5 ms·

I think this is unreasonable simply because industrial accidents do happen and they aren't 100% preventable, much like car accidents. There should be [large] am

I think this is unreasonable simply because industrial accidents do happen and they aren't 100% preventable, much like car accidents. There should be [large] amounts of financial compensation [like $2.5 million, or about 10x what she'd have made at $400/month for 50 years] but "most of the gross profits" and "jail time" is ridiculous. https://www.osha.gov/oshstats/commonstats.html https://www.osha.gov/oshstats/commonstats.html > 3.3 per 100,000 in the US die http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/osh_12042014.htm http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/osh_12042014.htm > Over half of the more than 3.0 million private industry injury and illness cases reported in 2013 were of a more serious nature that involved days away from work, job transfer, or restriction (DART cases). These cases occurred at a rate of 1.7 cases per 100 full-time workers, a statistically significant decrease from 2012. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx > Fatalities per 100,000 Licensed Drivers > 15.84 in 2012, 23.21 in 1994 There are, frankly, far more dangerous for-profit machines that people happily refrain from suggesting those sorts of penalties for.

s73v3r 11y ago
I don't think it's unreasonable. If the costs of these accidents are high, then they'll invest in making their processes safer. There is absolutely no excuse for having a machine like that in use.
- err4nt 11y ago
  if the reward for losing body parts is high, people will find a way to make it happen to collect the reward! No matter how much you reward them, it can never be so much as to ever be an incentive to somebody.
  - johnchristopher 11y ago
    Ah! But then the factory builder will be forced to build safer factories to prevent workers from injuring themselves and ruining the owners. /s
- fweespeech 11y ago
  1) 10x the lifetime salary of a worker is high. 2) Nothing is 100% reliable or safe. We are lucky to have a 1.7% rate of serious injury/fatality in the US on a full time worker per year situation. You aren't going to be able to reduce that significantly. Operating heavy machines is dangerous.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    "10x the lifetime salary of a worker is high." So? Losing a limb is huge. "Nothing is 100% reliable or safe. We are lucky to have a 1.7% rate of serious injury/fatality in the US on a full time worker per year situation. You aren't going to be able to reduce that significantly. Operating heavy machines is dangerous." And this is an incentive for employers to keep up maintenance and make sure that their workers are properly trained. And to not do what happened in this story, which is to try to get people to cut corners so they can make a couple more units.
    - Erwin 11y ago
      Would you apply this to software engineering, and if not why not? Should the engineer that was responsible for some XSS flaw 3 years ago used today to extract personal information (which in turn can be used for identity theft) be personally required to pay damages? Should a peer that reviewed and approved their code, and maybe the sysadmin that deployed it and manage who run the projects and didn't use all possible security controls?
      - s73v3r 11y ago
        There is a difference, and it's that losing a limb can mean an end to one's ability to support themselves. Especially with cases like this one.
        ci5er 11y ago
        As an analogy - what's the difference? What if the error was in the machine's control system logic? Should, or should not, the production tool (and software) be held accountable for what may have been ill advised use of the machine? (Reaching inside to seat the metal sheet sounds like a dodgy move. Bad design? Broken machine? Stupid operator?) When tragedy strikes, we, as moral animals, want to assign blame. Seek justice. Maybe even retribution. Unfortunately, our justice-seeking missiles are rarely a precision instrument, and the ultimate cause of the accident may have been well away from the floor of the accident itself. It might have been the software engineer. Who knows. But the question (as a hypothetical) remains -- if it WAS the software engineer for the control system of the widget-stamping thingie used at LG's factory in Mexico, should that engineer be held accountable?
gnu8 11y ago
Why not jail time? If someone designs an unsafe process, doesn't put guards on the machines to save a buck, or eliminates safety procedures to increase output, that is morally as reprehensible as if that person held the knife. I think it should be treated as an assault. Edit: I see this situation as more analogous to drunk driving than a simple car accident. We certainly do jail people when they unintentionally injure someone because they were drunk. It would be reasonable jail someone who prioritizes profit over human life and causes an injury as a result.
- johnchristopher 11y ago
  Isn't the whole ISO business and industry standard practices put in place to prevent that and protect everyone: workers from getting injured on the job, bosses from having to pay enormous amount of money as compensation (the insurance will kick in if the company got his ISO and stuff right) and the insurance raking in money for forcing the workplace to be safer ? (I know reality isn't that rosy but that's the objective, right ?)
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >that is morally as reprehensible as if that person held the knife. I think it should be treated as an assault. Are you guilty for buying a cheaper produce when child labor was used to produce it? Does your knowledge of the abuse going into making it cheaper matter?
  - gohrt 11y ago
    Absolutely.
  - task_queue 11y ago
    You are knowingly and directly allowing a child slave driver to profit from your purchase. Where exactly do you absolve yourself of guilt in that transaction?

s73v3r 11y ago

I don't think it's unreasonable. If the costs of these accidents are high, then they'll invest in making their processes safer. There is absolutely no excuse for having a machine like that in use.

err4nt 11y ago
if the reward for losing body parts is high, people will find a way to make it happen to collect the reward! No matter how much you reward them, it can never be so much as to ever be an incentive to somebody.
- johnchristopher 11y ago
  Ah! But then the factory builder will be forced to build safer factories to prevent workers from injuring themselves and ruining the owners. /s
fweespeech 11y ago
1) 10x the lifetime salary of a worker is high. 2) Nothing is 100% reliable or safe. We are lucky to have a 1.7% rate of serious injury/fatality in the US on a full time worker per year situation. You aren't going to be able to reduce that significantly. Operating heavy machines is dangerous.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  "10x the lifetime salary of a worker is high." So? Losing a limb is huge. "Nothing is 100% reliable or safe. We are lucky to have a 1.7% rate of serious injury/fatality in the US on a full time worker per year situation. You aren't going to be able to reduce that significantly. Operating heavy machines is dangerous." And this is an incentive for employers to keep up maintenance and make sure that their workers are properly trained. And to not do what happened in this story, which is to try to get people to cut corners so they can make a couple more units.
  - Erwin 11y ago
    Would you apply this to software engineering, and if not why not? Should the engineer that was responsible for some XSS flaw 3 years ago used today to extract personal information (which in turn can be used for identity theft) be personally required to pay damages? Should a peer that reviewed and approved their code, and maybe the sysadmin that deployed it and manage who run the projects and didn't use all possible security controls?
    - s73v3r 11y ago
      There is a difference, and it's that losing a limb can mean an end to one's ability to support themselves. Especially with cases like this one.
      - ci5er 11y ago
        As an analogy - what's the difference? What if the error was in the machine's control system logic? Should, or should not, the production tool (and software) be held accountable for what may have been ill advised use of the machine? (Reaching inside to seat the metal sheet sounds like a dodgy move. Bad design? Broken machine? Stupid operator?) When tragedy strikes, we, as moral animals, want to assign blame. Seek justice. Maybe even retribution. Unfortunately, our justice-seeking missiles are rarely a precision instrument, and the ultimate cause of the accident may have been well away from the floor of the accident itself. It might have been the software engineer. Who knows. But the question (as a hypothetical) remains -- if it WAS the software engineer for the control system of the widget-stamping thingie used at LG's factory in Mexico, should that engineer be held accountable?

gnu8 11y ago

Why not jail time? If someone designs an unsafe process, doesn't put guards on the machines to save a buck, or eliminates safety procedures to increase output, that is morally as reprehensible as if that person held the knife. I think it should be treated as an assault. Edit: I see this situation as more analogous to drunk driving than a simple car accident. We certainly do jail people when they unintentionally injure someone because they were drunk. It would be reasonable jail someone who prioritizes profit over human life and causes an injury as a result.

johnchristopher 11y ago
Isn't the whole ISO business and industry standard practices put in place to prevent that and protect everyone: workers from getting injured on the job, bosses from having to pay enormous amount of money as compensation (the insurance will kick in if the company got his ISO and stuff right) and the insurance raking in money for forcing the workplace to be safer ? (I know reality isn't that rosy but that's the objective, right ?)
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>that is morally as reprehensible as if that person held the knife. I think it should be treated as an assault. Are you guilty for buying a cheaper produce when child labor was used to produce it? Does your knowledge of the abuse going into making it cheaper matter?
- gohrt 11y ago
  Absolutely.
- task_queue 11y ago
  You are knowingly and directly allowing a child slave driver to profit from your purchase. Where exactly do you absolve yourself of guilt in that transaction?