Two Reid Ribble tidbits to start the day

Republican Rep. Reid Ribble, who represents Wisconsin’s 8th Congressional District (though he doesn’t actually live in the district) has his first Democratic challenger for the 2012 election, as Democrat Jamie Wall has announced his candidacy for the seat currently held by Rep. Ribble.

Wall is a former Rhodes Scholar who was an economic development administrator for the state of Wisconsin under Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle.

In other Reid Ribble-related news, the Congressman has come under fire from the Green Bay Press Gazette after he participated last week in a subcommittee hearing on a proposal by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to protect workers on roofing projects. At issue is the fact that Rep. Ribble doesn’t actually sit on the subcommittee he was allowed to participate in, but he does have a vested interest in any efforts by OSHA to improve worker safety on roofing projects, given the fact that Ribble received a $10,000 campaign contribution from the National Roofing Contractors Association.

No doubt Rep. Ribble’s benefactors at the NRCA have no interest in increasing worker safety on roofing projects, and Rep. Ribble seems all too willing to do their bidding.

Share:

Related Articles

14 thoughts on “Two Reid Ribble tidbits to start the day

  1. Certainly questioning Ribble’s objectivity on the matter is fair game – which I assume is why he’s not actually on the committee. But in terms of contributing at all? Pretty sure he had more knowledge & experience on the topic and the real world implications of the regulations than anyone else in the room.

      1. He’s certainly capable of input on the business implications of such.

        “Under questioning by Ribble, OSHA head David Michaels agreed the fall protection regulation probably would increase the cost of roof repairs.”

        That’s why his input is warranted. OSHA provides one side of the discussion and is no less biased than the industries they regulate. Regulators should consider the health and safety of workers AND the impact of regulation intended (but not always very successful at) improving it.

        I’ve been working with an OSHA expert trainer the last few years developing online courses. This guy can cite the standards to the letter, and gets paid well to help companies create safety policies & procedures. They almost always come to him wanting compliance & nothing more. He’s actually at the point where he turns many of them away if that’s their only concern. The truth is there are a lot of very good regs but also many that either go to too far or even not far enough. OSHA compliance doesn’t guarantee safety any more than following the speed limit guarantees you won’t get into an accident.

        There has to be some sort of balance between risk and cost. We can guarantee a 100% injury-free work place if we just make enough things illegal. That’s no more desirable than no rules at all. The argument is where we draw the line. Effective regulators need to consider all sides to determine what that balance should be.

        1. Locke,

          ” OSHA is no less biased than the industries they regulate”.

          Really? How did you determine this? Does OSHA have a profit motive? Get real, man.

          1. Does OSHA have a profit motive? Get real, man.

            No, the exact opposite. They aren’t concerned with the profits of the companies they regulate – if a reg puts a company out of business, so be it. Well provided it’s a small company – certainly big companies in some industries are able to exert some political pressure.

        2. OSHA compliance doesn’t guarantee safety any more than following the speed limit guarantees you won’t get into an accident… We can guarantee a 100% injury-free work place if we just make enough things illegal.

          Bit of a non sequitur there.

          1. Bit of a non sequitur there.

            No, not really. I believe the word you’re looking for is analogy.

            Had you not snipped it where you did, the next few lines would have given the context you seemed to have missed.

            1. OIC. Regulations can’t make the workplace safe yet could make it 100% safe. Makes perfect sense in context.

  2. Locke postulates theories as fact. I can’t read anything he writes anymore. It makes me nauseous.

    And Reid Ribble sounds like a Flintstone villain.

  3. If someone has expertise, one would be foolish not to hear them out. In that way having Mr. Ribble there should be no different than having any other knowledgable witness present.

    1. Sure there’s a difference….Reid Ribble took money from the very groups he was defending, so it’s not as if he was some unbiased witness who just came to give testimony.

Comments are closed.