Even in what is referred to as an “off-year” election, where the main events are the races for City Council and, in this case, a county-wide transit-tax question, we can’t completely escape the statewide initiatives.
The ballots that will appear in island mailboxes late next week have two such questions, one the controversial topic of ergonomic rules, the other an almost achingly minuscule question dealing with filling vacancies in elective offices.
The first, Initiative 841, asks whether the ergonomics rules promulgated by the Department of Labor and Industries should be repealed. The proposal would not only dump the existing standards, but would bar the state agency from enacting new rules, except to conform to whatever federal regulations might be put into place.
(For those less versed in the arcanery of today’s employment jargon, “ergonomics rules” require employers to identify and mitigate hazardous jobs that, through heavy lifting or repetitive motion, can lead to back strain, tendonitis, carpal tunnel syndrome and the other injuries. Claims from such injuries are said to cost the state $1 billion each year in medical payouts, wage replacement and lost productivity.)
The arguments in the voters pamphlet make irreconcilable claims. Those in favor of repeal – principally, the state homebuilders’ association, small-business and farm lobbyists– see the rules as unique and expensive job-killers that burden employers with new expenses and drive jobs out of the state. Those against repeal – principally labor unions and doctors – argue that the regulations reduce on-the-job injuries, thereby cutting worker-compensation costs to employers.
In theory, the argument is simple – the rules cost more than they save, or the reverse is true.
How can we make an informed judgment on the merits of this question? Frankly, we can’t, beyond deciding whether we generally favor The Workers or The Boss. We doubt the average reader can do much better.
The kind of cost-benefit analysis this initiative asks voters to undertake is one that can and should be left to the expertise of the state agencies involved. Rule-making is slow and thorough – excruciatingly slow. And the agencies don’t have the final word – disappointed parties have recourse through the courts and Legislature, who can also review the record, take time and employ the necessary experts to render a reasoned decision.
What we have here is another instance of parties who did or could have availed themselves of all of those steps, didn’t get the outcome they wanted, and are making a final appeal to the voters. Of necessity, that appeal reduces complex questions to sound-bite campaigns and knee-jerk votes. We object to that process, and recommend a No vote on I-841.
The other measure, House Joint Resolution 4206, is a constitutional amendment proposed by the Legislature. It asks that (1) when an election for a state legislative or county office has been held, and (2) when the office then becomes vacant after the election, and (3) if the person elected is of the same party as the person vacating the office, then the person elected will take office for the duration of the term, saving a multi-step appointment process.
This sensible measure carries out the intent of the voters, and saves needless wheel-spinning. We recommend a Yes vote on HJR-4206.
