Slashdot Mirror
IBM Cleared in San Jose Cancer Liability Suit
kbeech writes "A jury In San Jose returned a unanimous verdict in favor of IBM in a case where plaintiffs claimed the company kept medical information on their condition from them." Slashdot hasn't covered this well, but evidence in the lawsuit has suggested that employees were heavily exposed to chemicals and that IBM was aware that their employees got cancer at higher rates than the general population.
I saw a story about this on 60 minutes. Among other things, they talked about how dangerous chemicals, that had been purchased in massive barrels with big warning signs on them were distributed to workers in smaller usable containers with the warning signs removed. How workers used to be exposed to chemicals with their bare hands, and they'd work without their gloves on because the chemicals would eat right through their gloves if they left them on. Interesting episode ... After seeing that, this verdict is somewhat of a surprise.
CMDRTACO CHECK YOUR EMAIL!
I assume that you're talking about thalidomide, which was a safe, effective drug for everyone except pregnant women. The irony is that it was frequently prescribed to combat nasuea and insomnia caused by pregnancy. It's now approved in the US (it was never approved here in the 50s, when all the problems occurred in Europe), and is being used effectively for treatment of certain effects of leprosy, with a number of other potential uses being researched.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
I used to work at IBM Essex VT facility in the Fab doing robotic maintenance. The truth of the matter is that we were exposed to all kinds of horrible chemicals. For instance I one started coughing up blood because a machine had exploded (literally) and there was a cloud of pure HLC in the core. Could I have sued IBM because of this. absolutely NOT!!!!
The thing that gets them off the hook is that their procedure for dealing with any chemicals is all OSHA approved and the equipment to comply is available. The problem is that it is not possible to do your job when in all the gear. If I am supposed to don a SCBA unit, chemical gloves and chemical suit ever time we detected a small TCS leak in a machine I would never get my job done. Also it is a real pain the ass to try and fix small precision robotics while wearing all that shit.
How can you sue a company because you refuse to comply with safety procedures. You can't. The catch 22 is IBM knows you won't follow procedure and doesn't expect you to. They expect you to get the job done fast and right. If you can't do that because you follow procedure to a T you WILL be fired. (at least in IBM Essex)
That's my rant. IBM sucks. They are both the best employer (in terms of pay and benefits) and the worst employer (in terms of actually caring about their employees) I have ever worked for.
AC AKA Low Pressure ASM EPI tech.
http://www.pressconnects.com/special/endicottspill /
Does anyone know why these record were kept out of the proceedings?
Just to clarify further; the employer usually does not pay directly for workers comp. They get an insurance policy; just like they would to insure the facilities, employee medical coverage, etc... It's when the insurer refuses to pay, disputes coverage, doesn't pay enough, etc... that the lawsuits start happening.
You will be interested to know that your view is the traditional view of the legal system. The appellate court opinions that I read while in law school concerning this subject were chock full of grandiose statements about the freedom of labor, and that if an employee wanted his employer to pay for his injuries then the employee could negotiate this right for himself as part of the labor contract. This, while perfectly sound on a libertarian/ancapper level, will not work in practice, because no employer would provide this "benefit" when there were plenty of workers out there who would take the job despite the risks. Workplace injuries therefore resulted in disabled workers with no money and no means of receiving compensation for their injuries and lost income.
The result of the courts' failure (rightfully or wrongfully, you decide) to deal with this issue is the worker's compensation insurance system created by the state legislatures. Ordinarily, an injured worker has only one recourse - a worker's comp. claim.
The IBM workers' case, however, was for "fraudulent concealment". The theory of their claim is that IBM knew of the risks and either negligently or intentionally failed to inform their workers of these risks. If the claim is true, then IBM would rightfully be liable - and I don't think that this would violate the precepts of ancappers - it's one thing to agree to accept certain risks associated with employment, but when the employer conceals these risks, the worker's acceptance is uninformed and is, from a legal standpoint, more or less void.
Apparently some key evidence (the IBM "mortality file") was deemed inadmissible. As an attorney, I am curious as to why this evidence was not admitted, and whether or not the plaintiffs will appeal because of it.
144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
In some cases, the procedures, compounds used, etc. may be either trade secrets or confidential knowledge. Thus prospective employees would only know that they don't know what risks are included in the job, while the employer (whose obviously knows their own trade secrets) would know those risks.
Some fields (process chemistry, for example) would imply certain risks but because the company doesn't know what chemicals will be used in a process or has that knowledge under NDA or trade secret protection, you could not know and evaluate many of the specific risks associated with a job before you took it. In addition, employees might not know the risk of a job because the risk from a chemical is unknown (either willfully or innocently). In most cases now, people take precautions as if something were assumed toxic, but in earlier times, for example, workers were exposed to benzene (solvent) and p,p'-benzidine (rubber agent?) only later to find out that the compounds were carcinogens (leukemia and bladder cancer, resp.)
When has the free market been a fallacy? In the situations you're describing, where employers abused employees, said abuses occurred only because government was involved! Business interests can only abuse when they have the power of coercion behind them.
The only organization that can use coercive threats is government. That's mandated by the public will!
Bush's EPA is enforced by the majority's will. The private free market UL is not coercive.
If the toxins are secret, you still accepted the job. You accepted the risk. You accepted the reward. If you don't want risks, don't accept the reward of the salary offered. Work a job you know has low risks.
When has the free market been a fallacy? In the situations you're describing, where employers abused employees, said abuses occurred only because government was involved! Business interests can only abuse when they have the power of coercion behind them.
That is flat out revisionist history, factually incorrect and disingenuous.
The worst excesses of business may occur when business manages to coopt government, but many, many appalling excesses occur in the absence of government, or in lassaiz-faire situations. Child labor of the 19th century in America (which WAS constitutional BTW), the diamond trade in Africa today, slavery in the middle east and parts of Africa today (where governments stand by and do not enforce their own laws, i.e. lassaiz-faire, and in places where government effectively doesn't exist), and the list goes on.
Just because government has been used by business to appalling ends in the past does not mean business doesn't engage in appalling practices when the government stands idly by.
The free market can be terribly coercive, whenever the balance of power or need is too disparate. Medical care, the need to eat, monopolies are all examples where one party is vastly more powerful and coercive than the other, and examples in which the free market breaks down completely.
If the toxins are secret, you still accepted the job. You accepted the risk. You accepted the reward. If you don't want risks, don't accept the reward of the salary offered. Work a job you know has low risks.
Do you even listen to yourself?
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
MSDS sheets provide a plethora of information to those wanting to read about them. They have information on actual chemical names, toxisisity levels, spill information (e.g. cleanup, req'd equipment) and side effects. I worked at a furnature factory for a bit gluing the padding on those nice little sofas/seats you find at 'Pier One' type stores. I noticed by the end of the first day I was high as a kite after work and had to sit in the parking lot for 2 hours before I could safely drive home. The next day I read the MSDS sheet on the side of the glue container and found out that the stuff can cause, amongst other things, sterility, insomnia, impotence, lung/skin cancer, cardiac arrest and migranes if the users didn't wear proper protective equipment. (as also defined on the MSDS sheet) I asked for said protective equipment and was denied it. I punched the clock for the last time 5 minutes later, and gave OSHA a ring; The company was shut down for "inspection" in about 2 weeks time and has, to my knowledge, never reopened it's doors. It's the responsibility of every worker out there to adequately inform themselves of their workplace hazards. It is ignorant and inconsistant with everyday life to think that you're constantly being looked out for. As such I'd cast my vote for Big Blue, as it's there responsibility to provide the MSDS and other OSHA req'd saftey materials; They can't be held liable if the workers never take advantage of them.
One would have to compare the employeees with persons of a similar age and location. Significantly, the IBM plant is in an area where pesticide use was heavy (orchards in the area), and asbestos contaminates the air naturally. Looking at the first two plaintiffs, one had worked in the fruit processing industry for decades (can we say pesticides?), was obese (recently shown to be a significant factor in breast cancer development - and her suit was based on breast cancer. The other one was a heavy smoker. Smoking has recently been shown to increase the risk of non-hodgkins lymphoma - exactly what the man has.