Some bad vetoes
Can we all agree that in the debate over business regulation, protecting Nevada workers from dying on the job is worth a little hassle?
Apparently, the answer is no.
Gov. Brian Sandoval on June 1 vetoed two Assembly bills, Nos. 253 and 254, that would have toughened workplace regulations when it comes to preventing deaths and hazards. Sandoval said the regulations were burdensome and a more innovative approach was needed.
Nevada can innovate all it wants, but who can argue with the idea that there should be some burdens on companies that violate the law, safety regulations or even their own promise to fix problems? In fact, this is one of those cases where we need some of that big government that conservatives are always complaining about.
Take AB 253: The bill would have allowed Nevada's Occupational Health and Safety Administration to issue fines to businesses that fail to live up to settlement agreements. Currently, the administration has to sue businesses in civil court to enforce those agreements.
Put another way: A hypothetical business can violate the law or regulations, get caught, agree to a settlement agreement, and then ignore that agreement, and Nevada OSHA has essentially the same recourse in law that you do if you slip and fall at Wal-Mart.
Shouldn't that kind of a business face some harsh punishments?
Not according to Sandoval. "There is some merit to the argument that the bill's increased fines may help reduce the number of willful OSHA violations occurring in Nevada's workplaces," he wrote. (You think?) "However, a more innovative and proactive approach is warranted to improve workplace safety and change behavior before it results in workplace injuries or death."
What those more "innovative and proactive approaches" are wasn't specified in the governor's one-page veto message.
What's clear is that more needs to be done. We all remember the skein of construction deaths on the Strip well-documented by a 2009 Pulitzer Prize-winning series in the Las Vegas Sun. All told, a dozen workers died at various Strip construction projects because of various safety failures from 2006 to 2008, prompting a federal review of the state OSHA program.
In fact, the provisions of the vetoed bills grew from federal OSHA suggestions on how the state could improve its workplace safety program.
Corporations, notwithstanding the legal fiction to the contrary, are not people, and cannot feel remorse or compassion. And sometimes, neither can their officers. That's why a hefty fine -- especially for failing to live up to promised changes -- is virtually the only effective sanction.
That was the intent of AB 254, which would have allowed Nevada OSHA to issue a citation if the agency finds "any employee has access to a hazard."
That provision is already in the federally approved OSHA manual, along with requirements that the state agency prove a hazard exists and that a business knew, or should have known, about it. But AB 254 would have clarified that an inspector would not have to actually witness an employee in the vicinity of a hazard before issuing a citation.
To this, Sandoval also had an answer: "Legislation passed in 2009 has significantly improved jobsite safety and enforcement of OSHA violations in Nevada, and I am a strong supporter of continued improvement in those areas," the governor wrote. "However, this bill creates ambiguous and misguided new requirements that will be difficult to enforce and burdensome to comply with. Because this bill will not proactively improve the conditions and safety of our workplaces, I veto it and return it to you without my approval."
"Burdensome regulation" always sounds bad, but when it can contribute to keeping people alive, it's a good thing, and no amount of rhetoric can erase that.
Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter at www.Twitter.com/SteveSebelius or reach him at 387-5276 or at SSebelius@reviewjournal.com.
