news-record.com

NEWS

Group objects to regulations for N.C. small businesses

Article
Comments (21)

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

(Updated 2:26 pm)

By Emery P. Dalesio
Associated Press

RALEIGH (AP) — A group representing small businesses is protesting the possibility of regulations they say would limit job growth.

The National Federation of Independent Business highlighted the issue Tuesday at a Raleigh company that shapes iron and steel for use in construction.

Co-owner Cindy Schulz says the tough economy has forced the layoffs of a quarter of her employees, which now number three dozen. She says she fears higher fines for violating worker safety laws will harm her business.

The NFIB says small business owners think new federal regulations threaten their ability to operate and create jobs. The group's effort in North Carolina and five other election battleground states tries to put a face on the small businesses that would be affected.

Accompanying Photos

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Comments

View Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

fiacre

September 27, 2011 - 7:29 am EDT

OK, so what are the new regulations? I have a wife who teaches and kids in school, plus I am a farmer. This story has no purpose without a bit of information on what it's about.

Waldo Leidecker

September 27, 2011 - 7:58 am EDT

Why is that that every time the Republinazis hear the word "regulation" they warp it into some "job killing" crap. If a business is going to hire they're going to hire - period.

rmacz

September 27, 2011 - 3:11 pm EDT

There was nothing in the article about Republicans....ass-u-me...ha!

Andrew Brod

September 27, 2011 - 8:29 am EDT

Yeah, which regs? Maybe the claims are related to this recent FactCheck.org article:

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/08/front-group-claims-epa-threatens-7-mill...

The claim of huge costs are dubious, and as the update notes, the president delayed at least one important environmental reg (much to the chagrin of liberals).

One of the fundamental facts of environmental regulation is that the actual costs (and there generally are costs, though also benefits) are never, and I mean never, as high as the business lobby claims before the fact. One reason, of course, is that the business lobby has an incentive to overstate its concerns; it's more about winning the argument than being precisely accurate. And fair enough; that's the game.

The other reason is more interesting. The thing about capitalism is that it really does do amazing things at times. When faced with environmental (and other) regs, businesses shift gears and figure out ways to comply with the regs while incurring as little cost as possible. It's what for-profit companies do. As a result, the reg ends up costing the affected businesses a lot less than lobbyists claim. We've seen this again and again. At times the direct economic costs (not counting the economic benefits from improved health and so on) have been 1/10 or 1/20 of the scary before-the-fact claims.

toddha

September 27, 2011 - 2:18 pm EDT

Perhaps the lady quoted in the article should use her time to make sure that her company doesn't violate worker safety rules so that she doesn't receive a fine, which is the point of the new regulation, keeping workers safe.

lipeachy23

September 27, 2011 - 2:54 pm EDT

I agree. I also don't understand why she would be upset or confused that protecting her workers is important and any known violation of safety should be harshly punished. I suppose she doesn't view adults lives as worth much but is probably pro-life.

toddha

September 27, 2011 - 4:23 pm EDT

As long as she abides by worker safety rules, which are already in place, she won't have to face a fine, which she says would inhibit her from hiring more workers. I guess a speeding ticket would also inhibit her.

1234

September 27, 2011 - 11:21 pm EDT

Sometimes the OSHA fines are horrid...kind of like the place that its dumpster door is open and gets a fine...but if you hire a "consultant" that is an ex employee of OSHA to work it all out, it goes away...

Bosco

September 27, 2011 - 2:37 pm EDT

Ruin the USA, the Obama way
America is asking you to cry

pragmatist

September 27, 2011 - 3:19 pm EDT

I don't know what she's worried about. If a worker gets hurt, goes into a coma and has no insurance, the Republicans will applaud her.

rmacz

September 27, 2011 - 5:08 pm EDT

...and the Dem's will use class warfare....ha!

whyus

September 27, 2011 - 3:41 pm EDT

True story here- every federal regulation dealing with bank compliance with the lending laws requires that a cost analysis to banks be assigned to the regulation. Guess who does the cost analysis - the regulators who have never worked a day in their lives in a bank.

thinkingman

September 27, 2011 - 4:58 pm EDT

Any evidence to indicate that regulators across the board are not also ex-bankers? My father is in the financial industry, has worked at various banks in executive positions for many years, and he personally knows many people who had jobs similar to his and are now federal regulators. He almost took a job with the FDIC himself.

Rolling

September 28, 2011 - 7:06 am EDT

I've been in banking for more than 2 decades and I've yet to meet a regulator that wasn't a former employee of a bank . Do you live in opposite world?

Traveler

September 27, 2011 - 10:56 pm EDT

Someone asked for an example. OK, here is an example.

I am in advertising. One of my customers was a small business owner in the Asheville area who made "health foods". This was jars of sauces and the like, made from foods grown on several co-ops in the Asheville area. They were following all rules and regs of the county health department and had a growing business, employing about 20 people in 2007. This person was an Obama supporter.

When Obama's federal regulators come on the scene, they reuired new processing, which required new equipment costing over $1,000,000, although they had never had a complaint or problem to the best knowledge of the company. The business closed in 2009, butting about 20 people out of a job.

This former business owner is no longer an Obama supporter.

Another former Obama supporter owned a small printing company in eastern NC. Obama's regulator came in and issued pages of new regulations that cuased the owner to close his shop and fire his only employee.

Obama himself reversed his regulators recently, when he forced them to relax "clean air standards" that where estimed to cost over eighty BILLION dollars annually.

For the past three years China has been ranked more business friendly than the USA by American business. One of the major negatives for the US was the massive regulation under this administration.

I have difficulty understanding some of the comments in this site about business. It seems that some do not care what regulations cost business. They seem to say that everyone should be paid a "living wage" (I think that is about $18,000 plus benefits. They do not seem to make suggestions about how employees should provide expertise to make the company profitable.

I mean, what do these business critics want? A Greece type system where almost everyone works for the government, doing little, and retiring at 55?

Rolling

September 28, 2011 - 7:12 am EDT

There is so much ignorance in your post, I'm not sure where to begin, do I begin with the crazy lack of worker safety laws in China that you seem to care for where people are subjected to prison labor wages and dangerous working conditions and the rash of on the job suicides or do I start with the fact that you seem to think regulators that do inspections are political appointees rather than career employees which they are? Too much crazy for me to address this morning but suffice to say your knowledge is really superficial.

Traveler

September 28, 2011 - 8:14 am EDT

Point 1. It is a competitive worldwide economy. If all you have to offer is labor, your are competiting against the rest of the world, where labor is mostly cheaper. If you want a better wage, the worker need to be better skilled and trained so that he or she can contribute to the good (and profit) of the company.

Point 2. The rules the regulators enforce are set by each administration, and change with each administration.

thinkingman

September 28, 2011 - 8:19 am EDT

China's also a great example of where we could end up without those radical liberal clean air standards.

Traveler

September 28, 2011 - 11:53 am EDT

China is under regulated, agreed. In my opinion, the US is over regulated.

Reference clean air standards, the cost, estimated at 80 BILLION a year, was estimated to improve the air quality slightly. I saw an example where the pollution would be reduced by an amount equal to one tennis ball inside an olympic sized swimming pool.

We all want the best environment possible. We all want jobs for everyone. Sometimes we, as a people, compromise to get the best environment possible with the least amount of job loss.

1234

September 27, 2011 - 11:29 pm EDT

EPA were going to have to hire thousands (200,000) to keep up with paperwork having to do with May 2010 EPA Rule Narrowed Application Of Greenhouse Gases... that guess who has to fill out...and guess again who has to pay for it? hmm only one guess per taxpayer, all others go get a cupcake!

whyus

September 28, 2011 - 6:47 am EDT

Good point thingingman. Perhaps one or so may have been a former banker but given the ridiculously low cost estimates, I fully doubt it. I have also been in banking my entire career.