Slashdot Mirror
Semiconductor Employees Suing IBM
An anonymous reader writes "According to the NYTimes's Bob Herbert, IBM has been killing its employees by exposure to dangerous chemicals - evidence is being offered by stricken employees that unusually
large numbers of men and women who worked for the giant computer corporation over
the past few decades have been dying prematurely."
I know you are trolling, but I doubt that would matter in this case. The families of the victims would receive the compensation (as they would still have to assume the debt due to the high cost of medical bills, funeral arrangements, etc)
Does anyone know of exposure to harmful substances in other companies that do similar manufacturing? I mean, surely, IBM does not have dramatically different methods of manufacturing hard drives and semiconductors from the rest of the industry.
after all, semiconductor industry isn't _that_ old (few _decades_) and generally usage of chemicals a few decades ago wasn't often so well thought and their long term effects weren't usually that well laid out in ANY industry. and even more common is that employees in those old times didn't care themselfs at all about protection("what, i can't see it it cant hurt me don't tell me boy how to do this i've been doing this for 30 years") and general awareness about such things wasn't exactly stellar.
-
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
A) Can't always stop it.
B) Powerful solvents are rarely good for you. Same for heavy metals.
C) Not everyone read MSDS like they should.
D) Proper saftey gear can be very uncomfortable and unwieldy, esspecially if it's fitted correctly. (I fog up goggles like you can't believe, even when I put anti-fog crap in them.)
E) Stress can accelerate cancer.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
C) Not everyone read MSDS like they should.
I don't think MSDS rules existed in the time period they're talking about (mid-60's to late 70's).
Mandatory access to MSDS is relatively recent. A quick web search indicates that the OSHA "Hazard Communication" law came into effect in 1983.
How long before IBM shuts down all their manufacturing plants and moves them to places where such employee problems aren't IBM's problem?
Now, if you can show me a few hundred people with the SAME ailment, you might have something. But this suit is fishing with a gill net.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
This is statistical hogwash. You can't take a sample like "all IBM employees" and compare it to "all the people in the United States." Analysis needs to be tuned to a population that has a similar demographic. Age, geography, economic background, pollution, family history, smoking, and even diet affect cancer rates tremendously.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Yeah, that works for swim goggles for me, but not my lab goggles. It was a problem in college when I had to use HF. That always made me a just little nervous. (I'm also kinda clumsy) It is surprising how blasie one can become around horrible chemicals. HF was the only one that kept making me nervous.
But I've gotta imagine if I somehow managed to shatter a jug of 1 Ph HCl it wouldn't take long for the fumes to mess me up. I always tried to closely follow standards, but even at a university, there were rules, and practices. It wasn't uncommon to see unlabled beakers with a sign that just said don't touch, and some illegible initials. I can't imagine what the standards might fall to in an enviroment where everyone knows each other, and many have been doing this for decade+ after they got comfortable with "Don't Touch" and "Mine".
I don't even know if Osha can solve stuff like that. No one hated Osha more than the insturment makers. They had giant posters ridiculing osha policies (the Osha version of a Cowboy comes to mind). They knew what they were doing, and like the way they did it. (It's worth noting these guys weren't shop teachers. They'd been doing it more, better, longer, and had all their fingers.)
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
Could it be the workers fault ?? I know here where i work many safty procedures are in place, including masks for some substances but rarely do I see people using them.
All the time I see people breathing fumes, will they one day turn around and sue ?? Probably. People are trained, equipment is offered free, people ignore the rules, people sue.
We want faster processors and more memory at all costs. If there's an environmental or human toll caused by getting a new CPU and video card every year so I can play the k00lest new gamez, then I say screw 'em :P
Yes, but that's exactly what "activists" usually do when they mention chemical products released by industries in the environment. Numbers only confuse the matters when one is trying to prove how evil corporations are.
Although this kind of threat to workers' health is an outrage, in the real world, companies just move overseas when the US cracks down with safety/anti-pollution regulations or if the lawsuits start to pile up. Instead of fixing the problem, it is much cheaper to just move overseas and keep on doing what they have always been doing. There is practically *ZERO* enforcement of workplace safety regulations, environmental pollution regulations, and workers rights in China. The right to sue your employer in China only exists on paper and there are no independent labor unions.
What is needed here is both strict safety regulation and a ban or heavy tariff on goods from countries that do not enforce a basic level of similar reguations. This will force IBM and others to clean up their act and prevent them from just transfering the plants overseas.
Ok, I'm not going to discuss wheter or not the above comment is funny by any definition. The point is that people have been and still are dying. Marking a comment making fun of these facts as +5 funny is just *plain* stupid.
What is needed here is both strict safety regulation and a ban or heavy tariff on goods from countries that do not enforce a basic level of similar reguations. This will force IBM and others to clean up their act and prevent them from just transfering the plants overseas.
Mod parent up.
It should not be possible to reduce manufacturing costs by offshoring in order to skirt basic workplace safety, child labor, or environmental regulations.
At that time, the long-term dangers of those chemicals were not appreciated. However, can they clearly pin it on the IBM process lines? How about the Reynold's plant, auto body shops, plating factories, and the rest fo the crap that was being dumped into the Silicon Valley air, dirt and water?
Well, I'll still eat these things, as most of them have been nutritious staple foods for centuries. Sure, things like tomatoes and potatoes have been contriversial off and on, but I don't see the Italians and Irish dropping like flies. Perhaps, just perhaps, eating a potato is less dangerous than eating nothing at all?
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
I mean, if I had found out that I had gone to school for 4-12 years, and that my chosen field would involve toxic materials, I likely would have said "Hey, can I get some safety equipment to shield me from this stuff? Maybe some gloves and some lead garments?"
Are you kidding - back then they practically fed benzene to the chem lab students! Remember - we're talking the 50's and 60's here. It was NOTHING like chemical safety nowadays.
The universities haven't improved all that much since. Industry, on the other hand, has for the most part - the result of the threat of HUGE lawsuits.
It doesn't surprise me IBM had these kinds of conditions back then - everybody did.
The questions:
Was the company reasonably able to know the danger and effects of the chemicals within a given environment?
Were the employee's reasonably able to know the danger and effects of the chemicals within a given environment?
I do not agree with lawsuits against companies because we later find that a given environment wasn't as safe as we once thought. If we suddenly find that some specific type of blue paint causes skin conditions after it has been used for twenty years is it reasonable for the employees of the company that manufactured that paint to sue the company when the company itself wasn't aware and wasn't able to be aware of the risks involved. As time goes on we will continue to discover the hazards we place ourselves in. That will not change! Everything that you do involves risk. Get used to it.
I suppose I would only support this type of action if it can be proven that the company intentionally withheld knowledge from its employees and placed them in harms way with their actions. That in my opinion would be a valid case. Monetary reward should be given in the case of dishonestly or reasonable negligence. I say reasonable because if you neglect to protect your building skylight from burglars jumping or even walking on it, I do not feel you should be responsible because it isn't reasonable.
This country has become far to sue happy.
You can disagree with me if you wish but, please be aware that in a few years simple disagreements may be cause for lawsuits.
oops to late. They already are.
Agreed, but it isn't fair for you to blame IBM for this. Their competitors do it, so if they don't, they go out of business. It really is that simple. Sometimes the government tries to erect tariffs to balance the playing field a bit, but then everybody starts screaming about protectionism and corporate welfare. It's a no-win situation for all involved.
I think a stronger case can be made, though: all of these countries which have weak employee protection laws now will get stronger laws and start having retroactive lawsuits (ala tobacco or asbestos) which will probably cost the companies a lot more down the road than it would cost them to avoid those areas now. And I'll bet they're not factoring that risk into their cost analyses.
If IBM has reaped the profits of business operations that wound up poisoning and killing their employees, why should the employees (or their survivors) not sue for compensation?
Everything that you do involves risk. Apparently for you, this means that the risk is shifted to the employee when things go badly, but stay with the company when things go well (as the company keeps the reward associated with the risk).
Sure, in the words of the great philosopher, Sabrina the Teenage Witch: "It's an opinion. You can't retract an opinion!"
Now, what, precisely, is the view or opinion being expressed here? If we're using Op-Ed as a synonym for "unsubstantiated bullshit masquerading as news" then fair enough. But that's not what you described it as.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.