The analysis isn't done yet though: - How much do you trust the statistics about which ladder deaths were preventable? - Do you have the numbers on the counter-factual: once ladder training is introduced, these sub-populations see X reduction in ladder deaths, offsetting for reduction in ladder use due to people not having their ladder license? - What is the productivity cost of assigning every single ladder user a training class, in perpetuity? This analysis should include the cost of creating a cottage ladder training industry that provides the trainings, the hourly productivity loss of sending people to trainings, the administrative cost of ensuring the trainings have been conformed to, etc.

In your heart of hearts, when you are assigned mandatory trainings, how much do you learn? I'm not asking how much _could_ you learn, I'm asking how much DO you learn? My experience, and the obvious unspoken consensus of all my colleagues, is that you click through mandatory virtual trainings as fast as possible, with the sound down, on fast-forward. If it's a live training with an actual practical skill (like ladder training), then I'd definitely concede it's much more engaging and you probably learn something. But MANY trainings are clearly, obviously, a net friction on society.

"I see a problem - how about we make a law that everybody must learn about that thing?" is the crappiest, laziest way to address the problem that you could possibly think of. If 'mandate a training' was analogized to a pull request on a codebase, it would be like responding to a bug report by adding a pop-up dialog that always pops up whenever you open the program and warns you about the bug. In other words, the shittiest possible non-solution that lets somebody close the issue as resolved. A real solution takes more work and more thinking.