Trending
Whenever we traveled to the North Wind newsroom on Northern Michigan University's campus, my colleagues and I rode in an elevator. It was no secret that the elevator had been in use for quite some time. It is housed in one of the oldest halls on campus and is hardly used, considering the building's low traffic and easy-to-access stairwell.
Because of this, my colleagues wondered how safe the elevator was. While a concerning "thwomp" or high-pitched screech occasionally escaped the old machine, it never failed to transport us three floors up. Even when we tested the elevator's limits, holding the sliding door as a courtesy to those running late, I never doubted the appliance's reliability.
While others joked about the eventual downfall of the old elevator, I knew the regulations required for the machine to stay in use ensured it was in good shape. Thanks to the experience I had gained in a public administration course the semester prior, I was aware that public goods that had the potential to harm were regularly inspected and updated by the companies that produced them.
For instance, an elevator must be inspected at least once a year by a qualified elevator inspector (QEI), and maintenance employees must also conduct monthly reports. The results of these inspections are posted alongside every elevator in the United States.
Yet, even though buildings with elevators must participate in these routine check-ins, their owners may not be so willing. Whether it be a lack of upkeep or faulty machinery, the fear owners may have of replacing a defective product because of the resulting financial burden is natural and reasonable. However, because we do not want people operating faulty machinery, the U.S. Department of Labor - particularly the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) - requires these inspections to protect the health and well-being of the general public.
We are surrounded by these types of safeguards in our daily lives. From fire extinguishers in schools to AEDs in shopping malls, mattress tags to warning labels on toxic chemicals, the government requires these precautions to keep people safe, happy, and healthy. So what happens when these regulations are mocked by policymakers, relaxed for financial gain, or overlooked in their entirety?
Deregulation is the process of removing legislation that limits the action of particular markets. In simpler terms, deregulation eliminates government control or intervention in both private and public affairs. Many economists promote deregulation because it stimulates the economy by allowing more businesses to compete in the marketplace. With more companies competing, economic activity flourishes, and individuals strive to develop more innovative products.
However, deregulation can have incredibly harmful consequences for the general public. With this newfound freedom for business owners and intense pressure to succeed due to the market's competitiveness, CEOs may lower their quality and safety standards in fear of falling behind. When quality and safety standards are overlooked, especially in public health and safety sectors, results are often disastrous.
The most profound example of this would be the Boeing 737 MAX groundings between March 2019 and December 2020. All existing models of this passenger airline had their airworthiness rating revoked after two crashes occurred within five months, resulting in 346 deaths. These crashes derived from a poorly designed safety system created by Boeing, entitled MCAS, to aid pilots in flight. However, Boeing never alerted pilots to this new system, meaning they never received training on effectively monitoring, operating, or deactivating the system if it were to fail.
How was this allowed to happen? The airplane had been certified safe by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), so why were pilots never informed of changes made to their planes?
Several factors contributed to the downfall of Boeing. Considering the company had been the most reputable name in the industry for a long time, priding itself on safety and quality, a significant level of trust existed between the airline company and the FAA. Because of this trust, the FAA delegated the responsibility of regulatory checks to the company. While the federal government continued to require routine check-ups by the FAA on Boeing operations, this newfound freedom for the aircraft company gave them the power to approve the safety and craftsmanship of the 737 MAX independently.
But when Boeing's main market competitor, AirBus, began to outperform them economically, the pressure was on Boeing to produce a "new and improved" plane as soon as possible. To do so, administrators at the company decided to cut regulatory corners.
Boeing designed MCAS to avoid a complete aircraft redesign - not to aid pilots in flight. The company avoided FAA re-certification and pilot retraining by adding this singular flight control system, which failed in the two crashes after receiving false data from a sensor. Because Boeing was unwilling to lose time and money in their race to outperform AirBus, 346 lives were lost. If Boeing's faulty MCAS system had been left unchecked, the FAA predicted that 15 more crashes could have occurred within the next 30 years.
I understand that government regulations, formal rules, and industry standards ("red tape") may seem like unnecessary burdens, especially for small businesses. But just as some restrictions prevent you from opening a new store, others protect you from tainted food products, unsafe work conditions, and faulty equipment. There is a method to what may seem like ridiculous government procedures -- a method that will ultimately keep you and your loved ones safe.
-- -- --
Andie Balenger is a native of Gladstone and is currently attending Northern Michigan University. Her column addresses topics from the perspective of a young adult and runs Thursdays in the Daily Press.