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.
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
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.
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?
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.