Bill Overview
Title: Hide No Harm Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes criminal penalties for corporate officers who fail to inform federal agencies, their employees, or affected individuals of any serious physical danger that is associated with their products or services. It also prohibits retaliatory action against whistleblowers.
Sponsors: Rep. Scanlon, Mary Gay [D-PA-5]
Target Audience
Population: Consumers and employees potentially affected by unsafe products or services
Estimated Size: 250000000
- The bill targets corporate officers who might hide information about serious physical dangers associated with their products or services, ensuring they inform relevant parties to prevent harm.
- It also protects whistleblowers from retaliation, encouraging individuals to report unsafe products or practices without fear of losing their jobs or facing other consequences.
- All employees and consumers in industries where product or service safety is a concern could potentially be impacted as they would be better informed about potential dangers.
- Consumers globally who use products or services that could pose serious physical dangers may benefit from increased transparency and accountability from corporations.
Reasoning
- The Hide No Harm Act of 2022 is likely to have a broad impact across multiple sectors in the U.S., with particular emphasis on industries where product safety is a major concern, such as pharmaceuticals, automotive, food and beverage, and consumer electronics.
- Given the large estimated population of 250 million Americans potentially affected, the policy's financial constraints mean that its direct enforcement and monitoring efforts may initially focus on larger corporations or sectors known for safety issues.
- Since the policy aims to enhance transparency and protect whistleblowers, it may significantly affect corporate culture, encouraging more open dialogue about safety concerns, though the exact impact on wellbeing could vary significantly across different groups.
- Some individuals, particularly those employed at corporations with already strict safety guidelines, may experience little to no change, whereas those in higher-risk industries or roles might see significant improvements in job satisfaction and mental health due to reduced stress associated with speaking up about safety issues.
Simulated Interviews
Software Engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy is a good idea because it ensures companies will be held accountable for safety issues.
- As an employee, knowing that there are protections if I need to report a safety issue is reassuring.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Automotive Engineer (Detroit, MI)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is crucial for the automotive industry where safety is paramount.
- Protecting whistleblowers could lead to better product designs and innovations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Consumer Rights Advocate (Birmingham, AL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Finally, a policy that prioritizes consumer safety!
- This should have been introduced years ago to ensure corporate accountability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Small Business Owner (Austin, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I doubt this policy will affect small businesses like mine directly.
- However, it's reassuring knowing products I order are thoroughly vetted for safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Pharmaceutical Researcher (New York, NY)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The Hide No Harm Act should really help those on the front lines.
- Whistleblower protection could feel less risky for someone reporting drug safety issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Corporate Lawyer (Boston, MA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about the increase in compliance costs for corporations.
- The transparency part is good, but it will require companies to adapt significantly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retail Worker (Seattle, WA)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy won't directly impact my day-to-day tasks.
- I do think it ensures the products we sell are safer, which is positive for our customers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Environmental Scientist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 57 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If corporations are more transparent, my work on identifying pollutants is greatly aided.
- It could lead to broader environmental benefits if harmful practices are stopped.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Manufacturing Supervisor (Cleveland, OH)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could improve workplace safety standards.
- Transparency is key for safety practices on the factory floor.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Consumer Product Safety Engineer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good to know whistleblowers are protected under this policy.
- It encourages honesty and integrity in reporting safety issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 2: $105000000 (Low: $85000000, High: $125000000)
Year 3: $110000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $130000000)
Year 5: $115000000 (Low: $95000000, High: $135000000)
Year 10: $130000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $150000000)
Year 100: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring effective implementation and monitoring systems are crucial for achieving the desired safety outcomes.
- Balancing compliance costs with safety improvements is necessary to sustain economic benefits.
- The legislation needs continuous evaluation to adapt to emerging safety issues and technological changes.