If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   Temp employees more likely to succumb to workplace hazards. Ric Romero's intern laughs   (openchannel.nbcnews.com) divider line 34
    More: Obvious, manufacturing industries, detergents, corrosive, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Midway Airport, Medical glove, Ric Romero  
•       •       •

906 clicks; posted to Business » on 13 Jan 2013 at 3:50 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



34 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2013-01-13 12:50:38 PM
You have to be some serious scum to not call for an ambulance when a man's been doused in scalding water and acid. It seems like every farking step up the chain of command knew this was going on and did jack shiat. I hope they get real time in a PMITA prison, and not just fines.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-01-13 02:24:33 PM
I can't find the OSHA memo mentioned in the article, but it is normal in this kind of case to prosecute the company rather than individuals. To prosecute an individual you need to prove that an individual had a legal duty. To prosecute a company you can prove that the collective knowledge and actions of company employees resulted in a violation, although no individual had the required criminal intent.
 
2013-01-13 04:14:08 PM
Temp employment: the legal loophole companies use to garner slave labor and keep it off the books.

/FOR THE SHAREHOLDERS!
 
2013-01-13 04:38:13 PM
More evidence business has absolutely no business regulating itself, welcome to the 21st century... with work standards identical to US Radium 100 years ago:
blogs.plos.org
 
2013-01-13 04:57:13 PM
And the real kicker is, some agencies make you sign an agreement to opt of of workers comp insurance and agree not to sue the employer or agency in the event of an on the job injury.
 
2013-01-13 05:16:10 PM
It's obviously easier to yell "Look out!" when somebody knows what to look out for. When you have to yell "Look out for the moving feeder slide on the automatic de-hoofer!" you waste precious seconds.
 
2013-01-13 05:25:28 PM

Burn_The_Plows: And the real kicker is, some agencies make you sign an agreement to opt of of workers comp insurance and agree not to sue the employer or agency in the event of an on the job injury.


Name one and provide a link. That's not even remotely legal.
 
2013-01-13 05:40:43 PM

Burn_The_Plows: And the real kicker is, some agencies make you sign an agreement to opt of of workers comp insurance and agree not to sue the employer or agency in the event of an on the job injury.


Yea do you have a link? I don't think that would hold up in any state in the US.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-01-13 05:45:40 PM
I don't think that would hold up in any state in the US.

Requiring a waiver of worker's comp and right to sue sounds like a typical move by an employer of illegal aliens. If the worker is legally an "employee" (vs. independent contractor) the waiver is not only unenforceable, it subjects the employer to penalties for not having worker's comp insurance.  But illegal aliens may be intimidated and not call authorities.
 
2013-01-13 05:54:49 PM

ZAZ: I don't think that would hold up in any state in the US.

Requiring a waiver of worker's comp and right to sue sounds like a typical move by an employer of illegal aliens. If the worker is legally an "employee" (vs. independent contractor) the waiver is not only unenforceable, it subjects the employer to penalties for not having worker's comp insurance.  But illegal aliens may be intimidated and not call authorities.


I have seen some less than scrupulous companies provide labor to catfish farms in the south and classify the employees as independant contractors. Yes, 99.99% were undocumented and had no idea what that meant. But I never saw a comp. waiver.

Fortunately, I also saw many of these POS scumbags closed, jailed and fined.
 
2013-01-13 05:56:10 PM

majestic: Name one and provide a link. That's not even remotely legal.


Adecco in Wisconsin does. It's not on their employee agreement that is on their site. I might still have a hard copy of the one I signed in 2002(?) I see if I can dig it out.

I did contact an employment law attorney (one who does work for employers) and he told me that it is legal in Wisconsin, if you're a contracted worker and dumb enough to sign it. He did tell me that if I refused to sign it and could prove that my contract was ended early because of the refusal (you had to sign the agreement in January every year) I would have a case.
 
2013-01-13 05:58:24 PM
Man, what a story! Here's a guy getting free healthcare from his employer, and you libtards find some way to complain about it.

/AmIDoingItRight?
 
2013-01-13 06:05:49 PM
Well, it's like a game of Spot the Violations here!
From PPE to HAZCOM to Lockout-Tagout ("The wrong valve opened?" Assholes, that shouldn't even be possible, because ALL inputs to a confined space under cleaning should be shut down AND LOCKED SHUT if not disconnected or blind-flanged entirely...and don't even get me started on whether that tank constituted a Permit Required Confined Space).

While the premise is true-that temp employees tend to get hurt more often due to ignorance or inexperience--the title is blaming the employees when it's clear that this IS a willful and severe case of negligence on the EMPLOYER's part.
 
2013-01-13 06:11:26 PM

Burn_The_Plows: majestic: Name one and provide a link. That's not even remotely legal.

Adecco in Wisconsin does. It's not on their employee agreement that is on their site. I might still have a hard copy of the one I signed in 2002(?) I see if I can dig it out.

I did contact an employment law attorney (one who does work for employers) and he told me that it is legal in Wisconsin, if you're a contracted worker and dumb enough to sign it. He did tell me that if I refused to sign it and could prove that my contract was ended early because of the refusal (you had to sign the agreement in January every year) I would have a case.


If you find that I would be EXTREMELY interested in getting a copy.
 
2013-01-13 06:19:31 PM
This article hits too close to home for me.

I burned my hand on a soldering iron at work once.

I didnt die though.
 
2013-01-13 06:22:34 PM

Ishidan: While the premise is true-that temp employees tend to get hurt more often due to ignorance or inexperience--the title is blaming the employees when it's clear that this IS a willful and severe case of negligence on the EMPLOYER's part.


You know that doesn't fly in modern America. The employer was kind enough to give this man a job. If this man hadn't been so incompetent at the job they'd created for him, he wouldn't be dead. This accident is the perfect excuse for lowering the pay of future contractors, since they can't be expected to be compensated for tasks at which they fail.
 
2013-01-13 06:54:02 PM

Ishidan: From PPE to HAZCOM to Lockout-Tagout ("The wrong valve opened?" Assholes, that shouldn't even be possible, because ALL inputs to a confined space under cleaning should be shut down AND LOCKED SHUT if not disconnected or blind-flanged entirely...and don't even get me started on whether that tank constituted a Permit Required Confined Space).


Hell, some temp agencies don't allow their workers to work in confined spaces, even if they would be qualified for it. I know Kelly has that policy.
 
2013-01-13 07:44:58 PM
I worked for Manpower and had to sign a similar document. It said that I agreed not to sue the company I was working at. I'm guessing that if I had ever been severely injured, I would have had to sue Manpower for failing to ensure that there was a safe work environment at the location I was working. Generally though, only full-time employees did the kind of work these people did.

Fortunately, I no longer work for Manpower but was able to get hired full-time into the company I had been working at. Working for Manpower is similar to what I imagine purgatory would be like. I always make sure to be very kind to the temp workers, as I know how crappy it is in their position. I just thank God every day that I am no longer in their shoes.
 
2013-01-13 09:10:12 PM
I, too, once had to sign a blanket "I agree not to sue anyone if I'm hurt, ever and opt out of worker's comp" document for a temp agency, this one was based in SC.
 
2013-01-13 10:42:09 PM
Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development

"19. Can an employee waive his or her right to worker's compensation coverage?.."
"No. No agreement to waive the right to compensation is valid under s. 102.16(5), Wis. Stats. Even if an
employee signs a waiver, it is not valid and would have no affect on the validity of a worker's compensation
claim. "

Know your rights.
 
2013-01-13 11:14:36 PM
Yes, the "hold harmless" provision applies to the client company, since you are employed by XYZ Staffing. It still won't hold up in the event of willful negligence, but it's there to get you to sue XYZ, not their client.
 
2013-01-13 11:19:16 PM

pdieten: Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development

"19. Can an employee waive his or her right to worker's compensation coverage?.."
"No. No agreement to waive the right to compensation is valid under s. 102.16(5), Wis. Stats. Even if an
employee signs a waiver, it is not valid and would have no affect on the validity of a worker's compensation
claim. "

Know your rights.


Wisconsin was prescient in regards to getting Work Comp on the books and able to withstand a challenge (and even with the complaints about it's a hell of a lot better for both sides than the old way of trying to do business) and then thereare states like Mississippi that were dragged into it kicking and screaming into the whole thing. Wisconsin has about a century with a WC statute on the books; Mississippi was the last state to implement WC in 1958.
 
2013-01-14 12:52:34 AM
Romero laughs from his mountain
 
2013-01-14 02:47:11 AM
When I worked at RAC we signed a ton of paperwork. Some workers for the company sued in California based on not getting paid for working through breaks and some safety and workmans comp stuff.A lot of it was based on argeeing to arbitration for everything or not to sue. I even brought it up with them after I left. The lawyer basically said most of the stuff they have you sign when you start doesn't hold up in court because you didn't have legal representation and you couldn't know what it was meant for. Or something similar to that.

/IANAL
 
2013-01-14 06:13:51 AM

ZAZ: I can't find the OSHA memo mentioned in the article, but it is normal in this kind of case to prosecute the company rather than individuals. To prosecute an individual you need to prove that an individual had a legal duty. To prosecute a company you can prove that the collective knowledge and actions of company employees resulted in a violation, although no individual had the required criminal intent.


They can't prosecute individuals who make decisions that end up in death or serious injury based soley on a financial gain or loss?

How do you decide NOT to call 911? It makes me ill that anyone would spend any amount of time debating whether getting him immediate care is a good idea or not.
 
2013-01-14 06:24:16 AM
FTFA: "Plaintiff's Decedent knew about the hazards of his conduct, but proceeded with his course of conduct, causing the claimed injuries," the document says.

Yeah, I'm going to call bullshiat on this, but even if it were true, you should have fired him immediately and escorted him off of the property, not allow him to continue to do a job in a manner you know to be unsafe. You are still at fault. It's your boat, captain, you are responsible for the crew. But I still believe you to be an unethical, piece of shiat liar.
 
2013-01-14 09:24:56 AM
i21.photobucket.com
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-01-14 09:45:54 AM
EbolaNYC: They can't prosecute individuals who make decisions that end up in death or serious injury based soley on a financial gain or loss?

Life at any cost is not the law. (The value of a life is not infinite.)

There are probably OSHA rules that must be obeyed at any cost. To prosecute an individual you have to prove that one person is responsible for violation of a specific regulation.

In an organization it is easy for duties to fall between the cracks. Suppose a company is required to have an employee responsible for coordinating evacuations during a fire. The site is jointly used by three divisions. None of them appoints such an employee. Who do you prosecute for the violation? No one individual clearly broke the law. The company as a whole broke the law.
 
2013-01-14 09:51:33 AM
One more reason that the Right to Work law needs to extend to temporary/contingent/PT/consultancy employment. That is, you're not obligated as a condition of accepting (or continuing) work to be a second-class citizen in the workforce(and can choose to be a regular, directly-hired employee instead). Temporary workers are the same thing as a labor union and should be treated that way in the law. Pass (or simply introduce) that, and see how certain entities try to argue against their own law.
 
2013-01-14 09:55:31 AM

ZAZ: I don't think that would hold up in any state in the US.

Requiring a waiver of worker's comp and right to sue sounds like a typical move by an employer of illegal aliens. If the worker is legally an "employee" (vs. independent contractor) the waiver is not only unenforceable, it subjects the employer to penalties for not having worker's comp insurance.  But illegal aliens may be intimidated and not call authorities.


Ken VeryBigLiar: Wisconsin was prescient in regards to getting Work Comp on the books and able to withstand a challenge (and even with the complaints about it's a hell of a lot better for both sides than the old way of trying to do business) and then thereare states like Mississippi that were dragged into it kicking and screaming into the whole thing. Wisconsin has about a century with a WC statute on the books; Mississippi was the last state to implement WC in 1958.


That says something about the South's insistence on "know thy place" where employers are considered the new plantation owners(under the banner of "individual freedom") and that they want to treat workers like second-class, 3/5ths citizens.
 
2013-01-14 01:01:22 PM

sethstorm: One more reason that the Right to Work law needs to extend to temporary/contingent/PT/consultancy employment. That is, you're not obligated as a condition of accepting (or continuing) work to be a second-class citizen in the workforce(and can choose to be a regular, directly-hired employee instead). Temporary workers are the same thing as a labor union and should be treated that way in the law. Pass (or simply introduce) that, and see how certain entities try to argue against their own law.


You can choose now to not accept temporary work. But if that's the only positions open your choice is between accepting the work or not having a job.

If anything, the 'only hire temps' thing is the next step of 'right to work', not the opposite of it. It gives employers MORE power to weaken any bargaining power the individual might have.
 
2013-01-14 03:02:24 PM

somemoron: FTFA: "Plaintiff's Decedent knew about the hazards of his conduct, but proceeded with his course of conduct, causing the claimed injuries," the document says.

Yeah, I'm going to call bullshiat on this, but even if it were true, you should have fired him immediately and escorted him off of the property, not allow him to continue to do a job in a manner you know to be unsafe. You are still at fault. It's your boat, captain, you are responsible for the crew. But I still believe you to be an unethical, piece of shiat liar.


...So what makes this situation different from, say, the NFL and concussions?
 
2013-01-14 03:08:30 PM

Deneb81: sethstorm: One more reason that the Right to Work law needs to extend to temporary/contingent/PT/consultancy employment. That is, you're not obligated as a condition of accepting (or continuing) work to be a second-class citizen in the workforce(and can choose to be a regular, directly-hired employee instead). Temporary workers are the same thing as a labor union and should be treated that way in the law. Pass (or simply introduce) that, and see how certain entities try to argue against their own law.

You can choose now to not accept temporary work. But if that's the only positions open your choice is between accepting the work or not having a job.

If anything, the 'only hire temps' thing is the next step of 'right to work', not the opposite of it. It gives employers MORE power to weaken any bargaining power the individual might have.


Thus my point to have temporary help counted as a labor union in that law; one can choose to not be a temporary worker and the company could do nothing about it. It would remove the primary and secondary avenues of abuse that come with introducing RTW[FL] - the use of temporary and indirect labor (which are both forms of labor unions, just organized by the employer).

It would be very interesting to see how the business world would try to contort around the simple fact that RTW, as it stands, is not about worker freedom. That, and if it were somehow passed at the federal level, would break the entire labor relations model of the South - where the prevalent attitude is more feudal versus the non-ALEC North.
 
2013-01-14 05:35:43 PM
The law and rights are only available for those who can afford them. It's that simple. My current employer now shuts the heater off an hour earlier and it is near 30 right now. Nobody can quit because their simply aren't any jobs.

I now hate business owners that complain about government regulation and employment. They have turned into parasites that are actively trying to kill their host, even fleas aren't that dumb.
 
Displayed 34 of 34 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report