IBM Cleared in San Jose Cancer Liability Suit 241
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.
It seems harsh (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Finally a win for the good guys! (Score:0, Insightful)
What are acceptable levels? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm turning Democratic (Score:4, Insightful)
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 wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Let's see (Score:5, Insightful)
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:What are acceptable levels? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Conundrum (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It seems harsh (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Conundrum (Score:2, Insightful)
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:I'm turning Democratic (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Conundrum (Score:5, Insightful)
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:What are acceptable levels? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Messed Up (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Conundrum (Score:4, Insightful)
It is actually simple, not asinine.
The US (Score:5, Insightful)
These cases may be harder to try in the future (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Conundrum (Score:4, Insightful)
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:I'm turning Democratic (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Conundrum (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
And a jury found them not liable... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Messed Up (Score:5, Insightful)
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.Re:I'm turning Democratic (Score:3, Insightful)
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 [pipex.com] 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.
Don't be retarded. (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Why were the records kept ot of the trial? (Score:3, Insightful)
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:I'm turning Democratic (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
libertarian Republicans will be the death of us al (Score:3, Insightful)
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:What are acceptable levels? (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Conundrum (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Please stop about the McDonald's coffee lady.
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm [lawandhelp.com]
Re:Conundrum (Score:2, Insightful)
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:I'm turning Democratic (Score:3, Insightful)
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:The US (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:What are acceptable levels? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Finally a win for the good guys! (Score:4, Insightful)
How much would die if there were no doctors at all?
Re:Conundrum (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Finally a win for the good guys! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:My IBM experience (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I'm turning Democratic (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Re:You forget the H1-B and the illegal immigrant. (Score:1, Insightful)
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 [svtc.org]
http://www.svtc.org/cleancc/pubs/technotrash.pdf [svtc.org]
http://www.ban.org [ban.org]
http://www.tufts.edu/tuftsrecycles/more/computers
had doctors gotten rid of their own bad apples.... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.