conjugations.
Speaking of "crescit", I must confess that I do not know this verb's principal parts! Some help, Latin scholars? With any luck, we can keep this thread going!
2009-07-03
18:09:34
Here you go my fine man.
http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/~lha/Latin_vocab/verb3/crescere.html
I must apologize as third person plural of crescere is crescunt, not crescint, as I stated above.
2009-07-06
01:24:21
In actuality, the alternative reading alluded to by Patrick is still valid, without the need to resort to an overly 'creative' interpretation. The difference hinges on the translation of "cum." (cue LOLZ from anonymous). The word is most often translated as "with," as in our school's motto. An additional meaning, however, is "while." This translation eliminates the need for a plural verb, in this case "crescunt." "Crescit," although written only once, can be used for both nouns in the construction. In English, "Civilization (prospers) while Commerce (prospers)." It's a fairly common rhetorical device in Latin. If you want to argue that the preceding translation isn't exactly the same thing as "Civilization and Commerce Together Prosper," well, I'm not going to convince you. Just wanted to point out that there is a grammatical basis for the alternative reading.
2009-07-06
16:47:18
Thanks, Latin Sticklers! Specifically to 2.0, could you cite some examples of this construction in Latin prose? I'm curious where it occurs.