Regulatory reform refers to changes that improve regulatory quality, i.e. enhance the performance, cost-effectiveness or legal quality of regulations and related government formalities. Regulatory reform can mean changes in specific regulations governing markets and sectors. Conversely, it can mean changes to the way regulations are formulated, enacted and enforced. Examples of regulatory reform include: decreased regulatory oversight for businesses, the use of alternatives to regulation, and “sunsetting” laws.
Far too often, the federal government interferes with the free market exchange between business owners and their employees with excessive mandates and unnecessary regulation. AWF believes the optimal relationship between employers and their employees is one of mutual benefit derrved from negotiations between the two parties. These negotiations should be based upon both merit and the needs of the employer and the employee.
Examples of over-regualtion (that often include misleading titles) include: The Family Medical Leave Act which places the burden on businesses when employees fail to meet their work obligations; several OSHA regulations that attempt to mandate how businesses operate, often without cause of care to the cost increases and excessive burdens they place on businesses and their workers; the Lilly Ledbetter Act which increases the ability for trial lawyers to file civil penalties against businesses for termination of workers that occurred decades ago; the Paycheck Fairness Act which forces employers to disregard merit and skill when determining pay scales for employees; just to name a few.
AWF supports reforming these excessive regulations as they directly interfere with the optimal functionality of the free market. Employers should work with their employees to create a mutually beneficial situation without force or fear from government intervention.