thegreekdog wrote: However, I completely disagree that companies don't have to pay real costs when things go wrong. They do. Always. Unless they get bailed out of course.
REALLY?
Here is a link to clip from the Alaskan newspaper.
http://www.adn.com/2009/02/13/690121/se ... aldez.html Note the date of February 14. AND note that no date was then set for payments. To my knowledge, the money has STILL not been paid out. Now, this was a second payment. HOWEVER, I seem to remember this happened a couple of decades ago.
In other words, most of the fishermen affected had to wait until past their retirement dates to "win". I don't know how you think fishing works, but boats don't just sit. They need repair. And, fishermen who don't get money go out of business.
I won't tackle the rest of your comment (done it enough), but if you seriously think companies pay for their damage than you very grossly underestimate that damage. I am not speaking historically, either.
I mean, how can you truly say a company "pays" for someone's life or health. From the outset, that concept is something concocted to make people with balance sheets feel better. Even that old idea of penalty rarely truly applies because its often insurance and so forth that really pays. When they don't, its never individuals, its this remote thing called a "corporation" that was specifically designed to shield decisionmakers from liability for those decisions. This is true whether those decisions are just poor business moves or something more harmful to the rest of us.
Even beyond that ethical question, the burden of proof in such cases is ALWAYS on the little guys to prove a company has caused harm. That sounds like sense on the surface. In reality, it means that someone like myself has to spend 3-4 times the money, not to mention time, fighting to get a fraudulant charge off my credit card, never mind thinks like health and safety. If the damage is great enough and widespread enough we might qualify for a class action. BUT, such settlements are almost always heavily watered down. I have been involved in 3 and in each, I spent hours of my time just forwarding documents, never mind postage, printing costs, etc. In one case, I got one of the highest awards ( a couple of hundred) becauase I am so anal about keeping records. It was only a "bonus" because I had kissed the money goodbye long since (excess fees were charged).
This is not even to get into medical costs. Trying to prove medical harm can be almost impossible at times.
And, my point is none of this should really be up to us. Granted, 100% proof of safety is impossible in most cases. However, while there are a few cases of companies having to undergo testing that is rather insensible, for the most part, it is not even close to what is needed to truly gaurantee everyone's safety. That is even
without any snafoo.
