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
Re:It seems harsh (Score:4, Insightful)
My IBM experience (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Catch 22 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:My IBM experience (Score:4, Informative)
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 (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.
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:Worker's Comp (Score:4, Informative)
Re:It seems harsh (Score:5, Interesting)
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... (Score:5, Funny)
e.
Conundrum (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Conundrum (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Conundrum (Score:4, Insightful)
Please stop about the McDonald's coffee lady.
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm [lawandhelp.com]
Re:Conundrum (Score:3, Interesting)
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 w
Re:Conundrum (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
It is actually simple, not asinine.
confidential or unknown risks? (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:confidential or unknown risks? (Score:2)
If you came to me with a great business idea, and desired $5000 of my money to invest in it, you'd have a better chance of getting it if you disclosed all portions of that idea. You might offer me a small return on my money.
On the other hand, if you had a secret idea and wanted me to risk my investment, you'd better guarantee me a huge return.
The same is true in the job market!
First, if I offered you a jo
Re:Conundrum (Score:3, 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:Conundrum (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:2)
oh...
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
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 plai
Re:Conundrum (Score:5, Informative)
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.
"mortality file" may not imply wrongdoing... (Score:2)
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.
Well it kind of depends (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Conundrum (Score:2)
If I buy a product, I assume that it's going to do what it's supposed to do. I don't have to ask if a lawn mower will cut my grass.
Similarly, if I accept a job I shouldn't have to ask if the working conditions are reasonably safe. Just as I assume a product is fit to perform its intended function, I assume a job is safe to perform unless expressly informed otherwise.
Incidently, your example is incorrect.
Re:Conundrum (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Conundrum (Score:2)
"don't worry about those poor people, how dare they decide with their free will to need food without developing a valuable skill first."
Re:Conundrum (Score:3, Interesting)
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 pro
Re:Conundrum (Score:3, Interesting)
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
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?
What are acceptable levels? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What are acceptable levels? (Score:3, Interesting)
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 bla
Re:What are acceptable levels? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What are acceptable levels? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What are acceptable levels? (Score:4, Interesting)
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What are acceptable levels? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What are acceptable levels? (Score:3, Interesting)
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 resp
Re:What are acceptable levels? (Score:2)
I bet LSD caused some problems. No legal drugs (prescriptions), who knows?
Re:What are acceptable levels? (Score:2)
Tobacco isn't the worst. It hardly even rates, compared to alcohol. Alcohol is much worse.
I bet LSD caused some problems.
You'd lose that bet. I suspect you're referring to the "LSD causes chromosome damage" myth. It doesn't.
No legal drugs (prescriptions), who knows?
Numerous prescription drugs can cause birth defects-- propecia, accutane, ambien, to name a few-- and it's well known.
Re:What are acceptable levels? (Score:5, Informative)
Good Ole' OSHA (Score:2, Interesting)
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 [sweethoney.com] [lyrics] home from work.
Convincing vs suggestive evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (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.
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: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:I'm turning Democratic (Score:2)
Office workers who are overstressed should not work those jobs. If they are obese, they should not eat the foods they are eating, or exercise more.
It is not the investors, the boardmembers, or the employers' responsibilities to make sure their employees are happy or stress free or skinny. It is the investors job to keep the business running.
If employees are unhappy, there are literally millions of positions open at other companies. Stop accepting risky jobs, the
Re:I'm turning Democratic (Score:2)
But your first post said they had a choice; that no-one was forced to work in any environment against their will. But now you say they don't have a choice; at least, 'to eat or not to eat' doesn't sound like one. Make up your mind.
Office workers who are overstressed should not work those jobs. If they are obese, they should not eat the foods they are eating, or exercise more.
Wow, and where do these guys find the time? I mean, I work one of those office jobs,
Re:I'm turning Democratic (Score:3, Interesting)
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]
Re:I'm turning Democratic (Score:2)
How can a person have the will power to take care of themselves when their environment destroys that part of their personality? How has the media system affected the aver
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 innova
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
Re:I'm turning Democratic (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:I'm turning Democratic (Score:2)
-l
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're an idiot (Score:2)
Business are here to offer a product to people who desire that product at a certain price. When someone buys something, both parties in the transaction profit. This is true in the case of two individuals swapping one item (money) for another item (goods or services). Party A, the consumer, profits by gaining a product they wanted. Party B, the supplier, gains the money. Both end up with more value than they initially had.
What is idiotic is the belief that regulat
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.
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.)
Re:libertarian Republicans will be the death of us (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:libertarian Republicans will be the death of us (Score:3, Informative)
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 situat
Your reasoning is really bad (Score:4, Interesting)
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 jury sided with IBM (Score:3)
Specifically, what do you have against the jury that you'd assume they made the wrong decision?
Re:I'm turning Democratic (Score:2)
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...
Well, gee sure. Problem is that you assume: a) the chemicals were actually causing higher rates & b) IBM was away of the causality. Those are pretty big assumptions. I'd prefer to see something from the transcript supporting both of these assumptions before I hop onboard.
It is IBM who through their ignora
Messed Up (Score:4, Informative)
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:Messed Up (Score:2)
There are MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheets), and the company MUST maintain an MSDS on every hazardous chemical they use, and provide access to them on all chemicals you will be exposed to. The company is not allowed to penalize you for demanding the MSDS. I think the company can't penalize you for following the safe procedures, but in practice I guess that's not enforced.
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.Yipee... (Score:2, Funny)
(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... (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
Re:I wonder... (Score:2, Interesting)
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 r
industrial solvents DO cause disease (Score:2)
Is IBM now spearheading a... (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, couldn't restrain myself.
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).
Cancer, yay! (Score:5, Funny)
*sigh*
Re:Cancer, yay! (Score:2)
60 minutes II story (Score:3, Informative)
The US (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The US (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The US (Score:2)
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.
Age of defendents a factor? (Score:5, Interesting)
Now if there are a bunch of 20-30 year-old workers coming down with cancer, that might be pretty fishy.
These cases may be harder to try in the future (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a whole village screwed by IBM chemicals (Score:3, Informative)
Why were the records kept ot of the trial? (Score:4, Informative)
Does anyone know why these record were kept out of the proceedings?
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.)
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.
I thought this was about (Score:2)
Higher cancer rate? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Fantastic! (Score:2, Funny)
IBM Spokesperson Joseph Camel agrees.
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:Finally a win for the good guys! (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.acponline.org/journals/ecp/novdec00/
Re:Finally a win for the good guys! (Score:4, Insightful)
How much would die if there were no doctors at all?
Re:Finally a win for the good guys! (Score:4, Insightful)
had doctors gotten rid of their own bad apples.... (Score:3, Insightful)