Position Paper: PAWA
When looking at PAWA, I've come to the conclusion that the legislation is a positive for the public and generates a public good. PAWA should be supported because it helps to keep workers in high risk situations safe, it helps to preserve the environment and keep it clean for the long term, it helps to stimulate the economy, and it punishes businesses that don't follow the prescribed regulation.
This legislation directly benefits low wage high risk workers, such as immigrants, who are working in dangerous conditions. Now, instead of worrying about losing their jobs and being replaced, these workers can instead focus on their jobs and producing at an optimal level.
Previously, if these workers got hurt, they would be quickly replaced by their employers without any compensation. Now, these workers are protected by the federal government and their employers are forced to adhere to PAWA regulation or face stiff fines. PAWA helps to stimulate the economy because workers will be confident in their ability to have a steady job and to keep wages coming in.
[...] PAWA is legislation that benefits the long term sustainability of society. Conclusion Detractors who don't want to see PAWA pass will say that its expensive legislation that hurts businesses. But that's not even close to being the truth. The truth is that PAWA is strong legislation that by imposing fines and negative incentives on businesses, creates a better work environment for low skill high risk workers who comprise a large segment of the population. It also improves the economy by providing compensation for these workers, allowing them to spend money on the open market without worrying about their jobs. [...]
[...] But there is an increasing immigrant population that is performing low wage manual labor. These immigrants, mostly Latino in origin, are working in jobs such as construction and farming that require heavy labor in what can sometimes be extreme conditions (J.J. Keller & Associates). The Protecting America's Workers Act intends to help these new age high risk workers by strengthening the Occupational Safety and Health Act. PAWA will do this mainly by increasing the civil and criminal penalties for employer violations, with penalties significantly increased for worker deaths. [...]
[...] This is no longer the case under PAWA. With harsh penalties for not providing a safe work environment or compensating workers, employers are forced to provide a better workplace. Looking from an individual worker level first, this helps to ease some of the stress of working a high risk job and allows workers to focus on performing their job on an optimal level. Having workers that can afford to spend money in the market helps to stimulate the economy. When workers don't have money, they don't spend. [...]
[...] PAWA is a huge positive for society as a whole and it is a public good that should be championed by American legislators. By improving the livelihood of workers, they improve their performance and are more likely to spend, which stimulates the economy. It also improves the environment, which helps the long term future of our society and also allows current businesses continue their commerce undisturbed. Opponents of PAWA come in the form of big business and their special interest affiliates. [...]
[...] It costs money to keep dangerous chemicals from contaminating the environment. It also costs money to protect workers inside the workplace. Paying for medical bills and waiting for workers to return to work healthy is also a cost that employers have to incur. Employers are trying to make money, so naturally they want to be as liable for as little as they can. Employers don't want to have to pay money to people who aren't working, or to protect the environment because those things aren't helping them make money (J.J. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
