Analysis: Tension between public safety, business interests

There is inevitable tension between public security and the welfare of business. Many security measures businesses are called upon to adopt may contribute to public safety, but to the individual companies involved they are but an addition to the cost of doing business. Beyond a certain point, that cost may become prohibitive. This is why, before 9/11, airlines fought tooth and nail against meaningful security measures at airports and on board planes (just recall the ferocious fight airlines and their lobbyists engaged in to thwart legislation which would require installing impregnable cockpit doors; this relatively inexpensive measure, which have cost the airlines under a $100 million in total, would have prevented the 9/11 attacks, the damage from which is estimated to be more than a $100 billion, to say nothing of human losses). For the same reason the chemical industry has fought adamantly against the requirement of having meaningful safety measures in chemical plants. The industry relied on heavy campaign contributions, an army of lobbyists, and the support of Karl Rove to thwart legislative efforts to introduce such measures. The industry has finally agreed to cooperate with congressional efforts to formulate plant safety standards, but the cost of such cooperation may be high: Federal regulations would pre-empt state regulations, so states such as New Jersey where safety regulations are relatively tight would see their chemical plant security weakened; the industry is also fighting against the requirement of replacing the most toxic chemicals with safer chemicals in plants close to population centers. ”

The latest example is Wal-Mart’s campaign against the tightening of port security. The AFL-CIO has just released a report criticizing Wal-Mart and its lobbying group for using the retail giant’s muscle to block efforts to improve cargo screening. The labor federation released the report yesterday, pointing to Wal-Mart and the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) as “systematically … working to defeat and water down rules designed to make America’s seaports and far-flung supply chains safe from terrorist attacks.” The report details RILA’s efforts since 9/11 to thwart costly initiatives to tighten supply-chain and port security through new secure container technology, more inspections, and maritime security user fees. ”

Jonathan Gold, RILA’s vice president of global supply chain policy, called the report “completely baseless.” He said it was “inaccurate, misleading and in many cases just plain wrong.” Gold added that no one cares more about supply chain security than RILA members. He said the association strongly supports much of the current DHS policy, including the screening of all cargo containers deemed as high-risk.”

As security requirements increase, and pressure on the government to issue security mandates grows, tensions between the public safety requirements and the interests of business will only become more wide-spread and more intense.”

We reported a few days ago on an important report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) which called for a more rational approach to funding critical infrastructure projects in the United States. Much of this funding now is done haphazardly, adhering more to pork-related earmarking than to a rational master plan. The discussion should begin now to formulate criteria for when, and under what circumstances, should the costs of public safety be the responsibility of private business, and when should such costs be socialized.