When I lost my hands making flatscreens I can't afford, nobody would help me | Hacker News Reader

When I lost my hands making flatscreens I can't afford, nobody would help me

theguardian.com

161 pointswerber76 comments

This person should rightfully be receiving most of the gross profits from the company making the displays as compensation for the loss of her hands, and the people responsible for designing an unsafe production process should be in prison, treated exactly the same as if they had walked up to her on the street and chopped her hands off with an ax.

This is not hyperbole, this is simple fairness and justice. The shareholders shouldn't receive a dime until after their victims have received their share, and any person or company complicit in unsafe industrial practices belongs in prison just as surely as if they had directly assaulted someone, because assault is what it is. There is zero reason to risk any human's personal safety just to increase a profit margin, and if we need to put executives, managers and engineers in prison to get that message across, so be it.

I think this is unreasonable simply because industrial accidents do happen and they aren't 100% preventable, much like car accidents. There should be [large] amounts of financial compensation [like $2.5 million, or about 10x what she'd have made at $400/month for 50 years] but "most of the gross profits" and "jail time" is ridiculous.

https://www.osha.gov/oshstats/commonstats.html

> 3.3 per 100,000 in the US die

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/osh_12042014.htm

> Over half of the more than 3.0 million private industry injury and illness cases reported in 2013 were of a more serious nature that involved days away from work, job transfer, or restriction (DART cases). These cases occurred at a rate of 1.7 cases per 100 full-time workers, a statistically significant decrease from 2012.

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

> Fatalities per 100,000 Licensed Drivers

> 15.84 in 2012, 23.21 in 1994

There are, frankly, far more dangerous for-profit machines that people happily refrain from suggesting those sorts of penalties for.

I don't think it's unreasonable. If the costs of these accidents are high, then they'll invest in making their processes safer. There is absolutely no excuse for having a machine like that in use.

if the reward for losing body parts is high, people will find a way to make it happen to collect the reward! No matter how much you reward them, it can never be so much as to ever be an incentive to somebody.

Ah! But then the factory builder will be forced to build safer factories to prevent workers from injuring themselves and ruining the owners.

1) 10x the lifetime salary of a worker is high.

2) Nothing is 100% reliable or safe. We are lucky to have a 1.7% rate of serious injury/fatality in the US on a full time worker per year situation. You aren't going to be able to reduce that significantly. Operating heavy machines is dangerous.

"10x the lifetime salary of a worker is high."

So? Losing a limb is huge.

"Nothing is 100% reliable or safe. We are lucky to have a 1.7% rate of serious injury/fatality in the US on a full time worker per year situation. You aren't going to be able to reduce that significantly. Operating heavy machines is dangerous."

And this is an incentive for employers to keep up maintenance and make sure that their workers are properly trained. And to not do what happened in this story, which is to try to get people to cut corners so they can make a couple more units.

Would you apply this to software engineering, and if not why not?

Should the engineer that was responsible for some XSS flaw 3 years ago used today to extract personal information (which in turn can be used for identity theft) be personally required to pay damages? Should a peer that reviewed and approved their code, and maybe the sysadmin that deployed it and manage who run the projects and didn't use all possible security controls?

There is a difference, and it's that losing a limb can mean an end to one's ability to support themselves. Especially with cases like this one.

As an analogy - what's the difference?

What if the error was in the machine's control system logic?

Should, or should not, the production tool (and software) be held accountable for what may have been ill advised use of the machine? (Reaching inside to seat the metal sheet sounds like a dodgy move. Bad design? Broken machine? Stupid operator?)

When tragedy strikes, we, as moral animals, want to assign blame. Seek justice. Maybe even retribution.

Unfortunately, our justice-seeking missiles are rarely a precision instrument, and the ultimate cause of the accident may have been well away from the floor of the accident itself. It might have been the software engineer. Who knows. But the question (as a hypothetical) remains -- if it WAS the software engineer for the control system of the widget-stamping thingie used at LG's factory in Mexico, should that engineer be held accountable?

We are lucky to have a 1.7% rate of serious injury/fatality in the US on a full time worker per year situation.

Where did that figure come from? That would indicate that if you work full-time for forty years, you've got a roughly fifty-fifty chance of serious injury or fatality (or about a thirty percent chance over twenty years).

That seems far, far too high. Is this a particular kind of worker? I'm sure I'd notice if about half of all employees didn't make it to retirement without being killed or seriously injured.

Did you not read my first comment?

Perhaps I was using a different definition than you were expecting but 'serious injury' to me means serious enough that it impacts your ability to perform your job, at least temporarily.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/osh_12042014.htm

Injuries and illnesses by type of case Over half of the more than 3.0 million private industry injury and illness cases reported in 2013 were of a more serious nature that involved days away from work, job transfer, or restriction (DART cases). These cases occurred at a rate of 1.7 cases per 100 full-time workers, a statistically significant decrease from 2012. (See table 7.) The rates for the two components of DART cases--cases involving days away from work and cases requiring job transfer or restriction--was unchanged at 1.0 and 0.7 case per 100 workers, respectively, in 2013. Other recordable cases--those not involving days away from work, job transfer, or restriction--accounted for the remaining 1.4 million injury and illness cases in 2013 and was unchanged at a rate of 1.6 cases per 100 full-time workers.

The TRC injury and illness incidence rate remained highest in 2013 among mid-size private industry establishments (those employing between 50 and 249 workers) and lowest among small establishments (those employing fewer than 11 workers). (See table 3 and chart 2.)

Why not jail time? If someone designs an unsafe process, doesn't put guards on the machines to save a buck, or eliminates safety procedures to increase output, that is morally as reprehensible as if that person held the knife. I think it should be treated as an assault.

Edit: I see this situation as more analogous to drunk driving than a simple car accident. We certainly do jail people when they unintentionally injure someone because they were drunk. It would be reasonable jail someone who prioritizes profit over human life and causes an injury as a result.

Isn't the whole ISO business and industry standard practices put in place to prevent that and protect everyone: workers from getting injured on the job, bosses from having to pay enormous amount of money as compensation (the insurance will kick in if the company got his ISO and stuff right) and the insurance raking in money for forcing the workplace to be safer ? (I know reality isn't that rosy but that's the objective, right ?)

>that is morally as reprehensible as if that person held the knife. I think it should be treated as an assault.

Are you guilty for buying a cheaper produce when child labor was used to produce it? Does your knowledge of the abuse going into making it cheaper matter?

Absolutely.

You are knowingly and directly allowing a child slave driver to profit from your purchase.

Where exactly do you absolve yourself of guilt in that transaction?

This is horrendous on the part of the managers:

   “I want you to work faster, because we need the 
   material urgently,” he said.

   I screamed. Everyone around me was crying and yelling. 
   They stopped the assembly line on the female side of 
   the room, but the men were told to keep working.

In my first year in university, before picking my specialization (computers), we had to study the basics of all the engineering disciplines, including mechanical engineering. One day in workshop class, we were given the assignment of making a nut -- a nut, from a metal block, using a hammer and chisel. After laboring at it for hours and producing completely uneven hexagon, I asked the instructor:

"Why do we have to learn this? I'm studying to be an engineer. I'll never be doing this."

The instructor replied, "So you will know the difficulty the tasks you order others to do."

I felt immediately humbled. Fifteen years on, I've never forgotten this. In my position, I can't avoid putting pressure on people to perform anymore. But as much as possible, I've learned to see if it's something I could do myself if I were in the same position.

Pushing people to work harder is not management.

That's idealistic, but the logic of raw capitalism suggests otherwise.

If a management philosophy increases worker stress by 500% but increases widget production by 5%, then companies that implement that philosophy will outperform, outcompete, and devour companies that don't. If one of out ten workers suffer a life debilitating injury but you can reduce the cost of that worker's injury to you to effectively zero (at least, to an amount much smaller than the additional profit you make), then you're still running a sound business.

In theory public outrage might punish companies that do mistreat their workers, but, let's be real: the vast bulk of the market prefers unethically produced widgets to ethically produced ones that are 10% pricier. And even a company that sells itself on being ethical is, as likely as not, just using that as a marketing campaign to hike up profits while still treating workers terribly.

Luckily there are countries where unions still matter.

The governments that control where workers actually manufacture things, however, either ban, co-opt, or brutalize unions.

It's no coincidence that China is a manufacturing capital of the world, and all independent unions are banned.

In Mexico, where this woman had her hands ripped away from her, unions are theoretically allowed to organize and participate in strike actions. In fact, though, all worker activism has to be approved by the local government, which is more often than not in a corrupt alliance with local businesses.

That is why we should pay with our wallets and try to buy goods (if possible) from countries where governments allow their citizens to have proper working conditions.

Maybe if enough people do this, the remaining countries pay attention and try to improve the conditions.

It is a kind of utopian dream, but better than pretending that the shiny TV isn't a product from slavery.

good luck finding an union in Mexico.

In fact, a recent Mexican law fordibs "people grouping together".

And outsourcing is now legal btw, thanks to another new law. So, any benefits mexicans had they are gone too.

And good luck living with a settlement of USD 1,200 (unique payment)

the logic of raw capitalism suggests otherwise

The logic of raw capitalism concerns private ownership of the means of production. That's all. I can give many examples of state-owned enterprises over the years treating their employees in just such an abominable way.

Apparently, it is now illegal in the US to account for a worker as a low fixed cost capital asset, and instead we must treat all workers as a higher variable cost fungible commodity input. This makes a big difference on how one treats that piece of economic production equipment. (Or "cog in the wheel", we might call it?)

In any case - it's horrifying. I know that the US can't do much about mandating working conditions in factories in other countries. And we can't do much (this is in reaction to a comment ITT asserting that the shareholders shouldn't get their return until this is taken care of) about companies that are not headquartered (nor traded) in the US. (LG is, as you know, not an American company)

That said - this is one of those things that the company's liability insurance should be for. I don't know the mechanics involved, but it seems as if as a condition of importing a product into the US for retails sales, then one could ask for an annual report of claims: Number of factory workers, # of injuries; # of claims; # of settlements; amounts (in number of year equivalents of their normal salary). This could probably be avoided by shell company arrangements, so it may be both bureaucratically onerous and hard to enforce fairly.

Isn't the instructors point largely undermined by the fact that making nuts by taking hammer and chisel to a block of metal is not how nuts are generally actually made? Here's how nuts are actually made [1].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kidWBeyOMA0

No need for the "well-actually", that's not the point. You might as well question whether engineers will be ordering other people to make nuts in the first place.

The point is that there is a right way to do things, and a wrong way to do things, and engineers give instructions so they better be careful about what they're asking people to do.

I've had to metaphorically chisel plenty of nuts from a solid block of metal because of some instruction from an engineer somewhere.

Think of the nut as a metaphor that can apply to any engineering job that the manager doesn't have to get his hands dirty with. I think that was the point.

It's grossly simplistic to assume that a single person is somehow responsible for deliberately designing a known-to-be deficient system. Hindsight is always 20:20 and safety is one of those things that improves over time as accidents occur and measures are taken to prevent their reoccurance. Just think of how many safety features a modern car has: were 1980's cars criminally unsafe - no, they simply hadn't yet incorporated lessons yet to be learnt and technologies yet to be invented.

There's a huge grey area too, as workers often ignore safety rules or bypass them to save time. An accident with a machine might be due to a worker failing to operate it correctly or to double-check that some mechanism is correctly engaged. It might be the fault of a mechanic who has incorrectly maintained the machine. It might be a flaw in the design of the machine, which could not be foreseen. It might be a fault with the machine due to a supplier, e.g. inferior bolts. It might be the fault of a fellow worker, who forgot to perform a safety check - should we throw them in jail? Whatever the case, the employer should compensate the worker - and do so justly - but the issue of the employer's criminal responsibility is complex indeed.

From a legal standpoint it's vital to distinguish between someone who unwittingly designs something unsafe, having followed reasonable and standard practice versus someone who is negligent and actively ignores the safety of others. Criminal negligence exists and is prosecuted, but it's important to realise that accidents can and do happen.

America's wealth is built upon the labor of foreigners whose treatment would be illegal if they were in America. Even our working class benefits. We reflect blame to the "greedy billionaires" but in reality all of us enjoy $thousands of consumer value derived from the suffering of non-Americans. Some of us ignore it, others of us hide behind willfully twisted logic about how the laborers are better off with jobs than without, ignoring the lies employers tell, the violence against employees, and the outsider-driven destruction of their independent opportunities.

We need harsher penalties and stricter oversight for companies responsible for such activities. Consumers cannot be expected to know the complete history of every product they purchase, especially when companies have so many levels of subcontracting that even government agencies have a hard time untangling them.

We need to push for reforms at the political level, but we can't all bear the guilt personally. Our only other option would be to completely halt spending.

How many American companies make flatscreens? I bet if you read the article you'll find that it's not an American company.

The comment you're replying to seems pretty clear on that point.

> America's wealth is built upon the labor of foreigners whose treatment would be illegal if they were in America.

American companies outsource this sort of manufacturing because it's cheap. Stories like this are part of why it's so cheap, and corporations have been pretty effective at disconnecting consumers from this sort of human cost to their expensive consumer devices.

American companies outsource this sort of manufacturing because it's cheap.

Which American companies? LG is not an American company, and they are nobody's subsidiary.

LG has over a hundred local subsidiaries, of which LG USA is one. As with most consumer electronics companies, they outsource much of their production to smaller companies like the Mexican factory in the story.

So we're all in agreement that it's a Korean company? The mothership is in Seoul. The rant about American companies is misplaced here.

Who is talking a about companies? GP post is about consumers.

Also happens here in the U.S., though not as bad of course. https://www.propublica.org/article/how-much-is-your-arm-wort....

This sort of thing is what frightens me the most about globalization.[1] We have a hard enough time convincing our own scummy businesspeople that someone who is disabled in the course of their work should be taken care of. Globalization forces us to fight that battle against scummy businesspeople all over the world, in places that value human life and dignity a lot less than we do.[2]

Several years ago, I was in Buffalo, NY, a city devastated by deindustrialization. I was chatting with my cab driver, a woman. She was telling me about how her husband got injured at his factory and could no longer work. He gets a small disability benefit, but not enough to get the surgery he needs to be able to get back to work. That sort of thing is such a huge societal loss. We'd rather save a bit of money up front at the expense of keeping this guy on disability the rest of his life.

[1] Even within the U.S. there is a race to the bottom. Alabama pays out only $37,000 for the loss of a hand, not much more than this woman received in Mexico adjusting for purchasing power. In Illinois it's about $280,000 for one hand.

[2] Even if we don't always value it as highly as we should.

She has a GoFundMe up, it seems.

http://www.gofundme.com/newhandsforrosa

I sent a comment into the charity to ask if it's legit.

edit: Got a response.

> Thank you so much for your email and for your interest in Ms. Moreno's story. We are extremely pleased to see the outpouring of support from around the world for Rosa. Presenting her with the Illuminating Injustice Award is just a small way for us to help make her life easier, and I am certain she will be very gratified at the encouragement and assistance she receives from kindhearted and outraged folks such as you. That being said, we cannot confirm whether the link you provided is to a legitimate fundraiser for Rosa. We are directing everyone who asks to the link below if they wish to donate to Rosa: Rosa Moreno Fund: www.rosamorenofund.com

I can't find any donate buttons on the last site...

There's a PayPal donate button. Maybe you've got it adblocked?

and you got to click the "donate" button, not the paypal logo

I'm finding it difficult to tell if any of these links are legit although they appear to be. The gofundme page is not asking for much (£5,000).

I wonder if Watsi.org could help here as well.

So I have an LG television, and now I'm always going to wonder if it came from the same factory and its construction utilized the same dangerous equipment. Does give me a sick feeling after reading this.

I'm considering replacing it, but how would that even happen? We have farms that pledge ethical treatment of animals, but I can't even think of an electronics manufacture that pledges any kind of ethical treatment of factory workers. That's pretty sad. I'm sure that Samsung factories, for example, have similar conditions.

The sad part is that all of these factory workers are just placeholders until robotic technology advances a bit more.

> ... all of these factory workers are just placeholders until robotic technology advances a bit more.

Sorry, that's a cop-out. I somewhat agree with you up until that point, and the sad truth is probably that the only way to avoid feeding the beast is not own smartphones or advanced electronics. Full-stop. Which leaves you hanging out with Stallman. Each of us makes this call.

But to say that "all of these [people]" are just placeholders, and robotics is just "a bit" further away strikes me as rationalizing. We're probably several decades from wide-spread, pervasive, advanced robotics automation. Heck, auto assembly lines and such have had advanced robotics for several decades already. A whole-sale transition to a post-worker economy is definitely not just-around-the-corner. As a society -- let alone a global population -- we have never succeeded in reducing day-to-day work, despite all the automation we have at our disposal. We just set out expectations higher, to something that still takes 40-hour work weeks to accomplish.

Is it justified to create a market for abuse if the want for what is produced is strong enough?

Depends. An acquaintance of mine moved his small textile plant from Italy to India in 2009, and ended up not even unpacking a good third of the machinery because it was cheaper to do those tasks by hand, and because having a higher employee count helped with local politics.

I didn't mean that as a rationalization--it actual makes the exploitation even worse, I think. I feel like the momentum of research around factories is invested in reducing the number of human workers rather than making conditions better for the ones still needed. That's the inevitable direction to head, but it does create a lost generation.

Meanwhile, you are right--we'e had advanced robotics for a long time. But I feel there's recently been an explosion in computer vision; the kind of thing that's only recently made driverless cars a practical reality. Combined with the crash in costs for computational power, I think we're about to witness a moment in history where the march towards automation is going to become really accelerated.

"We're probably several decades from wide-spread, pervasive, advanced robotics automation. Heck, auto assembly lines and such have had advanced robotics for several decades already. A whole-sale transition to a post-worker economy is definitely not just-around-the-corner."

It's not as simple as "is the technology there". It's a balancing act between costs. Is it cheaper to hire people to work these factories, or is it cheaper to dump some R&D money into robotics and then install them? There's also a degree of uncertainty with the robotics, but ultimately workers can be replaced either because robots become cheaper or because workers become more expensive.

It's really not a rationalization because I don't feel it justifies mistreating workers, but it's worth keeping in mind that there is a tipping point. Part of the problem is that you or I or the workers on the line have no idea what that tipping point is, which creates a lot of FUD, which corporations happily exploit. "Oh, you really don't want to ask for benefit Y, that just might make the robots cheaper...".

And as far as people still working 40 hours a week, you're right. But what do you think this lady is going to do (even if she had her hands) if the robots replace factory workers? McDonalds is already doing some pilots of replacing their in-shop workers with robots, and the cashiers are now just kiosks. How long is it before all the low skill jobs are gone, and the displaced workers don't have the money to learn skills?

This is why the notion of “voting with your dollar” as a hedge against deregulated industries behaving unethically is the worst joke in lassaiz-faire capitalism.

> I'm considering replacing it.

LG uses planned obsolesence. So it'll bust a capacitor within 5 years. You can replace it yourself for around $20 if you have the tools, but most get a new TV from a different brand.

I completely understand that there are certain jobs which are going to be inherently dangerous no matter how much people try to advocate for safety. On the other hand, it's unacceptable how safety is just throw to the side for the sake of efficiency.

This article just makes me realize how fortunate I am, when I'm pressured to do things faster I always complain that it leads to poor quality and less maintainable code. But hell, we can always go back and fix it later.

Besides donating to this person, I wonder what we can do to stop things like this from happening. Would having things manufactured in the US help prevent something like this with labor laws? I mean with all the technology we have now, I can't believe things like this are still happening.

> Besides donating to this person, I wonder what we can do to stop things like this from happening. Would having things manufactured in the US help prevent something like this with labor laws? I mean with all the technology we have now, I can't believe things like this are still happening.

The US has labor laws and unions that exist in part to prevent stuff like this. They're not perfect - people still get hurt here in industrial accidents - but they're pretty important.

Heavy machines are typically triggered by the operator. In the old days, it might have been with a foot switch. The latest safety protocol would require dual hand switches: that is the operator has to press two different buttons far apart enough to require the use of different hands. However, operators have been found to intentionally set heavy objects on one switch to keep it permanently activated, or bypass safety in other ways. Other solutions include requiring a key to insert and turn the key is physically attached to their body by a cord, such that they can't even reach the danger area with the key inserted.

Modern machines also have several redundant safety mechanisms. One of them is the "light gate": beams of light cross the open space between the worker and the machine, and the machine will only activate when the beams are unimpeded. There was a recent comment thread on HN where folks were discussing the "safety relays" that make it possible. Modern heavy machines are designed to safely stop under power loss or the violation of safety protocol.

I don't know what safety standards a factory in Mexico would operate under, and we don't know what caused the accident here. For all we know it could be something horrid like a machine on a timer with no safety at all, or a foot pedal with no light gate.

I am not up to speed on labor law but my impression was that these precautions are required in the US, and that the typical factory machine, with its dangerous parts wrapped in a cage, with a hole for the operator protected by light gate, or requiring a dual button, that in standard operating mode is relatively safe.

Before calling for more safety, we should know more about this situation. Were safety protocols followed? Was the machine properly maintained and working correctly? What caused the machine to activate? (The article says the machine "fell on" her hands which I take to mean that it activated and its movement motion was downward, not fell as in fell over) Why did the safety mechanisms fail? We need an NTSB for accidents like this (if there isn't). Without this information it's hard to say who or whether anyone is at fault, or what we should do to improve factory safety.

Nevertheless, some jobs are intrinsically unsafe, like mining. These jobs should offer fair disability or death insurance to the employees for sure, paid for mostly or fully by the employer. Insurance is one good way to solve the problem because insurance adjusters will require the safest factory possible or else hike the company's premiums; so the pursuit of lower premiums will lead businesses to be safer (and if they're not super, then at least the business has fully covered the disability for the worker). The first step to safety should be requiring the factory to paid the costs of the injured worker.

One comment on something you said--

Where you said "lazy operators have been found..." I'd change it to "scared and underpaid operators under constant pressure to work faster have been found..."

You're right. People might do that for a variety of reasons. Removed "lazy".

If you're up for some slacktivism, when you share the article on Twitter, put @LGUS in front of the word flat screen. Should raise some awareness...

I can't do much, but I can take 3 seconds to tap this up. I hope everyone does the same. Thus community should reflect a moment on the downside cost of all this electronics we have.

You won't do much. You can find this man, give him your spare income, and help support him for the rest of your life. You could do this. Hell, you could be his personal butler for the rest of your life.

You won't, and personally I think that's completely okay, but your comment reads a little too much like slacktivism for my tastes. Pretending like we can't help even though, technically we can, is disingenuous.

It shouldn't be an awful thing to say you won't help someone in need.

Do we want to regulate the use of 'can't' to only apply in cases of physical impossibilities?

Semantics aside, I'd rather us recognize that we're all capable of doing more for people less fortunate than ourselves, but we don't.

And that's perfectly alright.

She now has a prosthesis http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/health/2015/02/03/new-hands-f...

It's not bionic, but those are in the tens of thousands $ range

I think MNCs should have to follow the strictest labor laws of any country they do business in across their entire company. The current global business model preaches that 400$ dollars a month in Mexico is the equivalent of a legal American wage. This system makes slave masters out of the elite in any country, and regular people slaves.

I can't be bothered to help this poor woman, but I can keep myself from ever purchasing an LG product again.

We maybe should help this lady and send in donations to her to lessen the effect of disability on her health and finances.

I don't think The Guardian would run a scam or misrepresent her story to make us feel sorry for her and bad about ourselves (collective guilt). Maybe we should contact the journo who authored this peace and ask him/her how we can help her or get into contact with her to discuss the matter.

This organization can probably help her directly with the prosthetic hands: http://www.ln-4.org/

It would be nice. And at one point, I needed such benefits and was really grateful. But I'm sure you can find many stories of worse circumstances every day. Should The Guardian have a donate link at the bottom of every story about someone unfortunate? Would the money be better spent trying to get things changed?

It was only a suggestion, not mandatory. I just noticed that the discussion was heading into the usual "intellectually stimulating" HN route where people arguing over occupational safety & industrial regulations and away from the poor lady that lost both her hands stripping her from a very crucial income source for the rest of her life.

Just for the sake of debate, can someone offer an argument explaining why it should be a company's responsibility to take care of a worker who gets injured, assuming the worker is fully aware of the risk?

Edit: Unfortunately this comment has gotten me chat limited, so I won't be able to participate in this conversation any longer. If you'd like to explore this further, I'll gladly converse via email. Just to be clear, I'm not a monster and think labor laws are great and awesome. I thought it would be interesting to try and suss out what moral underpinnings belie how we feel, rather than just chalk it up to "boo corporations".

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.

Why is the company to blame? They mitigated risk enough to convince her to work there, no one was lied to or misled.

How 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.

It'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.

As a society, we've decided that it's the company's responsibility to provide a reasonably safe workplace. This is a lesson that was learned from the blood of thousands who died or were injured before safety standards were created and enforced. This is why in the US, we have OSHA. Standards for what comprises a "safe workplace" will, of course, vary depending on the workplace. An office processing paperwork has different standards than a metal stamping plant.

By making it the employer's reponsibility to follow OSHA standards under force of law, the employer has "skin in the game." They can be sued, or shut down if they don't comply, or face criminal penalties for, e.g., removing machine guarding.

If they have no responsibility, then they have no reason to make things safe: just need to pay enough that there's a steady stream of people to replace the ones who die/are injured. People in bad circumstances will take on risk regardless: the babies have to eat.

Because the worker, having far less power than the company, is not in a position to give consent to work dangerously for the pay. We, as a society, instead of just banning the ability for the work to be done, instead create a regulation which balances the situation to one which we feel consent can reasonably be given for the work done, as long as the company offers certain concessions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com