← Back to context

Comment by hereme888

2 years ago

Would you think that imposing heavy fines, and perhaps even criminal penalties when workers are not properly informed, would be a better alternative to banning an economically advantageous product?

29 comments

hereme888

Reply
rtpg  2 years ago

Not to be too glib but I think here the reasoning is that letting market forces duke it out (even with fines and penalties) is considered to not be fast enough compared to the number of people whose health is being put at risk.

Like here there are a bunch of people who have lung cancer now. And there's probably a bunch more who will get it from doing all the work up until now.

And this has been in the news for a while I think. I imagine that despite all of this, there's still stuff coming up. The first case was reported back in 2015. 8 years is a pretty long time to think "hey, maybe we should do stuff so our workers won't get lung cancer". The fact that that is not incentive enough is probably a signal that there's not really much left to do, honestly.

  • kortilla  2 years ago

    Criminal liability is not “let the market forces duke it out” in any meaningful sense.

    • AdamN  2 years ago

      That's exactly what it is. Criminal liability is a deterrent model with a very high bar that is usually used when other mechanisms are not scalable. The number of people determined to be criminally liable in a country like Australia for a labor offense is going to be very small and focused on the absolute worst offenders years after the offense.

      2 replies →

    • junaru  2 years ago

      Your comments puts cheaper kitchen tables above potential lifelong worker health issues.

      No amount of 'criminal liability' will bring back loved ones.

      2 replies →

    • rtpg  2 years ago

      Yeah I agree that it’s way more powerful than civil infractions or the like. I meant more that the feedback loop is quite slow

sjy  2 years ago

This is addressed in the linked source, although that wouldn’t be obvious if you’re not familiar with Australian work health and safety law:

> the re-emergence of silicosis in engineered stone workers is also due to a failure of compliance with existing WHS laws … PCBUs [persons conducting a business or undertaking, who are subject to WHS laws] have not done all that is reasonably practicable to eliminate or minimise those risks, and workers have not taken reasonable care for their own health and safety and that of others [which is a criminal offence]. Finally, there has been insufficient compliance and enforcement actions by WHS regulators to drive behaviour change in the sector … A lower silica content engineered stone is not expected to result in improvements in compliance. The features of the sector that have contributed to the current levels of non-compliance remain – the sector is comprised of mostly small businesses with few barriers to entry and a lower understanding of WHS obligations.

  • defrost  2 years ago

    The "ban" (proposed for July 2024 and after) is actually conditional upon the building industry getting their act together with respect to worker safety and compliance:

    National Dust Disease Taskforce Final Report - June 2021

    https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/national-du...

    [PDF] https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2022...

    Page 11: (Recomendations ...)

        D) Commence the processes required to implement a full ban on the importation of some or all engineered stone products if, by July 2024:

    – There is no measurable and acceptable improvement in regulatory compliance rates for the engineered stone sector as reported by jurisdictions; and

    - Evidence indicates preventative measures are not effectively protecting those working with engineered stone from silicosis and silica-associated diseases

    In short - (We recommend to) Ban this stuff UNLESS building sector improves safety AND demonstrates effective change.

    • Hawxy  2 years ago

      > is actually conditional upon the building industry getting their act together

      I don't think this is correct. The SafeWork report (recommending a complete ban) superseded this health report, and the ministers appear to have aligned on the SafeWork recommendation.

      1 reply →

rgmerk  2 years ago

This doesn’t take into account the realities of people in that industry.

It’s highly fragmented, dominated by men and specifically younger men, who self-select for a high tolerance of risk and a low tolerance of rules.

By the time they find out that they’re not invulnerable and rules exist to protect them, it’s too late.

DoItToMe81  2 years ago

People are dying slow, painful and horrific deaths because fines have not worked to dissuade these companies. Bans are the only option left.

rvba  2 years ago

A lot of manual workers ignore protective equipment even after training and while constantly supervised

2muchcoffeeman  2 years ago

Not informed? You think that trades people were not properly informed to wear PPE at all times? I’m have a3D printer as a hobby and I wear all the PPE when sanding or spray painting.

These people know perfectly well they need to take precautions.

lll-o-lll  2 years ago

Also, bring back Asbestos, properly handled it is perfectly safe. Radium also gets a bad rap from the “think of the children” brigade. And don’t get me started on leaded fuel! What an overreach from the government on that one!

How dare these union thugs get in the way of clear economic progression that provides far more benefit than harm!