That's got to be about the most naive sentiment I've ever read. Manufacturers have a long history of intentionally producing a known bad product to increase profit margins. BP, both the oil company and Pharma, the Ford Pinto and any number of cigarette manufacturers come to mind without thinking very hard. Every day, manufacturers do cost/benefit analyses. They know how much an average lawsuit will cost and how many lawsuits are likely to result from a given decision. They know how much bad PR will cost. They know the cost of mitigating bad PR with PR campaigns of their own. They have legions of bean counters to crunch numbers to decide whether cutting this corner or that corner will be profitable after deducting the costs of the lawsuits that they know full well will ensue should they cut such corners.
Some manufacturers, particularly small ones, will attempt to do the right thing. Others, will not and that is not demonization, it's history. As a corporation gets larger and becomes insulated against the financial consequences of killing people, they become more willing to sacrifice lives for another point or two on next quarters profit statement. We have already tried this business of self-regulation. Unfortunately, it doesn't work nearly often enough to be relied upon, as clearly proven in the space heater, auto, oil, chemical and coal industries, just to name a few. Don't you remember the fight the auto industry put up over mandatory seat belts? Ignition locks? Air bags? How many more people would be dead today if the auto industry had had its way regarding seat belts?
The vast majority of the regulations imposed on industry were imposed in reaction to industry's demonstrated inability, or unwillingness, to regulate itself, and they were imposed only after numerous cases of deaths and injuries by defective and dangerous products. Only the most inherently dangerous industries, i.e. nuclear power, aviation, etc., were regulated on a preemptory basis, because the consequences of cutting corners are so catastrophic. If manufacturers had not repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to cut corners without regard to safety, there would be no need to force them to and cases of deaths and injuries wouldn't have dropped after standards were imposed. Thousands of government inspectors could just sit around in their offices all day in the knowledge that there was nothing for them to do. That's not the case, nor has it ever been the case. The incidences of consumers being killed and disfigured by defective and dangerous products have plummeted drastically since manufacturing standards have been enforced. That fact alone is proof that they are necessary and serve a purpose and that, before they were mandatory, manufacturers didn't adhere to them in any consistent manner. The ones that did, faced unfair competition from the ones that didn't. By imposing safety standards on industry, a level playing field is created and a company can't so easily sacrifice human life for a short term advantage in the marketplace.
I think all shipping facilities must be the same. I worked at the PO when the white powder scare happened, we worked in masks and rubber gloves, it was a scarey time. We became more aware of what we were handling, but packages get mishandled all the time. bnrk
