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 : My House -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (6684)	4/9/2003 4:29:57 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7689

How about the right to a safe working environment? Should one have to choose to increase their risk of cancer (i.e., death) by taking a job? In another related context, should employers not be required to provide a safe environment for workers at all? What if you own a machine tool shop and a machine has an inherent defect where a belt slips and causes a worker to be chopped into little pieces (i.e., death) every few years. A new machine is pretty expensive and may ruin the economics of the business. If a machine chops up one worker for every thousand days of operation, is that ok? How about one worker for every ten thousand days of operation? Or closer to the point, what if friable asbestos is hanging from the rafters and pipes in the workplace and is present in measurable amounts in the air. Should workers have to face the choice of asbestos exposure (which causes a specific type of incurable cancer as well as other ailments) or not taking the job?