Subject:
|
Re: Personal Responsibility (was: Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 27 May 2000 15:26:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1244 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> Agreed. He is partly responsible because he did not refuse to work on unsafe
> equipment when his job responsibilities were reassigned. But, in this
> particular incident, the company really bears the great bulk of negligence.
It's hard for me to fault them too much, when the government (by your
account) seems to have gone out of its way to make this happen.
> So what?, though. They'll never have to pay him a dime over and
> above the pittance he'll get from worker's comp.
He should have negotiated for a better employment contract.
This scenario seems bizzarre in this land of massive legislation, over
litigation, and huge worker's-unions. But it sounds perfect as a situation in
Libertopia. Competing employers will provide work environments that suit
different kinds of people. If someone wants to work in a plant with finger
stretchers that have no light-curtains to protect the operators, then that can
be an option.
Sometimes it comes down to this: That plant could spend the $230,000 to
install safety equipment at all the manned stations, or it can spend that same
amount on salary. They can't magically do both. Some people would rather take
the cash and the risk. When the employee takes that risk and get's bitten, why
should it be the company's problem?
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
228 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
