The Industry "self regulation" has been played...and it failed

[Bonestorm]

Unless the cases are tried in state court, then they are at least tried infront of an elected official. The longarm statute in most states would allow a suit against compaines in state court but most of them end up in Fed court

Some state court judges, not all. And given that the only likely litigation by regulation that will be effective in actually regulating are class-action suits, they'll end up in federal court with the Class Action Reform Act.

 

[Socrtease]

Some state court judges, not all. And given that the only likely litigation by regulation that will be effective in actually regulating are class-action suits, they'll end up in federal court with the Class Action Reform Act.

Well that is because we want conservative judges to hear this cases and insure they get nowhere.

 

[Cypress]

former FDA Commissioner: "I hate to say it, but it may take a national food scare for people to realize you can't just have cops catching people when things go wrong."

You can't wait until there's a major food safety violation, to prosecute a crime. That's what the commissioner is saying.

For the same reason you can't wait to do anything until a driver kills a pedestrian while speeding. You have to regulate and monitor driving habits like speeding. You don't wait until someone dies to prosecute a speeder.

 

[Timshel]

I think market solutions work better, but my main point was not that they do, but that it is dishonest to argue that they have been tried and failed in the example given. They have not. It's a strawman to argue that market advocates wish to let the industries "regulate themselves."

In fact, considering the problem of captured regulatory agencies, it's more honest to argue that advocates of central planning argue for the industries to regulate themselves.

Reactive litigation based-regulatory schemes that try to unshit the bed are unworkable. Shouldn't we try to limit and minimize harm in the place?

That can be done without government bureaucracy. Private "seal of approval" groups have worked pretty well in a lot of areas. They are not perfect, but they would be subject to the market concerns of consumers and answerable for any fraud.

Here, the problem is as I mentioned, that the government crowds them out. There are definitely concerns on just throwing this open without the private regulatory markets in place to handle this.

And what's the likelihood that enough consumers will be able to actually litigate any claims after suffering injury?

I do not see that it is necessary that someone be harmed. Has anyone been harmed by this beef? The injury is an uneccessary endangerment.

Without all the money going to regulators and lobbying for more regulation, there could be more private groups aimed at protecting consumers via the courts.

And aren't you really just shifting the regulatory responsibility from one unelected entity (regulatory agency) to another (judges)?

A lot of judges are elected, aren't they? Or is that just for some courts?

Regardless, judges tend to be more visible than bureaurats. And they can't shift blame. A regulatory agency fucks up and all you ever hear is that they need more money/regulators. Maybe, in extreme cases there is a fall guy, but nothing ever really changes. A corrupt judge could well face jail time. And if we use the Mencken method of regulating the jobholders...

 

[TRGLDTE]

I'm shocked to learn that when you allow industry to "self regulate", somehow they don't manage to "find" a lot of problems.

One of my former careers was in the food products industry; baby foods were a major product line. The corporate culture made it abundantly clear that with regard to food safety, there was NO excuse for bad product. It could never be justified, and quite simply, we were not to 'go there.' Never, ever, was the 'goodness' of what people fed their babies to be in question. That message was pounded into our heads day after day.

Some people / companies take it seriously, but as always, there are some who can NOT be trusted with a pointy stick. Yes, these folks WOULD poison your kid to make an extra buck. Fry the bastards. I say that because I know what it takes to do the right thing, and it's NOT THAT HARD. The only reason to NOT do it is greed and/or sheer laziness. If someone is so morally bankrupt as to be motivated by these in this cricumstances, they need killin'.

 

[Cypress]

One of my former careers was in the food products industry; baby foods were a major product line. The corporate culture made it abundantly clear that with regard to food safety, there was NO excuse for bad product. It could never be justified, and quite simply, we were not to 'go there.' Never, ever, was the 'goodness' of what people fed their babies to be in question. That message was pounded into our heads day after day.

Some people / companies take it seriously, but as always, there are some who can NOT be trusted with a pointy stick. Yes, these folks WOULD poison your kid to make an extra buck. Fry the bastards. I say that because I know what it takes to do the right thing, and it's NOT THAT HARD. The only reason to NOT do it is greed and/or sheer laziness. If someone is so morally bankrupt as to be motivated by these in this cricumstances, they need killin'.

I know that many companies try to do the right thing, and provide a safe product to consumers. But, some companies don’t. And, alternatively, some companies want to do the right thing, but they are inevitably faced with competing interests between profit, productivity, and safety.

I also know that, in cases of human health and welfare, you can’t just wait for someone to die or get poisoned, and then take the corporation to court to seek redress. People are dead by then. That’s why nursing homes get inspected by state authorities. That’s why traffic cops are hired to make monitor us and sure that I, and everyone else, is obeying speeding laws. That’s why meat packing plants need to be inspected by independent regulators, who have no conflict of interest tied to the profit machine.

There’s a reason Upton Sinclair’s grim indictment on the meat packing industry changed the way we do business. It’s not a lesson we should have to relearn, or forget.

 

[Socrtease]

When idustry self regulates it does the least amount it has to to be safe. Would you want your law enforcement to be on the same model? We will patrol JUST ENOUGH to keep you safe.

 

[Timshel]

The traffic cop model is a great example. The government heavily regulates and 50000 people die a year. Meanwhile, the system is used largely to raise revenues, with cops engaging in various traps that often have nothing to do with safety and border on entrapment.

The largest threats to safety are mostly ignored, for instance, poorly designed and maintained roads and problems arising from traffic that moves at varying speeds (not necessarily speeding).

Many people get pulled over, harrassed, beaten, arrested on false charges and some spend years in prison. While, others get a pass for the same or similar offenses because they or they're parents have status, know the cop, judge, etc..

Good ole boy networks, that's what we need in product safety.

 

[TRGLDTE]

And, alternatively, some companies want to do the right thing, but they are inevitably faced with competing interests between profit, productivity, and safety.

The competing interests of profit, productivity and safety are a false comparison. Companies who believe so are not at all smart.

In my time in that industry, my plant made over 220 million cans of product. We had ONE customer complaint due to a dent in the can rupturing the hermetic seal and allowing spoilage. We returned the customers money with apology.

In every aspect of what the company pushed, food safety was always first. Somehow we managed to be one of the most profitable and productive plants in the industry.

 

[Battleborne]

Those are baddddd words to a criminal defense attorneys. But, you maybe right. And my bet is corporate america is more afraid of prison that drug dealers are. Although corporate criminals go to Club Fed when they get caught.

and your reservation has been confirmed...counselor...

 

[uscitizen]

So long as they can channel outrage of the citizens into more revenue streams and jobs for themselves (i.e., regulatory agencies and the necessary taxes to fund them), yes, you are right. Not to mention how the regulatory scheme allows them to extort the industries regulated without any real regard to safety or consumer concerns.

Maybe their should be mandatory minimums for fraud.

the fine should be 2X the amount the company had income off of the fraud.

No slap on the wrist fines that just become a cost of doing business.
If a company is fined 1 million but their crime resulted in 10 million of income...

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Blah, blah, blah... Nobody really advocates "self regulation" as you intend it, that is, no wants this sort of thing to go without consequences.

But, there are other means of regulation, market oriented ones that will not and cannot come about so long as the government crowds them out.

The other consequence should be severe punishment, civil and possibly criminal, for those that knowingly endanger customers. Come down on them with both feet with such overwhelming punsihment that it threatens the going concern. And if you remove privileges enjoyed by corps then they can't just restructure and start again.

Having litigation as the only form of regulation is beyond ridiculous. I may as well sue my power plant for pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

So long as they can channel outrage of the citizens into more revenue streams and jobs for themselves (i.e., regulatory agencies and the necessary taxes to fund them), yes, you are right. Not to mention how the regulatory scheme allows them to extort the industries regulated without any real regard to safety or consumer concerns.

Maybe their should be mandatory minimums for fraud.

GOMZJGINGA!?!/1!?!!

MANDATORY MINIMUM!?!?1/1

Oh alright.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The problem of corruption in the regulatory agency is far more likely and harder to control since they do not answer to the public. The difference is that a functioning regulatory agency that truly removed these risks would be extremely costly. Even if it worked it would not work.

LOL, remember whenever Microsoft was fined 500 million in the EU for not giving people the option to not install windows media player with the operating system?

Man, whenever the government does come down hard, it comes down hard on the most trivial shit.

 

[Timshel]

Having litigation as the only form of regulation is beyond ridiculous. I may as well sue my power plant for pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

Good thing that is not what I was advocating then.

I don't think the EPA regulates co2 emissions from power plants now, do they?