Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (1209)	3/5/2002 12:20:23 AM
From: jcky	Respond to of 21057

< Indeed, the justices seemed troubled by the idea that a company's hands would be tied if a worker insisted on doing a job that might lead to serious illness or death. > Yes, it's called a freeking lawsuit. You know the story. I am a victim of my circumstances, even though, I choose, of my own volition, to put myself in hazard's way. But I am not responsible for my actions.... (Now, if you're a really opportunistic lawyer, you'll add that your client was mentally incapable of making this decision from the duress imposed by his underlying illness and his employers should have known better. Therefore, the employers are responsible, or liable, for putting him in harm's way. <g>)

To: TimF who wrote (1209)	3/5/2002 5:31:43 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I wonder if he - and all heirs and dependents - would also waive all right to compensation if he gets the job and the predicted worsening of his illness occurs?