Illinois' Attempt to Ban Self-Service Gas Stations: Why I'm Not Pumped About This Misguided Overregulation

I have complained about my home state, Illinois, on here before. I have pointed out how the State's budgetary mismanagement is so nightmarish that it almost makes Greece look fiscally responsible. I have criticized Illinois' governor on wanting to remove the flat income tax and a general call for wanting to raise state taxes. I have also gone after my home state for manipulating statistics to increase food stamp beneficiaries or how high pensions for Chicago Public Schools teachers is making pension reform in Illinois all the more difficult. As if there were not enough crazy news items coming from the Land of Lincoln, Illinois House Representative Camille Lilly introduced a bill to ban Illinois drivers from pumping their own gasoline (see Bill HB4571 here). It is likely that the Bill would not pass committee given the nature of the bill and the lack of co-signers. However, if it passes, Illinois will not be the only state with such regulations on self-service stations. Two other states already have restrictions on self-service at gasoline stations: New Jersey and Oregon.

The Bill's language is unclear as to why the Illinois House bill is necessary, although Lilly makes an argument based on safety and convenience. The regulation from the Oregon Assembly (2017 ORS 480.315) lists 17 reasons as to why the regulation exists, including needing someone who is professionally trained in dispensing liquids to contributing to the employment of young people. I want to respond to some of the arguments that proponents use in attempts to justify this regulation.

1. Handling gasoline is unsafe because it could cause a fire. You would think if people were dying or getting injured because of gas station fires, media outlets would bombard us with stories about it. That is why I looked at what the National Fire Protection Association had to say. The most recent NFPA statistics I could find were from 2004-2008 and 2009-2013 data from its 2015 report. Per the 2015 report, the average number of annual deaths was zero deaths (yes, that is nil), whereas the number of injuries was 14 injuries. This was the death and injury count over 460 fires at gasoline stations. According to the National Convenience Store Association, there are an average of 1,100 customers a day at a convenience store that sells gasoline. Multiply that by the 60,000-plus gas stations with convenience stores that exist in the United States, and the likelihood of catching on fire as a result of going to the gas station is quite small. 
• The safety argument is a solution in search of a problem. Even if gasoline fires were more prevalent, what is the basis that an attendant responsible for filling up multiple vehicles is going to be less rushed? 
2. Exposure to toxic fumes is unhealthy for customers. Healthline says that it's generally safe, but for argument's sake, let's assume this argument is valid. Customers are only exposed to the fumes for a short period of time (less than five minutes) once or twice a week, depending on how often they fill up their car. If I understand this correctly, it would not be okay to expose customers to a small amount of toxic fumes, but it is somehow acceptable to expose gas station attendants to these fumes for multiple hours throughout their work week? I don't know about you, but I don't consider gas station attendants to be disposable or that their health should be put at risk like that. 
3. Having full service is convenient. Some people do not want to have to get out in bad weather to fill their car or they do not want to smell like gasoline. If convenience were such a major factor for customers filling up their car, then there would be notable demand for full-service gas stations without a government mandate. 
4. What about the elderly and disabled? The elderly and disabled are the ones who are most vested in having full-service gas stations because it is otherwise difficult to fill up the car with gas. Instead of having a full-time attendant for a full-service station, an employee could help on a need-by-need basis. As a matter of fact, as long as a gas station provides assistance upon request [and it is not operated by a single employee], they are in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 
5. Reducing theft of gasoline (gas-and-dash). If you are a convenience store own that finds gasoline theft to be that much of a concern, you can install better video surveillance equipment. Or better yet, you can require pre-payment of gasoline. 
6. Full-service gas stations provides employment opportunities that would otherwise be destroyed by automation. Do proponents think that without these gas attendant jobs, people would be otherwise unemployed? If we go with the logic of this argument, does this mean that we need to mandate all entry-level positions or create superfluous jobs for the sake of employment? That's not how economic growth works. Yes, there is a concern that automation is decreasing job opportunities, although I have wondered if that concern is overblown. In the case of gas station attendants, self-service did not create a net loss in employment. As this Census Bureau working paper illustrates (Basker et al., 2015), there was a net loss of 0.4 workers per pump. Paradoxically, there was an increase of overall employment in the sector because stations became larger, they were able to add convenience stores, and freeing up the attendants' times allowed for the stations to be open for longer hours (Basker et al., p. 23). 

Whether it is safety, job creation, or convenience, the arguments banning self-service gasoline stations are flimsy at best. It is not simply that a self-service ban limits the freedom of consumers as to how they want to make purchases, erodes personal responsibility, or mandates that a business should hire certain labor. In the states that did not enact a government mandate, the full-service gas station did not withstand the test of time.

Self-service became increasingly popular throughout the 20th century, and it will only become more popular as technology progresses. We can use the ATM when we need money from the bank. Grocery stores have self-checkout lines. Fast food restaurants are installing kiosks to order food instead of interacting with a cashier, not to mention there are drink machines that allow you to pour your own drink. Airlines allow for purchasing tickets on their websites. Most drivers would rather pump their own gas than deal with the longer wait for an attendant, so why should self-service gas stations be different than any of the other forms of self-service that have organically evolved over time?

If there truly were no costs to labor, then why not demand one attendant for every pump? The answer is that there are costs to labor. What happens when you add an attendant? As Oregon State University economist Patrick Emerson points out, the price of gasoline increases. Whether it is minimum wage, paid leave, or menstrual leave, adding labor costs vis-à-vis government regulation always comes with a tradeoff. I am not going to be surprised if the outcome is more expensive gasoline for Illinoisans or that the supposed health or workforce benefits do not come into fruition. People have mocked the Oregon version of this regulation, and given what we have covered here, rightfully so. Illinois already has a ton of taxes and regulations that are a drag on the economy. Why should the citizens of Illinois have to be subjected to another baseless regulation?