Mandatory is a strong word.

If there is one thing that alarms me most when it comes to politics, it is the word "mandated" or "mandatory" because it is the direct antonym to freedom. In Patricia Zavala's Texas Tribune article Mandatory Workers' comp is right for Texas Zavala holds up freedom of choice and governmental force as two options over the debate regarding Workers' compensation in Texas, claiming the latter as the better option for Texas.

A little background, Texas is the only state that does not have a mandatory law or regulation requiring that private businesses partake in insurance for workplace injuries. Zavala is speaking to those with a more liberal ideology, that government solves issues in the private sector, for she is making a call to arms in future workers' comp legislation. Zavala's rhetoric is a bit alarmist though. She states "We have the most dangerous construction industry in the country." However, thanks to the Texas Tribune's two-side representation of issues, we can see the counter article by Rod Bordelon, Commissioner of Worker's Compensation in Texas, dispute that rather harsh description. "Our state has some of the nation’s lowest workers’ compensation costs, and injury rates are down significantly — well below the national average." says Bordelon, contradicting this "most dangerous" claim Zavala makes. She also states that "only about 40 percent of construction workers in Texas are protected by workers’ compensation policies." Looking into the study she quotes, it claims to not have all the information from private businesses that may have alternative types of worker's comp plans. As well, much of the information received in that study is by poll and survey rather than hard numbers, to which I believe Bordelon has more access. 26%, says the study, of workers do not know whether or not they have workers comp. That seems like a lot of leeway to make either side seem arguable.

Nevertheless, let's assume that only 40% of workers have some sort of compensation plan. Is that necessarily important? Caveat Emptor, or "Buyer Beware" is not just a principle for the customer, it's also for the employee because one is trading one's time and energy for pay or other benefits. This principle makes one claim, that it is up to both parties to make their own judgments through cost-benefit analysis in every trade they make. In the case of Workers' comp, it is the worker who must decide whether or not working for a business that does not offer work related injury insurance is a good choice (Maybe this business offers more pay because it's not paying the costs of such insurance plans). When you look at it in this light, maybe it's not such a good idea to "mandate" workers comp, it takes away the employee's and the businesses' ability to choose what is a profitable deal. Let me say I am not against workers' comp, I think it is a very valuable bargaining tool for workers who work in dangerous fields such as construction. My issue is with the divide between Force and Freedom, and when breaking down an issue into its premises, it makes it rather easy to decide which side you're on.