Difference between revisions of "325--2011--Week 4 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
(→Arthur McEvoy, “Working Environments: An Ecological Approach to Industrial Health and Safety”) |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
McEvoy tended to really emphasize the workplace as an ecological system, of which the worker’s body was the biological core. He used this analogy at least three times in his essay. It’s difficult to think of a human body as a part of the machine, but I think that’s the point here. Without a body, the machine simply cannot function. I thought it was an interesting comparison that McEvoy made with this analogy on page 81 where he says that industrial accidents hurt workers’ bodies like industry hurts the environment. When it came to the Bowers’ essay, this theory became all the more obvious. Bowers’ numerical summary of how worker injury takes away from industry is shocking and enlightening, even if it is a little disturbing to see injury quantified in that manner. Nevertheless, this quantification with McEvoy’s analysis shows the importance of workers’ health and safety and how much money and time is lost should a worker not be taken care of.--Sara Krechel | McEvoy tended to really emphasize the workplace as an ecological system, of which the worker’s body was the biological core. He used this analogy at least three times in his essay. It’s difficult to think of a human body as a part of the machine, but I think that’s the point here. Without a body, the machine simply cannot function. I thought it was an interesting comparison that McEvoy made with this analogy on page 81 where he says that industrial accidents hurt workers’ bodies like industry hurts the environment. When it came to the Bowers’ essay, this theory became all the more obvious. Bowers’ numerical summary of how worker injury takes away from industry is shocking and enlightening, even if it is a little disturbing to see injury quantified in that manner. Nevertheless, this quantification with McEvoy’s analysis shows the importance of workers’ health and safety and how much money and time is lost should a worker not be taken care of.--Sara Krechel | ||
| + | Employers escaped liability for a number of years. In Farwell v. Boston and Worchester Railroad, the employee loses his arm due to another employee’s negligence. “Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw ruled that engineer Farwell had assumed the risk of injury-even at the hands of negligent fellow workers-when he agreed to work on the railroad” (79). I learned in my Business Law class that assumption of risk is one exception to a suit of negligence. However, there is no way that Farwell could have assumed or predicted that his co-worker would cause him to lose him arm. However, McEvoy’s essay mentions numerous times that these work “accidents” were not a major priority to employers. Safety precautions would be expensive and would cut down on profits. McEvoy also mentions the view towards the workers as, “The worker’s body became a mere appendage of the machine” (86). Employers viewed their employees as nothing more than a means of production. Loss of limbs was considered “normal” which is why working conditions did not immediately change. -Samantha W. | ||
== Edison Bowers, “Ís It Safe to Work? A Study of Industrial Accidents” == | == Edison Bowers, “Ís It Safe to Work? A Study of Industrial Accidents” == | ||
Lighting a match and putting it inside the gas tank to determine if the tank would hold more gasoline...brilliant idea. - Matthew Beere | Lighting a match and putting it inside the gas tank to determine if the tank would hold more gasoline...brilliant idea. - Matthew Beere | ||
