4 ms·
Simple: it's the company's responsibility to mitigate as much of that risk as is possible. That woman is selling her time to the company, it's the responsibilit
by Delmania 11y ago
Simple: it's the company's responsibility to mitigate as much of that risk as is possible. That woman is selling her time to the company, it's the responsibility of the company to ensure she has the safest and most comfortable working conditions possible.
When she is injured, even if she is "aware of the risk", the company is to blame.
- dimino 11y agoWhy is the company to blame? They mitigated risk enough to convince her to work there, no one was lied to or misled.
- MichaelGG 11y agoHow do you know that no one was lied to or misled? The article was scant on details. Putting a high cost on accidents means that companies will take safety very seriously.
- task_queue 11y agoIt's unacceptable to "mitigate risk enough" because laborers are motivated by the fact that they have needs and dependents' needs that have to be met. That is their motivation for working anywhere. They have no other recourse but to engage in the time <-> compensation transaction. Because of this, people lose their agency to act a truly free agent in that transaction. Companies have the privilege of total knowledge of their facilities and processes. They also know there is a teeming pool of people that will take shit jobs because food and shelter is a necessity. There is an asymmetry in that relation that allows some pretty evil things to happen as history has shown. We've decided that pulling the "it was truly informed consent" card is a dishonest way to describe that transaction, because desperate people will be injured and killed so an employer can save a buck.