It's unacceptable to "mitigate risk enough" because laborers are motivated by the fact that they have needs and dependents' needs that have to be met. That is their motivation for working anywhere.

They have no other recourse but to engage in the time <-> compensation transaction.

Because of this, people lose their agency to act a truly free agent in that transaction.

Companies have the privilege of total knowledge of their facilities and processes. They also know there is a teeming pool of people that will take shit jobs because food and shelter is a necessity.

There is an asymmetry in that relation that allows some pretty evil things to happen as history has shown.

We've decided that pulling the "it was truly informed consent" card is a dishonest way to describe that transaction, because desperate people will be injured and killed so an employer can save a buck.

How do you know that no one was lied to or misled? The article was scant on details.

Putting a high cost on accidents means that companies will take safety very seriously.