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.

Comments

It seems harsh

[Space cowboy]

... 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

Re:It seems harsh

[wol]

If they stayed in the workers compensation system, they would definitely have received some compensation. They elected, instead, to try the lotto and, apparently, the jury did not agree with them.

Re:It seems harsh

[Space cowboy]

Er, you take my comments out of context then proceed to go on a rant about something that I didn't say (!)

I wrote:

It seems harsh if they were exposed with the company knowing about it, that they were denied some compensation for that

Note the emboldened bit that you conveniently removed and replaced with ellipsis, to completely change the sense of what I said. The point was that IBM allegedly knew the effects of the chemicals on the workers, but let them work in those conditions anyway.

Later I said if they were found against, you have to assume that they couldn't prove it and I always think it's easy to make a snap judgement based on your feelings for the parties involved though - In other words, the court had the full facts, and it's dangerous for outsiders to make emotional decisions without being in possession of those facts.

Jeez.

Simon

In other news...

[enrico_suave]

Willy wonka cleared of liability/wrong doing in the Gloop, Beauregarde, and Teevee vs IBM suit.

e.

Conundrum

[dada21]

This situation is a hard one for AnCaps like myself to resolve.

While it seems like IBM may have had some knowledge of statistsically higher death rates among these workers, there is also the belief that I hold that every worker are responsible to find out what risks a certain job holds.

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?

Cancer is such an odd condition. I honestly believe cancer isn't directly caused by one simple situation. So many variables can go into it. Smoking may cause cancer, but I believe smoking doesn't -- it is only a risk factor. Did these employees all eat regularly at a certain facility? Did they all live near factories that may have also contributed to the enhanced risk?

I read all the articles, and I'm fairly sure I agree with the jury that IBM should not be held liable. On the other hand, if employees asked in advance about the risks involved, and IBM blatantly lied, then they should be held guilty.

One thing is clear: the lesson learned is that you should always ask your employer in advance of any health risks involved in future work, and get their reply in writing.

Re:Conundrum

[pvt_medic]

what was included in the MSDS? that should have general info about the safety of chemicals and should be freely accessible. The employees should be responsible to look things up in there. I would say that if a chemical causes a higher rate of cancer and they know it and dont provide basic precautions for the employees that would be wrong, and also if they had the data that the chemicals did cause cancer and there was an intentional coverup that would also be wrong. But the fact that IBM tracks the death rate doesnt imply guilt. That shows that they are tracking data because of an interest their action based off that data is the deciding fact.

Re:Conundrum

[pacsman]

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.

Re:Conundrum

[Anonymous Coward]

Employers and employees really are on equal ground more than the general media wants you to believe.

So Joe Worker, who makes say $50K/yr is more on "equal ground" than a multi-billion dollar international corporation with plenty of lawyers and fingers in politicians pockets? Do you really believe this? I'm no liberal (in fact I'm probably pretty close to your political belief system) but that statement is pretty asinine.

Re:Conundrum

[desolation angel]

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.

Re:Conundrum

[B'Trey]

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.

Re:Conundrum

[dada21]

That's your free choice to make.

In my opinion (as well as any AnCapper in general), Employers and Employees are equal. No one should force anyone to work, and no one should force anyone to employ. Employers offer a job, a salary, and a work condition. Employees can accept or deny it.

Re:Conundrum

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

Employers and employees really are on equal ground more than the general media wants you to believe.

Except that employees are easy to replace. How many people can afford to quit their job? Not too many. Most people have a family to support and bills to pay and don't live in their parents basement.
In theory employers and employees are on equal ground. But in practice an employe has to put up with whatever the employer decides. Unless he's got the support of a union.

Re:Conundrum

[dada21]

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.

Re:Conundrum

[dada21]

I disagree with you completely.

Employees are not easy to replace. If a certain job has a lot of people willing to fill it (McDonald's), the pay scale will be LOW. That is because the Supply of workers is HIGH, the Demand for the job is LOW. HIGH SUPPLY + LOW DEMAND = LOW PRICE ("pay").

If your skills as a worker are in demand, your pay will be high.

How is this hard to understand? If you have bills to pay, those bills were incurred by your free will. If you are unskilled, you better be living at home and working hard to learn skills. If you gain skills, you can now gain additional higher bills.

Your post is fraudulent in assuming that people with high bills are unskilled. That is not my problem, or an employer's, if you take on big bills and don't have a skill to market to pay for them.

Re:Conundrum

[rm007]

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?

Re:Conundrum

[dada21]

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.

Re:Conundrum

[johnnyb]

"Except that employees are easy to replace."

Actually, I've found that employers are much easier to replace than employees. It takes 6-9 months to replace an employee, and that takes a LOT of time. In addition, they usually aren't up to full capacity for about 3 months, and in the first month they usually slow your operations down.

There are some jobs that aren't as hard to replace, but rarely in technology.

"But in practice an employe has to put up with whatever the employer decides. Unless he's got the support of a union."

Or decides to go into business for himself. Or decides to work for a more ethical company. Or decides to create a union.

Re:Conundrum

[dada21]

Poor people? Who is poor? How many poor people are fat in this country? How many poor people have cell phones? How many poor people have cable TV?

Don't quote to me about the poor people. I don't see them. I've spent times at soup kitchens, and those poor people have mental problems, so I offer my help.

Most "poor people" by your standard are too lazy to go out and learn a skill. You can get by on McDonald's pay. After working at McDonald's for a year, you're making $9+ an hour. Get any job and prove your worth, and you won't be poor.

Re:Conundrum

[DavidBrown]

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.

Re:Conundrum

[Clemence]

"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

Re:Conundrum

[Dr. Evil]

Please stop about the McDonald's coffee lady.

http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

Re:Conundrum

[Mr. Slippery]

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.

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.

Re:Conundrum

[NivenMK1]

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.

Re:Conundrum

[minion]

This kind of reminds me about the Radium Dial Co.

I'm not saying that IBM is guilty (and I hope they're not - they are on on side after all (linux)).

But, the Radium Dial Co. delibertly told their workers that the "paint" they were using for the instrument dials was completely harmless, regardless of its constant glow. These people used to put it in their mouths, on their face, etc. and then turn out the lights and have fun after hours with it.

Radium Dial Co. changed their name and moved when too many workers started to get sick. The location where the building was (I think it was Chicago) still registers as radioactive with a giger counter. And this is something like 50-60 years later.

Isn't the history channel fun? =)

Re:Conundrum

[paranoic]

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?

What are acceptable levels?

[KingOfBLASH]

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.

Re:What are acceptable levels?

[dada21]

This is exactly why government-enforced agencies such as OSHA should be abhorred by employees!

When an independent organization such as the UL tells someone that a product is bad, the free market is allowed to decide if they want to base their purchasing judgement on truly independent agencies.

When government enforces rules through coercion, companies can use the famous line "We followed the government's rules" and pass the buck.

In these situations, it is much more acceptable to pass the buck and just blame the rules rather than allow the free market to create independent agencies that can set various warnings for both employees and employers alike.

Re:What are acceptable levels?

[2MuchC0ffeeMan]

as far as i know, there are really no 'acceptable' levels, except with radioactive materials. Everything causes cancer, just depends on how much.

Re:What are acceptable levels?

[Genjurosan]

I remember other 'approved' drugs that caused severe birth defects. I even had a friend that received a large settlement check because of one of this 'approved' drugs that caused him to have all sorts of hearing and vision problems.

Perhaps someone can help me, as I don't remember one of the worst drugs from the 70s that was later determined to cause all sorts of problems.

In this case I don't find it very uplifting that a company can use the 'documented acceptable levels' argument to get out of their responsibility to those that work for them.

=(

Re:What are acceptable levels?

[KingOfBLASH]

You know if you read OSHA guidelines they're pretty stringent. Many, many, many of the "classic" experiments in chemistry can't be repeated these days because of a slight toxicity in the chemicals involved. The question becomes, how do you tell if something is bad for you? Answer, see who dies. If the exposure guidelines still result in cancer / death over a long period, lower the exposures. It's kind of sad actually, in that field all the rules are written in blood.

Re:What are acceptable levels?

[B'Trey]

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.

Re:What are acceptable levels?

[dada21]

Who pays the Underwriter's Laboratory? The consumers of goods. If a lamp is to be sold by Target or Walmart, they want to reduce their risk in selling the product and REQUIRE the manufacturer of the product to get a UL stamp. The manufacturer of the lamp pay part of their R&D costs in getting that approval. The cost of the lamp goes up, and Target passes this cost onto the consumer.

You, as the consumer, may want to save money, so you go to some grey market import store and buy a non-UL certified lamp for 1/2 price. You take a risk that it could catch fire. Maybe your insurance company requires you buy only UL approved lamps. Your risk, your reward.

Let's move this thought to the free market of job offerings and acquisitions.

A company offers a job in building widgets. They know this job requires certain skills. They offer this job at a certain rate.

Employees seeking this job have these skills. Without OSHA, the possible Employees may have 2 or 3 or 300 or 1000 different companies seeking them. The Employees know how much they want to make. Some smart Employees will also want safe jobs, so they will seek Employees who are certified by trusted testing companies. Other Employees might want to take a risk (more dangerous job) in order to get a higher reward (more pay). They may decide to work at a non-certified company.

If you can make $50,000 with your skills from a "UL"-certified safe company, or $75,000 at an uncertified company, you can equate this with buying a $10 certified bulb, or a $2 uncertified bulb.

Re:What are acceptable levels?

[Luyseyal]

There are problems with the NGO solution:

1. When no business in the industry is certified, there is a defacto monopoly-of-practice. In many industries, it would be very hard for a start-up, certified business to compete with the huge, entrenched, uncertified Corporate Machines. The free market dictates "cheap", though what a customer might really want is "cheap, but Evil-free".
2. Customers often don't know who is or who isn't certified or what the certification means. Maybe I personally wouldn't mind paying more for XYZ good if I could read right there on the label that it's a Certified[tm] company in "Fair Labor Practices". Maybe I should be able to zap it with my CueCat and find out if the company is under investigation for violations.
3. Some industry certifications are meaningless since the cert orgs are packed with industry lackeys. Of course, it's in their best interest to keep this quiet so the Cert brand remains respected.

Of course, the government isn't immune to bribery, but it does have the advantage of being able to set minimum standards for entire industries so corporations can compete without having to do Evil. Unfortunately, do-gooder-y is hard to export and many countries sell their souls to Evil so their corporations can undercut non-Evil companies in the ethics-neutral, global free market.

This is why it is important for big trade agreements to include minimum standards for labor, environment, and the like. Minimum, global standards protect the marketplace from punishing the humans at the bottom who keep it going and allow Good Corporations to continue to compete.

$0.02USD,
-l

Re:What are acceptable levels?

[KingOfBLASH]

This is where it gets a little idiotic, IMHO. OSHA levels were established for workers exposed to chemicals on a daily basis. If you're a chem student and you're exposed to a miniscule amount for a few labs it's not going to kill you, and might only increase your chances of cancer by a few percent. Hell, I've been told just about everything I eat can kill me. Hasn't stopped me from eating.

Convincing vs suggestive evidence

[JimJinkins]

"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."

The plaintiff's evidence was suggestive. The defendent's (IBM's) evidence was convincing.

Perhaps Slashdot was right to not cover this case very well.

I'm turning Democratic

[ObviousGuy]

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.

Re:I'm turning Democratic

[dada21]

It is not the employer's responsibility in a free market to provide a "safe working environment." It is the employer's responsibility to offer an environment, a job, and a pay that an employee is willing tow work in, perform, and decide is a decent rate to accept.

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. 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.

Employees profit from accepting a certain job in a certain environment at a certain pay scale. They make the call. If no one wanted to do said job in said facility at said rate, then the employer would follow supply and demand rules in employment and either make the pay more, the environment safer, or a combination of the two.

Re:I'm turning Democratic

[Hiro Antagonist]

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. 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.

Problem is, you don't work, you don't eat. You don't eat, you starve, and almost every job you can take (outside of high-level management) comes with a boatload of problems. Office workers tend to be overstressed and obese[1]; factory and fast-food workers are exposed to hazardous environments and toxic chemicals. The sad thing is that both environments could be made drastically better, but it would nominally suck a few pennies off the stock price, and this is unacceptable to investors and boardmembers alike.

[1] Many American offices unoffically require sixty-hour workweeks among their office workers; after working a twelve hour day with no exercise and/or real 'rest' breaks, going out to the gym is not a fun prospect.

Re:I'm turning Democratic

[tootlemonde]

It is not the employer's responsibility in a free market to provide a "safe working environment."

I don't know about "a free market" but it is the employer's responsibility in the United States, which is where IBM was conducting business. In that country, an employer's responsibility is determined by democratically elected representatives, not the market or the employer's own notion of his responsibility.

The responsibility of the employer to provide a safe working environment is a relatively recent innovation in capitalism. The earliest industrialists provided horrendous working conditions for both adults and children as long as they could get away with it.

Fortunately for employees, a free society trumps the free market.

Re:I'm turning Democratic

[dada21]

Wow. You beat me there.

Err, wait, no you didn't. I just searched through the Constitution, and nowhere can I find a single clause that gives the majority (via "democratically elected representatives") the power to mandate employers to do ANYTHING.

Ergo, OSHA is unconstitutional. Therefore, your argument falls apart.

We may be a union of sovereign States that offer laws enticed by the whims of the majority, but in reality, the majority should be restrained by the limitations of the Constitution. No one should be told how to treat others based on federal government's coercive desires.

Unfortunately for employees, free society creates madmen who defraud employees into believing they have rights that they shouldn't have. When the free market had the freedoms it needed, everyone had better treatment. Once government involved itself in the relationship of Employers and Employees, everyone in the long run was harmed by increased prices, decreased availability of products, and horrendous taxation schemes that help only the few who happen to be friends of the elected.

Nice try.

Re:I'm turning Democratic

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Uh, OK, sure. I really can't say much about your constitutionality argument (hadn't tried to read it for that particular argument) but it is often in the eye of the beholder. Arguments on what is and isn't constitutional can easily get pretty contrived, stretching things to not mean that it meant, or to mean what it didn't.

Frankly, I wouldn't want to live in a USA without OSHA. Yes, they are overzealous at times but when it comes to life and livelyhood, employers often don't give a shit on basic safety and otherwise there's nothing the employees can do. There's not much a "free" market can do.

Re:I'm turning Democratic

[dada21]

As it is, you're correct. Our Supreme Courts have lost all touch with the Constitution. Whereas the Constitution says NO, the Supreme Court reads "maybe." Whereas the Constitution says NEVER, the Supreme Court reads "sometimes." Whereas the Constitution reads "GOVERNMENT CAN NOT" the Supreme Court adds "USUALLY."

It's so sad. A document that bans government from becoming tyrannical is instead manipulated to say that government can define what tyranny means.

Re:I'm turning Democratic

[Hiro Antagonist]

From my perspective, however, it's my responsibility to ensure my own health and happiness. I don't think it's anybody else's responsibility, and I sure as hell don't want their attempts to 'help' me to infringe upon my ability to help myself.

To a certain degree, I agree with that; I'm much the same way -- I take a very active role in maintaining my own happiness; and, yes, I am quite satisfied with my life. *grin* I also realize that I'm lucky, though. I was born healthy, I'm relatively good-looking[1], I have a good job, and I'm looking at having an MBA, as well as being fluent in two foreign languages, in about three years. I don't need or want any help.

I find it interesting to see how widely diversified folks' perspectives are on this issue. Maybe it's because I'm somewhat accustomed to the feeling of working without a net...

Do you really work without a net, though? Would you be okay if you got slapped with a million-dollar RIAA lawsuit? Would you not ask society, in the form of police and EMTs, to assist you if you were shot? Would you let your house burn rather than call firemen? Do you refuse to drive upon the roads that others have helped to provide you with?

At some level, we depend on society -- after all, we're technologically advanced pack animals. All of us have a safety net of sorts that we rely on either explicitly (roads) or implicitly (knowing that EMTs will help me if I get in an auto accident without asking for a credit card first); all I advocate is raising that net a little bit.

And I do mean a little bit. How?

Welfare is screwed. Giving money to people who have demonstrated a lack of ability to manage it is nuts. Providing said people with basic needs like shelter, food, medical care, clothing, education, and simple public transit is humanitarianism. Besides, it provides a very basic incentive to get off of 'welfare' -- if you want anything that requires money, from a movie to a cup of coffee at Starbucks, you still have to work.

Think about how cheap a national healthcare system would be (cheaper than HMOs), coupled with a national network of homeless shelters, from which the state could draw workers for public projects -- keeping streets clean and such. We'd spend just as much money as we do now, but we'd eliminate homelessness, reduce disease, and have cleaner cities.

Ok, I'm done. I'll shut up now. *grin*

[1] This does help with job interviews; research has shown that a more attractive candidate, whether male or female, is more likely to get picked over a less attractive candidate.

Re:I'm turning Democratic

[aeryn_sunn]

Uh, perhaps you overlooked the "Commerce Clause"?...and if I recall, your thinking that the federal government cannot regulate business, i.e. OHSA, has been soundly rejected..The Lochner era , Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, economic substantive due process under the guise of "freedom to contract" that was used to limit the government from regulating employers, has been thoroughly rejected.

Therefore, your comment about the Constitution is completely incorrect...perhaps you might need to also see Marbury v. Madison to understand that it is up to the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution...

Regardless, from your previous comments on some illusion that employers and employees have equal bargaining power is also way off base...do you honestly think employers are going to spend any money that they are not forced to spend to make a workplace safe? to not pollute? to provide certain minimum benefits? Not when profits are at stake...history is littered with instances of employer malfeasance...ever read "The Jungle"? Ever read about the "Alton" documents where the Railroads knew asbestos was getting their employees sick in the earlier 1920s but still did not let the workers know this?

I would go as far and say that the belief that employers and employees are equal is naive and not just delusional...do you think if IBM told all prospective...or even would tell all prospective workers that if they worked in that plant, their risk of cancer doubles that IBM would be able to find any workers? Hell no...IBM just like all employers play down any risks and say "trust us" it is ok...

Your "Let the market decide" mantra should not be the end all be all...there are limits...if there were not any limits, AT&T would be your only phone carrier, I would not be using a Mac but using windows and we would all be filling up our gas tanks at Standard Oil gas stations...

Messed Up

[telstar]

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.

Re:Messed Up

[Savage-Rabbit]

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.

Re:Messed Up

[Rick.C]

When my son was in high school he got a job at a local windows company (no, the other kind - with glass). After the glazing had been applied, his job was to clean them up with a solvent and make them pretty for shipping. The company issued rubber gloves, but as with IBM, the solvent went right through the gloves.

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.

Yipee...

[MadBiologist]

Goody... now their lawyers can really concentrate on that peskey SCO thing...

(yes, I realize that IBM has a bout a gazillion lawyers, and that the ones involved in a cancer lawsuit are not the ones who'd best handle an ip lawsuit... but still....)

I wonder...

[physicsboy500]

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

Re:I wonder...

[Gr8Apes]

Personally, while the story concentrated on the victims, it had the opposite effect on me. I sided with IBM even while reading this story, despite the 1 or 2 lightly vieled attempts to paint IBM guilty by blatant assertions. (namely, IBM knew their workers had higher rates of cancer and other diseases). Just when, exactly, was IBM aware of this? It couldn't have been during the time in question, because they were just exposing their workers to these chemicals, so there was no history to make judgements by regarding safety.

Basically, this is just bad luck for the employees. If they'd won, you'd next be hearing about dead bungee jumpers' families suing bungee cord makers, because the victim misjudged the height vs length of the cord. (I'm sure this has already been attempted in our litiguous society that wants to blame anyone with deep pockets for their own stupidity)

Is IBM now spearheading a...

[GeneralEmergency]

...new Open Sores Initiative?

Sorry, couldn't restrain myself.

Let's see

[Gr8Apes]

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).

Re:Fantastic!

[grub]

IBM Spokesperson Joseph Camel agrees.

Cancer, yay!

[lukewarmfusion]

Everything causes cancer nowadays

*sigh*

60 minutes II story

[scumbucket]

60 Minutes II did an informative story on this a couple of months ago: Did IBM Know Of A Cancer Link?

Your reasoning is really bad

[Gr8Apes]

If I, as a company, in good faith comply with all known legal requirements, and take as many steps as possible for worker safety, should I be held liable years later when something turns out to have been bad for my workers?

Take micro waves. They weren't known to cause problems, and initially micro wave ovens showed up everywhere in convenience stores. Then, low and behold, pace makers were found to be affected. Now, before that finding, should anyone injured by this mechanism be able to sue and hold liable whomever was involved, no matter how tenuously, for an unknown side-effect? I say no. This case's verdict confirms this concept, and to me is a just verdict.

A counter example is the tabacco industry, which withheld information on the extent of the damaging properties of its products from the general populace while continuing to strongly market its products. This is malicious negligence (IANAL FYI) and to my sense of justice should carry a penalty. And look, they were penalized, and this is another example of justice being served.

Lastly, I don't think these verdicts are necessarily pro-business, or anti-business, but merely necessary verdicts to enable people and companies to do business in this country. If every injured party was able to reap big verdicts over every little "injustice" or injury, then our business climate would be so terrible that no company would stay in the US for fear of being sued out of existance for something they could not have foreseen.

Take asbestos for instance, there was a product that no one knew would cause the problems it did later. In my opinion, I think the verdicts have been too far reaching, even hitting companies that bought bankrupt companies for their equipment (wish I still had a link to that story, was on cnn about 4 or 5 months ago). That's too far imo.

The US

[ekephart]

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.

Re:The US

[Gr8Apes]

While I agree, I think it would be better if judges (or special panels of judges or a system like a grand jury) were allowed to summarily dismiss a case with prejudice if the initial paperwork was seriously hokey or the suit was just plain against common sense. With such a system, you could still file your suit, but then it would be under loser pays, as the plaintiff already has strike one against him. This would discourage bad or hokey suits, and wouldn't cost the defendents near as much.

Re:The US

[johnnyb]

The problem with "loser pays" is that it prevents people without money from getting justice, because the risk is too high.

What we really need are judges with the balls to throw more suits out of court and caps on punitive damages. Also, as a society, we need to understand, both socially and legally, that stuff just happens, and we need to get on in life.

Age of defendents a factor?

[xanthines-R-yummy]

I don't know the details of all 200 lawsuits but the ones mentioned in the SFgate site says the 2 guys are 60 and 70 something. That's a very susceptible age to have cancer in general, I believe. If anything, they are pretty close to the average lifespan in the US anyway for men. However, I think that IBM should offer some sort of compensation as responsible corporation if not for the very minimal effect of avoiding a publicized lawsuit (condidtions of most settlements seem to be sealed.)

Now if there are a bunch of 20-30 year-old workers coming down with cancer, that might be pretty fishy.

My IBM experience

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:My IBM experience

[Quimo]

Isn't is part of the Employers Duties to make sure that you Have, Know how to properly use and actually make use of the proper safety equipment at all times.

I seem to remember cases being dealt with where the employer was found to not have rigorusly enforced the safety policy and requirements. An employee got hurt while not wearing his safety equipment (eye protection I think it was.) The employee had been through the you must wear your safety equipment speech with managment many times (they had it on record.) However as the policy was that any employee caught not wearing there safety equipment 3 times within a year would be immediatly dismissed. (Union or no this was within there rights.) As he was not dismissed they where found at fault.

By my take on that if IBM does not enforce the safety requirements they are at fault for any injuries within the workplace.

Re:My IBM experience

[ChaosDiscord]

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)

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.

These cases may be harder to try in the future

[spidergoat2]

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.

Good Ole' OSHA

[Darth23]

Protecting the Scum of the Universe from Liability Suits.

OSHA hasn't been a properly functioning governmental organization for YEARS, if not decades.

Everyone should be aware that we take more than a paycheck [lyrics] home from work.

Here's a whole village screwed by IBM chemicals

[ccwaterz]

http://www.pressconnects.com/special/endicottspill /

Why were the records kept ot of the trial?

[penultimatepost]

He said he was disappointed with the judge's refusal to let him present some evidence, including a "corporate mortality file" that IBM maintained on its workers and a study showing that IBM workers had higher rates of cancer than the population at large.

Does anyone know why these record were kept out of the proceedings?

Re:Why were the records kept ot of the trial?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.)

Re:Why were the records kept ot of the trial?

[Anonymous Coward]

As an employee at IBM, I can say that the internal news of the case earlier when the "mortality file's" admissibility was being determined, made it sound as if the file was simply for doling out pensions and retirement benefits. IBM's stance was that the file was never looked at in a manner that would have analyzed it for correlations between cancer and specific workplaces.

The judge agreed, and having worked with IBM's paperwork, I'm not surprised. presuming that a company with 300,000 employees will analyze its pension files to calculate cancer risks in a completely different area is kind of preposterous.

And a jury found them not liable...

[jordandeamattson]

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 Comp

[darkmeridian]

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.

Re:Worker's Comp

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

The jury sided with IBM

[Kohath]

This decision wasn't "handed down". The jury heard the case. They found that IBM didn't do anything wrong.

Specifically, what do you have against the jury that you'd assume they made the wrong decision?

Don't be retarded.

[Ayanami Rei]

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)

Re:Finally a win for the good guys!

[darkmeridian]

A conservative estimate is that 30,000 Americans are killed because of medical malpractice each year. Perhaps doctors should try not killing people before ranting about lawyers. If they weren't negligent, they wouldn't be liable. Anyway, doctors are acting greedy every time they refuse to save lives because they can't make enough money. Why do we trash only the lawyers for being greedy?

http://www.acponline.org/journals/ecp/novdec00/s ho rt_essays.htm

Catch 22

[stoolpigeon]

In the Navy I was asked to do a bunch of painting in an enclosed compartment. I went to the safety office to get an appropriate resperator. They said - "We don't have the right equipment to fit you for one. So you can't have one." I said, "So since we can't be sure the fit will be perfect I have to do the work with no protection at all?" The answer- "Yes." Brilliant.

confidential or unknown risks?

[rbird76]

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.)

libertarian Republicans will be the death of us al

[FreeUser]

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.

Re:libertarian Republicans will be the death of us

[dada21]

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.

Re:libertarian Republicans will be the death of us

[FreeUser]

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?

Well it kind of depends

[Sycraft-fu]

There are plenty of jobs where you have dangerous work. However the employer isn't always liable if you get hurt/killed for anything more than workmans comp.

One situation, which I suspect is what happened here from what I've read, is if they provide the necessary saftey gear and procedures and you ignore them. This sort of thing happens all the time. Donning safety gear is a pain and time consuming, as is getting necessary equipment. So you ignore it.

Like at my last job, we needed to move some Cisco 7513 routers to a palette to be taken away. According to OSHA regs, they were too heavy for a person to lug around, we should have gotten a tool to help us. That would take too much time, we just lifted them by hand. Well, had we injured ourselves, the university would have paid workmans comp and medical bills as required. However if we sued, we'd probably get nothing since we weren't following proper procedure.

I have a feeling that the employees either knew the risks, or didn't take the time to review the safety material provided to them and chose to not use proper saftey gear. Then they decided that the normal comp wasn't enough and sued. Jury disagreed since they were the ones not doing as they should.

I don't know this for a fact, however.

Re:Finally a win for the good guys!

[NorthDude]

A conservative estimate is that 30,000 Americans are killed because of medical malpractice each year.
How much would die if there were no doctors at all?

Re:Finally a win for the good guys!

[rev063]

There's no doubt some negligence exists in the medical industry, and wanton negligence should be punished. But the US legal system has turned medicine into a jackpot lottery enabled by sleazy lawyers. The result? Worsening medical care for us all. Read the essay in that link, and tell me you're not scared.

Higher cancer rate?

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

"Attorneys in a major Silicon Valley cancer cluster lawsuit against IBM have uncovered a ``corporate mortality file'' in which IBM tracked the deaths of more than 30,000 workers -- and the lawyers claim the company knew its electronics workers were dying of cancer more often than normal."

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.

had doctors gotten rid of their own bad apples....

[rbird76]

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.