RoR: Forum

I can see some different issues that it might help to consider:

1) There is a significant difference between ethical and legal. This can become confusing in business arrangements because there are so many laws, and because the employee-employer relationship is a contractual and legal relationship.

2) Was there a disclosure or understanding of who held this liability prior to this assignment that was explicitly part of the hiring process (goes to contract)?

3) Does the employer know of a dangerous, but undisclosed danger to the employee that wouldn't be obvious to the average person taking that job? In other words that issue is separate from who is going to pay resulting damages. If this is the case, the unethical and perhaps illegal action is not the reassignment of liability, but the withholding of knowledge of the danger.

4) I assume that this assignment of risk is a kind of insurance package. That the business pays a premium and the 'risk' agency pays when a compensation claim is sustained by the employee. If that is the case and we assume that it is more profitable for the business to things this way (which is all to the good in and of itself), the only question becomes would the employee lose an ability to collect an amount that they would have been able to collect before this new arrangement?

5) If I were involved my FIRST thought would be WHY is it being kept secret - I'm very leery of things that are kept secret. When something is being taken away from someone, if it is possible, it'll be disguised or hidden.

Don't know if any of that helps, but there you go.

Post 1

Monday, January 17, 2011 - 8:32pm

Sounds like insurance fraud to me. I'm sure the insurance coverage assigns responsibility to the employer to take whatever reasonable steps it can to limit risk. Also an insurance agent most likely makes a site visit and places contractual conditions on what the employer needs to change to make his work environment more safe.

By the way a lot of businesses take out a liability insurance policy. It's just a way to protect the business from being financially wiped out from a possible liability claim.

Post 2

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 6:06am

If I actually made the effort to review my past actions involving other individuals, I do not doubt I would come up with the following instances, with the result of exposing some other person to risk of physical or emotional harm.

1. I hastily, carelessly or stupidly initiated some action that had put someone in harms way or otherwise exposed them to undue risk.

2. I 'knew' I was exposing someone to bespoke risk: but for some - likely self serving - reason I chose not to disclose my knowledge/awareness of the risk.

#1 was NOT unethical.
#2 was in my opinion an 'unethical' act.

Post 3

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 7:12am

Terry,

I disagree with you on your example #1 where you said that hastily, carelessly or stupidly initiating some action that puts someone in harms way or otherwise exposes them to undue risk is not unethical. We have a responsibility to exercise a reasonable amount of care in those actions that can cause harm.

It is easy to come up with examples... say an airlines pilot who gets drunk the night before he knows he is scheduled to fly. He is sober the next day, but hung-over and has reduced reflexes and reduced mental clarity. He tells himself that he is okay to fly and it is a route he knows like the back of his hand, and he hadn't meant to get drunk, he just got careless and didn't pay enough attention to the number of drinks his friends gave him - it was his birthday.

Or, the person who tailgates the driver ahead of them on the freeway because they are in a big hurry to get somewhere, and they let themselves act carelessly because they are talking on their cell phone. Nothing happened and it was only a moment where they let themselves get so close that they wouldn't have been able to stop in time.

The fact that these two individuals chose to repress or deny or avoid the danger they were putting others in doesn't make it ethical. The test is "should they have known that their actions were wrong" and "did they exercise the caution that a reasonable person would under those circumstances" - being hasty or careless or acting stupidly don't relieve them of their responsibilities.

(And I'm not sure how it fits in with Teresa's question.)

Post 4

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 7:40am

Terry, Steve is right. The law recognizes this and assigns a level of care to each party that they are legally responsible for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_care

Post 5

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 10:22am

TSI: "Employer suspects a dangerous working condition, say, an electrical problem in the employee's environment. Unable to afford the repair, he leases the employee's liability insurance to a third party, and remains silent. Employee is oblivious to the employer's worry over their safety, and possible liability . Shouldn't an employee be given the opportunity to make his/her own choice? "

You asked the question, so you must have doubts; and I would say, properly so. It is an evasion of reality: the situation exists; lying about it to someone else is not a solution. Try writing that into Atlas Shrugged. Do you see that going on at Readen Steel, or at the Winston Station? Of course it is immoral.

Steve asked about what was apparent to the average person. I point to the Wikipedia article I cited in the Stuxnet discussion, the one about Progammable Logic Controllers. No screen; no keyboard; just a little box the size of an iPhone or iPad and it controls a process that runs literally and actually 100,000 times a minute, along a line maybe 100 yards long. Where is the failure point? Will it be the water line above your or the air line below you or the actuator in front of you? Steve is a fairly smart guy. I wonder what his standard for "normal" is. I worked with guys who have IQs of 85. They are slow normals. They drive cars safely, enjoy television shows, and build things in their garages and basements. They just sort of take the world as they find it and don't think too much about it. If killing one of them to save money seems wrong, it is because it is.

And, I point to Stuart Hayashi's essay here in RoR about arguing metaphysical impossibilities. You said that the factory owner cannot afford the repairs. You mean, he misses his mortgage and ends up hungry and on the street with his wife and kids? To me, this is just a case of "does not want to afford."

And even if it were the case that this final maintenance item was the one that sank the company and closed the doors, then that is reality. Thinking that temporary fix can remedy the situation is a means-ends fallacy.

According to the problem, the worker is still covered by insurance, just by someone else's. Neither party knows the actual dangers. Now, in some sense that is always true. However, as presented, in this case, there is a real and known danger being denied and hidden. No amount of arguing can make it right.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 1/18, 10:32am)

Post 6

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 10:41am

Michael,

What the fuck are you talking about?!!! You wrote, "If killing one of them to save money seems wrong, it is because it is" in a sentence about my post so as to imply that I'm okay with killing a guy!!!

NOTHING in my post would even remotely imply that!

I have no intention of discussing what you fail to grasp about the relationship between IQ and standards of responsibility till you take the responsibility for editing that post of yours.

Post 7

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 11:01am

I never retract a statement. I will apologize for hurting your feelings. I did not mean to imply that you would sanction such an act. Please allow me to clarify my intentions.

I agree with your easy standard -- it is the one from law -- the reasonable person, the average man. I do question your standard. You know yourself best. You are pretty smart. So, you might not readily take the perspective of the Other who is nonetheless "reasonable" and (all too) "average." And as unstated, then, I add now, only that we all might make the same mistake. From that assumption, I question what the so-called "average person" would expect to perceive in a factory.

That is all. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Post 8

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 11:52am

Michael never retracts a statement. That is kind of like being able to be wrong while proudly proclaiming that you don't formally admit to such things as a mistake on your part. Keeping one's cake and eating it too while pretending that no one is on to that act.

Michael, if you read my post a tad more closely you'll see it wasn't 'hurt' feelings... it was anger over your implying I think it is okay to kill someone whose IQ is 85.

You shouldn't be apologizing over my feelings, you should relinquish your pompous, non-retraction position and be apologizing for a mis-statement, or defending your statement with logic. Anything else is either some kind of self-made blindness as to the context, or a from of intellectual cowardice.

Post 9

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 6:26pm

On the one hand, I see value or merit in Marotta's policy of not erasing published statements in the sense that it would be like burning a book. There was some set of external data which some mind, working with its own set of introspective data, made some kind of a proposition. Ideas can be unknowingly priceless and we should be very careful about what we choose to erase inside the 'marketplace of ideas'.

On the other hand, Steve has a reputation which can be said to have been harmed by what Marotta said. So there is a potential justice issue at hand. Some ideas are slanderous. Reading a recent biography, I was surprised to learn that even Ayn Rand retracted things. She was not someone who, once she stated a position, would possessively defend it until either her opponent was destroyed or she destroyed herself in the process (of defending a bad position). Many people think that about her but, just like Flat-Earthers, many people can be wrong about the same thing at the same time.

She is someone who could admit when she was wrong.

Ed

p.s. While I think that Marotta at least half-insinuated murderous intent on the part of Steve, I don't think Marotta should be forced to retract his potentially-libelous statement. This is because I also integrate that it is in Marotta's nature to do such things. Marotta is a "shock & awe" kind of a guy (at least online). Now, this could be turned around on me. Someone could say that, if what I say is true, then you can't punish a criminal -- if it was in his nature to do the crime. I maintain, without explanation, that the two are different.

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/19, 6:26pm)

Post 10

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 6:42pm

Ed,

I wouldn't describe him as a "shock and awe" kind of guy. I'd say he is the kind of guy who willingly sacrifices truth to get an emotional rise out of his readers.

You said something about forcing him to do a retraction. I wouldn't force him to do anything in that area, if I could. His unwillingness to make a retraction just tells the world about his character, not mine.

Post 11

Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 8:20pm

Steve,

Good point about force.

In Marotta's defense, I've seen him admit that he was wrong before: twice. Once was when he was arguing with me about gorilla nutrition, and then more recently regarding the history of physics. Now, two times doesn't seem like much, but in my years here, I've noticed that as much as half of the public forum participants have trouble ever admitting that they were wrong about anything. It reminds me of political debate, really.

p.s., I can speak freely and casually on the subject because I have the advantage of being one of the good guys -- I admit to being wrong at least 2 or 3 times every year. Considering my numerous years, that's a lot of admissions of mistakes. Of course, I post a lot, so we could go into the proportions and discover the percentages, but my point is that there are some (perhaps half of everyone) who do not have the good character to ever admit being wrong, and Marotta -- in spite of other misgivings -- is not one of those folks.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/20, 8:21pm)

Post 12

Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 11:22pm

Ed,

He implied that I'm okay with killing people whose IQ's are low and now he can't be bothered to back that up, or retract it. That is a lack of character that goes far beyond failing to admit a simple mis-statement or an unwillingness to admit having held the wrong position in a factual dispute.

Post 13

Friday, January 21, 2011 - 12:09am

Steve,

I'm going to have to disagree with your evaluation for the following reasons.

Marotta said that he didn't mean the murderous implication, that he had an alternative point besides making you out to be some kind of terrible murderer (questioning the idea of the "reasonable" or the "average" -- in both law and life). Folks reading the thread will understand that much about what he said. I'm in somewhat disbelief that I'm defending Marotta, after he has cut me with his sharp tongue so many times in the past -- but he did get right to the point (with no B.S.) after you reacted.

Like Ayn Rand respecting Phil Donahue, I can respect that behavior in Marotta.

Ed

Post 14

Friday, January 21, 2011 - 11:38am

Returning to the original question: Teresa asked,

Employer suspects a dangerous working condition, say, an electrical problem in the employee's environment. Unable to afford the repair, he leases the employee's liability insurance to a third party, and remains silent. Employee is oblivious to the employer's worry over their safety, and possible liability .

Shouldn't an employee be given the opportunity to make his/her own choice?

Yes, absolutely. Then the employee can decide whether or not he wants to assume the risk, or he can ask to be compensated with a pay increase for assuming it. Once the employee is informed of the risk and chooses to continue working there, the employer is absolved of responsibility if the worker is injured or killed in an accident.

Post 15

Friday, January 21, 2011 - 11:50am