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.
... if they truly were exposed with the company knowing about it, that they were denied some compensation for that. It seems the judge did them no favours by allowing them to take their case outside the California employees system, because the burden of proof is much higher in a "normal" court (as well as the damages...)
I wonder, if they'd stayed put, would they have won something rather than nothing... I always think it's easy to make a snap judgement based on your feelings for the parties involved though - if they were found against, you have to assume that they couldn't prove it... Harsh, though.
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
I am personally sick and tired of sleazy trial lawyers like John Edwards taking enormous sums of money for ridiculous lawsuits. Here in Pennsylvania doctors are flreeing to other states in droves because of what the trial lawyers have done with medical malpractice. And who is the number one sleaseballs? Why the son of Senator Arlen Spector! Gov Rendall is so deep in the pockets of these lawyers it is sickening. They and their ilk have brought a crisis in medicine in Pennsylvania. Just another reason to vote for Bush and the Reps--Kerry/Edwards are beholden to the interests of the trial lawyers.
I was listening to a radio piece on NPR about this yesterday. Apparently one of IBMs' arguments was that they adhered to OSHA guidelines -- none of the compounds workers were exposed to were thought to be as toxic as they were, so the acceptable levels of exposure are really much lower then what was thought at the time.
I used to be a diehard Republican with pro-business ideas, but when decisions like this are handed down, I have to question whether a laissez faire policy is really the best thing for companies as well as employees.
It seems obvious that if IBM knew that these chemicals were causing higher cancer rates among its employees that it ought to be found complicit in their illnesses and be required to pay for their treatment and rehabilitation as well as compensatory damages. Unfortunately, the prosecution was not able to prove to the jury that this was the case.
However, in such a case the victims are simply out of luck. Should they, through no fault of their own be destined to spend many thousands of their own dollars for cancer treatment when they are in the least capable position of paying of any of the parties involved? IBM failed to provide, through simple negligence, a safe working environment and now people are suffering as a result.
I don't think that ignorance of the problem can be a usable excuse in cases such as this. It is IBM who through their ignorance caused this damage. I feel that it is their responsibility to pay.
With apologies to the Vapors, I think I'm turning Democratic.
I have been pwned because my
If this is a biased article... It seems that they do a wonderful job at telling one side of the story yet there must have been evidence clearing IBM of responsibility for the matter.
Those workers were under incredibly harsh conditions, but they never seemed to prove that IBM's chemicals actually did cause the diseases... Just a thought
The original generic sig.
The main folks in the suit are 60+ years old....
They claim they "frequently had hard drive coating chemicals soak through her bunny suit and stain her skin and was forced to hold her breath to avoid inhaling strong odors emitted by chemicals she used daily"
Umm, I don't know about you, but if I was effectively swimming in chemicals, I do believe I might have a few stronger words to my company than "oh, I'm ok, let's go back to swimming in chemicals". Especially considering all the news 30+ years ago about the effects of chemicals on people and the environment in general (DDT, Agent Orange, that morning sickness drug thiamolide(sp?)).
That's sort of like oil field workers or railroad workers suing because they lost a finger, hand, or limb because the company "didn't tell them" that the work was dangerous.
Evidently the could not prove the company was malicious in its actions towards them, which to me is the only criteria in this case that could have convinced me that IBM should have lost. Let's hear it for a just verdict, for once, even if it seems the "little folks" got the short end of the stick (they didn't, they just didn't get to soak the company imho).
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
I agree with the parent. If my job involved "foul-smelling chemical mixtures" that got all over me every day, I'd find out what was in there. On of the plaintifs said if he knew, he'd have walked off the job, so saying they had no choice isn't an option here. These are tech jobs, as well, so it's not like we're talking minimum-wage-slave type no-thinkers, these are supposedly people with some sense. Whether or not the chemicals were actually responcible- who knows. This is similar to the McDonalds coffee lady, except this time they didn't win. You are the only person responsible for your life, suing someone for not telling you dousing yourself in chemicals is bad shouldn't be an option.
You don't then accept that an employer has a duty of care to an employee?
An employee may not be able to assess to risks that handling certain chemicals pose. Is this their fault?
I couldn't disagree with you more.
This time I could be arsed.
It seems to me that if I hire you to go into harm's way, it is my responsibility to warn you of any dangers of which I am aware. I'm not familiar with the details of this case, so I am not saying that IBM should have been culpable. It's quite possible that the correct verdict was reached in this particular case.
However, in the general situation, this touches on similar issues to informed consent and implied warranty of fitness.
If I blind fold you and lead you down the street, then lead you into heavy traffic without telling you, am I not at least partly at fault for your injuries when you get hit? What if I manufacture a car, you buy one and the gas tank blows up as you're driving down the road? Am I in the clear because you failed to ask if the car was dangerous?
I believe you have the right to do pretty much anything you want so long as you do not violate the property or person of another. Putting someone in harm's way without informing them of that fact is a form of assault, as my actions may lead directly to harm to you, and you have not knowingly consented to accept the danger of the situation.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
I don't mean to be hard-hearted here but if I was working with chemicals that ate through my gloves I would:
A) Demand to know what chemicals they are.
B) Demand to know their possible effects on my health.
C) Demand a better quality hazardous enviroment equipment (Including ventilated headgear) that is proof against the stuff.
D) Report the company or even quit if all of the above was not fulfilled.
It is easy to talk about people not wanting to lose their jobs but surely keeping their health must be preferable to any period of unemployment, drop in pay or whatever else caused them not to complain.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Yes, Joe Worker is on equal ground with any employer. Joe Worker can refuse that job. If Mike Worker believes the job is a good one, he'll do it. If Joe Worker, Mike Worker, and Peter Worker all decide that the job risks aren't worth the rewards, and Big Business Inc can't find anyone to accept that job, the laws of supply and demand come into play as they always do. The Supply of workers at that pay is low, the Demand for those workers, if high, will dictate that the Price to pay for this work goes up. It will continue to rise until someone accepts it. On the other hand, Big Business Inc may use the laws of supply and demand by lowering the risk of the job and take safety precautions which may entice the market of available workers to accept the new safer job at a certain rate.
It is actually simple, not asinine.
needs a 'loser pays' system - at least so some proportion. Society has become so litigious that if IBM had lost here, everyone and their mother whom had ever worked in semiconductors would sue IBM, Intel, AMD, VIA, etc. I hate to think that this prospect was a factor in the decision, or in any case of its kind. Sadly, firms will often settle rather than take even a very small risk at trial for fear that a loss would prompt a flood of very expensive suits.
sig
The problem these days seems to be a toxic overload of carcinogens in our environment. There are so many carcinogens, pollutants, and plain toxic material in our air, food and water, it's going to be increasingly difficult to prove the source of cancer in anyone......Even a dog knows not to piss in it's bed.
Employers and employees really are on equal ground more than the general media wants you to believe. Both parties gain a profit from the jobs performed. If an employee wants to perform a job at a certain income, why is it the employer's role to let them know of any risks beforehand, unless the employee explicitly requests a risk assessment?
Your statement that both parties are on equal ground falls down in face of the information asymmetries that underly your questionning of whether the employer needs to let them know of the risks. Clearly this is not the case. Without disclosure of the risks involved in a job, the employee is not even in a situation to properly assess whether the pay received for task is sufficient to incur the risks inherent in the task. None of the completely absolves the employee of asking the obvious questions when they are in close contact with chemicals but surely this would reduce the company's liability rather than remove it entirely. Any lawyers out there able to give an informed view on this?
I've finally got around to changing my sig
Why should an employee get an equal share of the profits?
The employer, be it an individual, a small group of individuals, or a corporation of individuals, is taking a risk with their time and money. Only the employer deserves the reward of profits. They also are the only ones who deserve the risk of bankruptcy.
An employee gets the reward they are worth -- pay, benefits, time preference of their schedule. Employees don't take the same risks the employers take.
If an employee is underpaid, its their own fault and problem. The market pays you what you are worth. If you are worth more than you're getting paid, find a better job.
Love the editorial in the lead to this discussion.
Let's be clear: evidence was presented by both sides, and a jury of peers from Silicon Valley, found that IBM was not liable.
As someone who has followed this case closely, I have to agree with the decision rendered by the jury.
Of course, if you want to put on your tin-foil hat, you will find all kinds of conspiracies in this baby.
Worker's compensation schemes guarantee a payout that slides on a scale: three weeks for losing a finger, etc. In return, the employer is strictly liable for worker's injuries on the job. It doesn't matter whether the injury was the employer's fault, he has to pay for it. However, these compensations seem normatively inadequate when it comes to long-term health illnesses such as work-related cancers and the like.
Workers can get out of the comp system and into tort law for intentional or reckless actions by the employer. If the boss shoots an employee, for example, the death is not to be paid for by the worker's comp system. They seem to be arguing recklessness here. (The article, which I read, by the way, does not say.) This means that management knew of the risk of great bodily harm to the employees and ignored the risk.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
At quitting time the first day, he told them he was quitting and wouldn't be back. They were surprized - that he had lasted the whole day. Most of the ten new recruits had quit at lunchtime.
He had blisters on his fingers for a week.No worry for the company though - they had a new batch of recruits signed up to start the next day.
Fortunately my son was in a position where he didn't need the job. Other workers with families to feed can't just walk away.You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
"Math in a song is good."-Linford
Where do you think the highly toxic capacitors in your electronics are fabricated? China.
Where do you think the steel and aluminum are smelted, rolled, and processed? India.
Where does the motherboard come from? Taiwan.
They already do that. Apparently this type of manufacturing can't be exported because they don't have skilled enough workers there or something (or the plant was already here... not cost effective)
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Does anyone know why these record were kept out of the proceedings?
Relevance? Prejudicial? Hearsay? I don't know for sure, but I would bet it was because the study focused on all IBM employees and not specifically the ones at the plant in question. That would make it not relevant. (Relevance in the rules of evidence is something entirely different then what you probably think it is.)
In a free market, no one forces anyone to work any job in any environment against their will. If you feel the job is unsafe, don't work at that rate in that environment.
Starvation or exposure to the elements (homelessness) is generally a much more immediate and convincing threat than medical issues five or ten years hence. When it comes to employer/employee relations of this nature, there is no true free market, as the employee must work to sustain their life (buy food, keep a roof over their head, etc.), giving a potential employer inordinate power to impose less than ideal, or (as we have seen) less than acceptable conditions that an employee, desperate to make a living, will be compelled to accept in order to eat today.
This fallacy that the free market will somehow lead to an acceptable, much less equitable, balance is debunked by centuries of abuse and misuse of power by business interests. Abuses sufficient to turn half the planet at one time toward communism (which turned out not to be a solution, but was certainly a strong indicator of the problem), to lead to US paramilitary suppression of workers and union movements in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and to which current administration policies, and attitudes such as expressed by you, seem to be returning us today.
If you are unsure of the chemicals you have in your environment, consult independent authorities on the subject and see if there are health risks.
And if you have no idea, because your employer is keeping the deadliness of the toxins you are being exposed to secret (or even the fact that you're being exposed to anything secret)? Or your wages are such that you cannot afford consulting costs? Or the independent authorities (e.g. the Bush administration's EPA) aren't so independent after all, and give you bad data? Etc. etc. ad nauseum.
Blaming the victim "because s/he should have know better" has apparently become a typical Republican response to these issues, and is as inappropraite now as it has always been. Next we'll see them coaching for Colorado.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
"The employer, be it an individual, a small group of individuals, or a corporation of individuals, is taking a risk with their time and money. Only the employer deserves the reward of profits. "
I haven't read the case very closely, but it hardly seems to me that IBM was the only party taking the risks in this case.
It seems the verdict turned on the workers' failure to prove (1) the chemicals caused their cancers; and (2) IBM knew of the cause and effect and kept it a secret from its employees.
If the plaintiffs had proven those two elements, I think IBM should be held liable. While it's true that they could all have quit, it is legally irresponsible and morally reprehensible for an employer to withhold the knowledge that the very nature of the work puts employees' health and lives at risk. Fact is that in most of these types of cases the corporation has determined that the costs of defending against lawsuits are lower, overall, than the cost of fixing the problems - human lives, health, and dignity are reduced to economic equations. Where that's the case, the corporation should be slapped.
The idea that by accepting the job and not taking the affirmative steps to find out the risks on one's own, an employee somehow waives his or her rights is, to me, ridiculous. If there's an inherent danger in the job, the employer ought to come clean about it up-front. Full disclosure without a person having to insist upon it is not too much to ask.
My $0.02, and IAAL
Please stop about the McDonald's coffee lady.
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
Incorrect on both counts.
First, a large corporation has the individual employee outnumbered millions of stockholders to one. And those stockholders have only a little bit of investment income to lose - they stand to, essentially, make a gambling loss - while the employee relies on his job for basic necessities. In a world of large corporations, employers and employees, in general, do not meet in the marketplace with equal power.
Second, it is the nature of capitalism that, under the usual owner/employee arrangement, the employee cannot profit. His wage must be less than the value he adds, because the investor has to get his dividend.
If I work on an assembly line and take parts worth $20, and let's say it takes $5 worth of support and services from other workers (the electric bill, the secretaries, the salesmen, the janitors) to enable me to do this, and the end product sells for $30, do I get the $5 of value I've created? No. The owners and investors have to get paid. Until the workers are identical with the owners and investors - until "the workers control the means of production" - the people who actually create value are systematically ripped off.
All of which is beside the point. Everyone has the right to balance risk and reward, but everyone also has the legal right to expect a safe workplace unless explicitly told otherwise.
It sounds like IBM is getting off on this only because the evidence of harm from these chemicals is not conclusive. The problem is it can take a long time before evidence that "X contributes to cancer risk" is conclusive, but people exposed during that time are still getting cancer. (Remember, only decades ago people still used lead paint, and doctors recommended cigarette smoking to some patients.) Imagine if it took twenty years to gather enough evidence to convict a suspect as a serial killer beyond a reasonable doubt - and all that time you had to let him run free.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
You're assuming that Joe & Mike are able to intelligently evaluate the risks. Do you really work in a place where the company tells you everything?
So you're saying IBM refuses to let you comply with safety procedures (because if you do, you'll be fired). That's a perfectly reason to sue IBM. Claiming that you refused to follow procedures is silly. Next we'll be hearing arguments that we can't prosecute mobsters because I chose to give them my money. If you'll lose your job if you don't do certain things than the company is responsible for those actions.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Now Jose Worker and Randeep Worker will
. html
Who do you think it was that was doing the work at the plant(s) in question?
It was poor immigrants and low skill workers and yes, of course IBM knew about it. The higher paid managers wouldn't be caught (dead) standing all day be marinated in chemicals.
This is the dirty part of the beautiful, feel-good Open Source world that is never really talked about here.
svtc
http://www.svtc.org/cleancc/pubs/technotrash.pdf
http://www.ban.org
http://www.tufts.edu/tuftsrecycles/more/computers
this wouldn't be a problem. But, as with lawyers (it is supposed to be difficult to pursue lawyers for malpractice, even for such things as falling asleep during a trial) and police officers (the "blue wall of silence"), doctors decided that protecting the incompetents among them is much more professional than trying to get rid of them (or hold them responsible for their actions). What other routes do the legitimate victims of incompetence have to pursue bad doctors and/or receive compensation for their losses? The AMA probably will do little - other than criminal malpractice (which has an even higher burden of proof), there aren't any alternatives.
If people can't trust that professionals in a field will do the right thing then people resort to the judicial system; if mistakes happen often and people stop trusting professionals in a field (or anyone else), then people will rely on the courts as the sole means to remedy their issues. Once that happens, the sheer flow of complaints almost guarantees that meritless cases will be difficult to separate from valid cases and that the separation will be time-consuming.
If doctors had cared more about providing better care than covering the misdeeds of their bad apples, malpractice suits would likely be fewer, easier dismissed or carried on, and perhaps less costly.