About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Post 20

Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - 3:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
DMG: "Its ridiculous to say that an employer must provide a "safe" workplace. One could kill oneself by almost any mishap...   There are dangers in everything...  ... but I don't think negligence is a crime, only despicable in some cases.
Maybe Ayn Rand was wrong about that. Should we move this discussion to Dissent?



 


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - 3:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Maybe Ayn Rand was wrong about that. Should we move this discussion to Dissent?
I'm assuming that is intended to be a bit sarcastic. But it is difficult to know who is getting the sharp end of the stick. Is it Ayn Rand? Dean? RoR? or, Objectivists? Hard to say.... and that's what I don't like about sarcasm, or pretty much any snarky, smarmy, semi-attack kind of remark. It tends to ridicule someone, or some position, but often in a sneaky way that can be denied - "Hey, just joking!"

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 22

Thursday, September 26, 2013 - 11:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think Rand was referring to an unsafe work place that was not disclosed to the employees, one in which their informed consent was not obtained. That, I think, is the most likely interpretation.

I doubt she would say that if the employees were aware of the unsafe conditions and chose to accept them in exchange for higher pay, they should nevertheless be prevented from doing so, or that the employer should be forced to incur the cost of making his workplace safer even if it required him to lay off some of his workers or lower their pay.

Rand clearly favored freedom of contract, which would include the freedom to accept unsafe working conditions. In some occupations, especially construction, hazards of various sorts are an inescapable part of the job. To demand absolute safety in every occupation is unrealistic and in the long-run inimical to human welfare.


Post 23

Thursday, September 26, 2013 - 6:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill, I agree that the statement stands out in contrast to what we would expect, but there it is.  She did not elaborate at that moment and certainly not later.  However, realize that we are, indeed, fairly protected, at least by technology, if not the law.  Although from 1911, for Ayn Rand in NYC the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire was local history.
Because the managers had locked the doors to the stairwells and exits – a common practice at the time to prevent pilferage and unauthorized breaks – many of the workers who could not escape
the burning building jumped from the eighth, ninth, and tenth floors to the streets below.

I point out that the dead were young immigrant girls, like Rand, who herself worked a wide range of low-wage jobs between lucrative writing gigs. 

The Hamlet Chicken Factory fire of 1991 involved the same safety violation: workers locked in.
The Hamlet chicken processing plant fire was an industrial fire in Hamlet, North Carolina, at the Imperial Foods processing plant on September 3, 1991, resulting from a failure in a hydraulic line. Twenty-five were killed and 55 injured in the fire, trapped behind locked fire doors. In 11 years of operation, the plant had never received a safety inspection.
--  Wikipedia here

I would say that it is within the proper police powers of the government to inspect a factory on the same basis that the police would stop and frisk a known felon to see if he is carrying a firearm. ... and yes an insurance inspection certificate perhaps would meet their needs and they could go about their business elsewhere...

But I agree that everything is dangerous.  If you stretch the numbers a bit, your chances of getting killed in a jet liner are about the same as getting killed while jumping on the couch, hence, mom was right. I have worked for Kawasaki and Honda. The Japanese firms tend to be very safe compared to their American counterparts, but here is story about Nissan in Smyrna, Tennessee, where three people died in unrelated incidents over 18 months.  Again, risks are everywhere. That is life.  So, I see that side of the argument, also. That said, it is at least a two-sided problem.

Taking responsibility for your own safety is another aspect.


Post 24

Thursday, September 26, 2013 - 7:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I would say that it is within the proper police powers of the government to inspect a factory on the same basis that the police would stop and frisk a known felon to see if he is carrying a firearm. ... and yes an insurance inspection certificate perhaps would meet their needs and they could go about their business elsewhere...
Marotta appears to have tossed individual rights out the window. Read what follows as if it were stated in a tone dripping with sarcasm.

Stop and frisk? Sure, why not. The government using police powers to inspect factories? Sure, why not. As long as any fool can voice a horror story about bad things that might happen, then they think they should make a law, create some regulations, send in a bunch of inspectors, and pay no attention to the difference between exercising the use of force as self-defense or retaliation and the use of force to violate people's freely made choices.

Obesity kills millions more than factory safety features ever could, so lets pass a bunch of laws and regulations to control exactly what everyone can eat. Hey, should we make serial over-eating a felony? Then we could do a stop and frisk for hidden Twinkies.
-----------

Where does Marotta think "proper police powers of government" come from if not individual rights and the Constitution?

Post 25

Thursday, September 26, 2013 - 9:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael wrote,
But I agree that everything is dangerous. If you stretch the numbers a bit, your chances of getting killed in a jet liner are about the same as getting killed while jumping on the couch, hence, mom was right. I have worked for Kawasaki and Honda. The Japanese firms tend to be very safe compared to their American counterparts, but here is story about Nissan in Smyrna, Tennessee, where three people died in unrelated incidents over 18 months. Again, risks are everywhere. That is life. So, I see that side of the argument, also. That said, it is at least a two-sided problem.
No it isn't. It is not a two-sided problem, and here's why. If there is an implied element of safety that's ignored by the management, then that constitutes a violation of rights, because it is not disclosed to the workers. If there is a certain level of implied safety that is not maintained, then the labor contract is violated. The crime here is not simply in providing an "unsafe work environment," but in providing a work environment that does not meet the level of safety implied in the contract. In other words, the crime is in the commission of fraud.


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.