3 ms·

What's wrong with that? As long as they weren't intentionally causing workers to get infected, the only objection one can mount is that it is a bit callous.

fallingfrog 6y ago
If they were keeping the workplace as safe as they claimed, the wager would have been zero, or close to zero. In fact a third of the employees contracted covid and five died, and one could argue that the employees making the wager were partly responsible. So it seems more like a form of manslaughter than just callousness, although the lawsuit in question does not go that far but only alleged a series of workplace safety violations.
- legerdemain 6y ago
  Considering that infection has erupted in the most highly secure place on Earth (the White House), it is highly dubious that the number of infections at this meatpacking plant would have been zero even in the best of circumstances.
  - kadoban 6y ago
    Security has more dimensions than that implies. In some ways the White House is extremely secure. In terms of Covid, its security is awful. They don't even do the basics. Masks are explicitly discouraged, social distancing is inconsistent at _best_, etc. This comparison isn't very useful.
- thatguy0900 6y ago
  Doesn't make much sense, unless they are putting their workers on mandatory house arrest outside of work hours
londons_explore 6y ago
In my mind it falls in the same category as shorting a company stock. Technically legal, but morally dubious.
perl4ever 6y ago
"As long as they weren't intentionally causing workers to get infected" Well, of course they were (allegedly). And at the same time trying to protect themselves. "John Casey, an upper-level manager at the plant, is alleged to have explicitly directed supervisors to ignore symptoms of COVID-19, telling them to show up to work even if they were exhibiting symptoms of the virus" "In late March or early April, as the pandemic spread across Iowa, managers at the Waterloo plant reportedly began avoiding the plant floor for fear of contracting the virus. As a result, they increasingly delegated managerial authority and responsibilities to low-level supervisors who had no management training or experience."

fallingfrog 6y ago

If they were keeping the workplace as safe as they claimed, the wager would have been zero, or close to zero. In fact a third of the employees contracted covid and five died, and one could argue that the employees making the wager were partly responsible. So it seems more like a form of manslaughter than just callousness, although the lawsuit in question does not go that far but only alleged a series of workplace safety violations.

legerdemain 6y ago
Considering that infection has erupted in the most highly secure place on Earth (the White House), it is highly dubious that the number of infections at this meatpacking plant would have been zero even in the best of circumstances.
- kadoban 6y ago
  Security has more dimensions than that implies. In some ways the White House is extremely secure. In terms of Covid, its security is awful. They don't even do the basics. Masks are explicitly discouraged, social distancing is inconsistent at _best_, etc. This comparison isn't very useful.
thatguy0900 6y ago
Doesn't make much sense, unless they are putting their workers on mandatory house arrest outside of work hours

londons_explore 6y ago

In my mind it falls in the same category as shorting a company stock. Technically legal, but morally dubious.

perl4ever 6y ago

"As long as they weren't intentionally causing workers to get infected" Well, of course they were (allegedly). And at the same time trying to protect themselves. "John Casey, an upper-level manager at the plant, is alleged to have explicitly directed supervisors to ignore symptoms of COVID-19, telling them to show up to work even if they were exhibiting symptoms of the virus" "In late March or early April, as the pandemic spread across Iowa, managers at the Waterloo plant reportedly began avoiding the plant floor for fear of contracting the virus. As a result, they increasingly delegated managerial authority and responsibilities to low-level supervisors who had no management training or experience."