h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It depends on the individual.

One further note on industrial terrorism:
It seems the owner of that garment factory in Bangladesh
has been arrested but the bosses of the fertiliser company
in Texas are still roaming free.


~jwf~

The surviving Boston bombing suspect has been moved from beth Israel Hospital to a prison hospital at Devens, which is about 50 miles Northwest of Boston. It seems that many of the victims who were recuperating at Beth Israel were upset that the cause of their injuries was also there.

So basically the purpose of the term industrial terrorism is to hitch a serious problem with a loaded term like actual terrorism.

I don't see how any thoughtful person can take that position.

Fair enuff.
But I don't see why corporate industrialists are
allowed to endanger workers and civilians with
shoddy safety practices.

The chap in Bangladesh ordered people back to work
in spite of cracks appearing in the building, just as
the bosses on the BP Gulf oil rig did when warned of
impending dangers. It seems the owners of the Texas
plant regularly ignored safety standards. The plant had
not been inspected since 1985 when several violations
were noted and a mere $30,000 fine seemed to make
them all go away - for more than a quarter century.

Are all industrialists corrupt? No, I refuse to believe that
but so many seem to get away with murder while regulators
and politicians appear to be both complacent and complicit.


~jwf~

~jwf~

You raise my curiosity on this;

> It seems the owners of the Texas plant regularly ignored safety standards. The plant had not been inspected since 1985 when several violations were noted and a mere $30,000 fine seemed to make them all go away - for more than a quarter century.

How can you blame the owners of the plant, when clearly the inspectors,themselves, have ignored or at least neglected their duties?

I have no sympathy with a factory owner who wilfully violates safety standards (I have myself served as 'safety officer' for a factory on more than one occasion.) However in your example it appears it is the government agents who refuse to follow up on their own reports!

Is it not the government agents, who are being paid to enforce the regulations, and don't bother to do so that really belong in jail?

F S

Industrial terrorism may exist, but I don't think it's what jwf is talking about. The head honchos at one company want to drive their rival out of business, so they mount a campaign of terror against that rival.

Generally the terror is against the employees who can't afford to lose their jobs whether they are sewing clothes in Bangladesh for 20 cents an hour or making tens of thousands in 'danger pay' on an oil rig. And I have to ask FS why he can't see that government inspectors are also being told what to do and what not to do by their bosses who are possibly being rewarded by industrial capitalists and their lobbyists for keeping their noses out. Why did no one blow the whistle when Exxon went tits up? Why did no one blow the whistle when the banks began to leverage 30 times their true values? I better quit this line of inquiry before I get accused of being a conspiracy theorist or anti-american or anti- government or anti-freemarket or even just a grumpy old man who sees corruption everywhere. For a while there was some discussion by others in the News Thread which raised some of the same questions. See post #14767 and following http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/alabaster/F19585?thread=502685&latest=1 ~jwf~

Excuse me,

If Industrialist 'A'

offers a bribe to Government Agent 'B' Who happily accepts it and puts the money in his own private account,

Then Factory 'C' explodes causing massive death and destruction because Government Agent 'B' Did not bother to do the job he was paid to do.

How can you possibly put any blame on Industrialist 'A' (who is under suspicion of dishonesty anyway) and not place the entire blame on Government Agent 'B' who gave up his (her its) responsibility for a short term profit. It seems to me that Government Agent 'B' is the true villain here and should get the maximum sentence available. Had he reported the bribe of Industrialist 'A' without taking a penny of profit, the result should be quite different.

F S

Bah. Clearly in that scenario they should both be locked up.

Industrialist A for ignoring safety standards and thus willfully putting innocent people in danger AND Government Agent B for not doing his job to protect those same people from the corruption and negligence of Industrialist A.

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Why are we arguing about it?

unfortunatelyhistory shows that money talks (in all circles) and human life is therefore valued as expendable

Well it is somewhat comforting to know that I am not alone
in my suspicions of corruption being endemic. Dare I suggest
that poor Agent B however is not necessarily culpable if his
bosses, Bureaucrats D,E,F,G,H and G give him a list of plants
to inspect that does not include Factory C because Owner C-1
has paid off Senator X who instructed Dept Head Y to have all
his agents look elsewhere or at least the other way.

If this happens often enough the entire system seems to have
been corrupted and media outlets ABC, NBC, CBS & FOX
will know better than to stir the pot especially if Factory C
is a major advertiser. Local police and labour unions will be
less than cooperative and Restaurants and Motels will not be
welcoming to investigative journalists - who generally would
rather be working on something sexier like Boston bombers
and dissing Johnny Forriner types.


~jwf~

We're talking public sector managers here.

Incompetence and sloth are far more likely reasons.

"Local police and labour [sic] unions will be less than cooperative and Restaurants and Motels will not be welcoming to investigative journalists - who generally would rather be working on something sexier like Boston bombers and dissing Johnny Forriner types." [jwf]



My spellcheck says that you spelled "labor" wrong, Squiggles, hence the [sic].

I question your assumption that the labor unions would not cooperate with an investigation, given that these unions represent employees who are being maimed and killed by the company's "industrial terrorism." Have you ever belonged to a union? They tend to *love* hurling recriminations at the bosses. It's almost a participation sport.

My gross representation of Labor was meant as a balance
to my indignation with Capitalists and Politicians. From
experience I can tell you that corruption is a disease
that does not discriminate along job title lines. Perhaps
you have seen On The Waterfront or Norma Jean.

Union bosses often have the muscle to enforce their desires,
a cost saving feature which allows them to keep more of their
ill gotten gains.

>> Have you ever belonged to a union? <<

Yes and I was blacklisted for whistle-blowing concerning
insider perqs enjoyed by certain elite members and executive
directors of whom I was numbered.


~jwf~

Even so, I have a hard time believing that gross harm inflicted on union members by company bosses would fail to galvanize the rank and file against even the most corrupted union bosses.

I have soundtrack music for "On the Waterfront." Norma Jean was Marilyn Monroe's real name. Perhaps you're thinking of "Norma Rae?" I hope that your mind was not permanently harmed by chemical fumes during your work in that factory.

Oh right Norma Rae.

The damage to my mind is non specific but I like to
think it's from carrying too much useless knowledge.

The cross-referencing of things is becoming a bit
of a problem not just in substituting a first or
last name but an entire identity like saying HGWells
when I meant Jules Verne, that sorta thing.

BTW: Did your spell checker pick up on 'perq'?
Like 'labour' I consider my usage correct (in context).

~jwf~

In common law countries, there are enforcement mechanisms for redress of wrongs. If you're harmed by someone else's negligence you sue.

While there may be some regulatory compliance, government agents usually have a general duty to protect. Unless there's a special relationship with an injured person (like a child protection worker who has custody of an endangered child), government agents aren't liable for harm to individual members of the general public for failing to perform discretionary duties. Now an agent who took a bribe would face criminal and administrative sanctions for taking a bribe. I don't think he'd be civilly liable for injuries caused by the plant's liability.

"BTW: Did your spell checker pick up on 'perq'? Like 'labour' I consider my usage correct (in context)." [jwf]

Yes, "perq" also popped up on the spell check. My moments have gradually coalesced into one continuous stream. I would find a scapegoat to blame this on [like exposure to the patients at my mother's nursing home], but I've gotten too lazy even for scapegoating....

Perq is short for perquisite.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perquisite?s=ts

It has nothing to do with perc, a short form of perculation test
or percolated coffee.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perc?s=t

Or perk as in perky.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perk?s=t

I used perq correctly in spite of what any spellchecker says.
It gives me great pride to be smarter than a machine.
Well, maybe just better informed.

~jwf~