Why Are Health Inspectors So Lenient Compared to Other Authority Figures?

What I have noticed that each decade that parking/tram/bus inspectors are getting more aggressive, Police being more by the book etc etc etc.

Even security guards, more shocking retail cashiers are more aggressive than health inspectors (who could imagine). Thing is a lot of times Health Inspectors would ignore obvious health code violations in a comical Chief Wiggum way (coming from an ex friend who was a chef). If it was a council ranger/parking inspector he would book you if you committed a minor traffic violation, health inspectors just walk in the dirty rat invested restaurant and say pass.

From my ex-friends (that work in restaurants), Health Inspectors rather use the "education" method (aka just letting people off the hook 1000x). A lot of restaurant staff know very well how lenient the average Health Inspector is, even just saying to the new staff "The Inspector would probably just talk to you like a nice uncle". Even the most lenient Cop/Parking Inspector would only warn you at maximum twice.

I don't agree with Health Inspectors using the "Education"/lenient method because someone that is smart enough to start and keep a business running should know better. Where as an everyday person could make a small parking mistake (why aren't Parking Inspectors using the "Education" method that Health Inspector do?)

I think Health Inspectors should show no slack, while the Parking Inspector should be as lenient as possible.

closed Comments

  • +6

    Simple.

    If health inspectors go around shutting down businesses, there's less tax revenue.

    If parking inspectors go around slapping fines, instant revenue.

    • The health inspectors can also easily slap fines - there's no need to shut down a business unless there's a very serious breach or repeated breaches.

      • A health inspector has very little leeway once they start the process. A parking fine is a few hundred and capped. An officially logged health code violation is uncapped because if council is aware of an issue, they're now liable for it.

  • aka just letting people off the hook 1000x

    It’s less paperwork for them.

  • Hearing how often they shut down random banh mi places, seems they at least draw the line at Salmonella.

  • +1

    One of them have quotas to fill, the other doesnt, guess which is which.

  • +2

    Health Inspectors? ha ha ha ha

    Yes I know they exist, had family run their fare share of businesses that attracted these guys and yes they did fine, even for frivolous things like "broken light fitting in bathroom" even though there is a skylight and business only operates during daylight hours. Or no soap provided in that same bathroom which nobody ever used because there is another alternate bathroom.

    Australia is such a first world country and we are scared of getting sick (from eating out).

    If you ever run a small business, good luck with the red tape and compliance BS. That's just my 2 cents because dreams and ideas stop because of three levels of government red tape (commonwealth - tax/gas compliance; state - business name, food compliance; local - DA etc)

    If you have a dream in Asia, pop that thing on a cart and sell it on the streets. Make some money, buy a shop front. Can't do that in Australia.

    • Have you considered why rules and regulations exist? Do you think that health and safety of both employees and customers is important?

      • +2

        Yes indeed I have thought about (lots actually) the pros and cons with respect to food regulation; Australia is first world, those who don't try to comply or try to short cut will often go out of business (because if you are going to do something, do it properly - that's my mantra).

        What I am getting at is, my opinion and experience, that it is over regulated - I have seen it first hand. You can do your own research and depending on what you read, 25-35% of any business running cost is towards compliance (or 'red tape' so to speak). Look at all the failing businesses/restaurants that is happening now. Look at Fratelli Fresh restaurants as a recent example.

        Businesses always want red tape reduced, look at the Business Council of Australia and what they fight for each day.

        I am able to do lots of things in life; but I would personally never run a food business in Australia.

        • -1

          So, your experience is the opposite of the OP's - which helps balance out the discussion. Maybe you're in different states who have different levels of enforcement. Maybe it's just a simple case of the regulator not being on friendly terms with your business owner - we can speculate.

          Oh yes, the business council love to stand up for the business owners. Remember the fuss they created when the Sunday penalty rates were being debated years ago? It seemed like the world was going to end if you believed them. They exist to perpetuate the idea that there is nothing as noble as the pursuit of profit. Someone's gotta stick up for the business elites :-P

          You can debate whether our food industry is over-regulated, and you have more knowledge in the field than I, but I ask that you also consider the benefits of regulation. I don't just mean the benefits for consumers' health. Consider the reputation that Australian products have for overseas markets. A couple of examples are baby formula milk powder and animal/meat exports.

          • +1

            @kahn: I appreciate the role of health inspectors, but he does have a point. Australia IS over-regulated, even compared to other first world countries.

            The immense red tape is partly why we don't have a street food culture that the rest of the world enjoys. And I don't just mean pad thai carts. Even the USA allows hot dog and pretzel stands, Germany has curry wurst, etc. The fact we don't have greasy spoons and cheap diners either, yields the inexpensive meal market to the fast food chains.

            • @SydStrand: There's money in that banana stand (wink).

          • +3

            @kahn: I am not advocating for no regulation; I am just saying there has to be more flexibility where both consumers and business win. Right now, it is heavily in favor on consumers but then again FEAR (which can be called False Evidence Appearing Real) makes us believe the more regulation is best for consumers. People will get sick no matter how clean food is; sugar (or lack of exercise) will probably kill more people quicker than any regulation of food safety or how clean a shop is (back to my example a broken light fitting in an unused bathroom resulted in a fine … did it make the product safer for the consumer? no, did it make it safer for the workers? no, nobody ever went in there. Let's focus on more important things, lets tax sugar 50% first and let's see how things improve dramatically.

  • This kind of problem exists where there is a cosy relationship between business leaders and business regulators. Often, the regulators will have histories of working within that industry and already have established relationships with those who are being regulated. There's also the revolving-door scenario where business elites go to work for a regulator then go back to work in the business. It's the same with crooked politicians. An often-quoted metaphor is using a fox to guard the hen house.

    That might be the case with health inspectors. I'm doubtful that we'll get an insider to chime in here.

  • Health inspectors have their fair share of bullying, if you're a small local business owner they will pick up things that don't matter (eg. if you have two paper towel rollers, both must be filled) otherwise they fine you after the 2nd visit. Bigger businesses they're a lot more lenient on and allow pretty much anything

  • They may have watched Fat Pizza

Login or Join to leave a comment