Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How factories were made safe

rootsofprogress.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 114 posts

Re: How factories were made safe

#41

Post by dredmorbius »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #33
ghostly_s wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really pathetic but unsurprising that people here are downvoting this comment. It's not often that you see an author constructing a literal straw-man these days; the piece flatly ignores the importance of the massively powerful labor movements of this period--so powerful that states were regularly resorting to armed struggle with them--instead pretending that "social reformers" existed in a vacuum.

Did we read the same article? The author addresses the labor movements and points out that they weren't very concerned with improving safety, sometimes worked against it and cites sources along the way.

"The author" has grossly cherry-picked sources and issues.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=BwvpAlvM-SA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fi...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_Centralia_mine_disaster

Re: How factories were made safe

#42

Post by sanxiyn »

gruez wrote: post #39
sanxiyn wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it even possible to make an airplane that does not crash?

No. They crash all the time. You're suggesting that we hold airplane makers responsible for any and all crashes.

I didn't? I opined web browser "manufacturers" should be liable, like airplane manufacturers. That seems certain to me.

Whether automatic liability makes sense, as argued in OP about workplace safety, is less certain, but probably yes. Many zero days are triggered by just clicking a link. For such cases, it is hard to argue one is operating it wrong.

Re: How factories were made safe

#44

Post by content_sesh »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #31
Jtsummers wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You see the same misconception with environmental regulations, it makes for some interesting (though frustrating) discussions though.

You see the same misconceptions in the other direction as well. It's like some people think a work stoppage from cleaning up a dead worker or hazardous material spill don't result in lost productivity that workplaces would rather not incur.

The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire happened on March 25, 1911. The owner kept the factory doors locked and as a result 146 people either died in the fire or jumped to their deaths. The owners were acquitted of manslaughter, but did have to pay $75 per person they killed. The owners made $60,000 profit due to the insurance payout.

Two years later in 1913, the one of the owners was arrested for locking his factory doors, again, and fined $20.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fi...

Re: How factories were made safe

#45

Post by sanp »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #31
Jtsummers wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You see the same misconception with environmental regulations, it makes for some interesting (though frustrating) discussions though.

You see the same misconceptions in the other direction as well. It's like some people think a work stoppage from cleaning up a dead worker or hazardous material spill don't result in lost productivity that workplaces would rather not incur.

You are assuming businesses know precisely what level of overwork or negligence will lead to lower costs (higher profit) and what level will lead to needing to cleanup a dead worker.

Re: How factories were made safe

#46

Post by ljhsiung »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #24

The audacity of that tangent at the end. "Natural and inevitable"? People fought and died for your 40 hour work week. You know May Day? The Labor Day for the rest of the world? Commemorates the Haymarket Massacre, which was fighting for the 8 hour work day.

Yeah, I didn't fully understand the point of that tangent, and it sounds like to me this "debate" between the Progressive and Capitalist, was "won" by the Progressive. But I guess I'm just a radical?

> P. ....But the safety movement was not inevitable—it was the result of progressive reformers. Capitalism would never have accomplished this on its own.

> C. Well… I have to admit, reformers like Eastman and Hard seem instrumental in this story. Their work helped bring about the legal reform, and the legal reform brought about the safety departments. So, I have to give them credit for that.

> P: Good.

Is this not a straight admission of the flaws of capitalism?

This bit was especially hilarious to me--

> C: No, you can’t sign away all your rights. You can’t sell yourself into slavery, for instance.

uh... yes, people did.

I somewhat think that's the point of the tangent though. Much of the blog goes into nitty-gritty detail on other ways society progresses-- by blood, sweat, and tears-- and so I think this tangent pushes that narrative, but it's weird that the opposite narrative is appeared to be given equal footing when previous posts seem to argue that it's not.

Or perhaps it was an attempt to push to reader into the mindset at the time, in which case, the counter-arguments still aren't that convincing to me, but again perhaps it's just the modernity bias.

Re: How factories were made safe

#47

Post by wyager »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #24

The audacity of that tangent at the end. "Natural and inevitable"? People fought and died for your 40 hour work week. You know May Day? The Labor Day for the rest of the world? Commemorates the Haymarket Massacre, which was fighting for the 8 hour work day.

It is an essentially inevitable result of technological development. If the 40 hour workweek people had protested 30 years earlier, nothing would have happened, and if they hadn’t protested at all it probably would have been achieved with less effort a few years down the line. You need occasional shocks to remove entrenched procedural traditions like work schedules, but the magnitude of the shock required decreases as the change becomes more obviously beneficial.

Re: How factories were made safe

#48

Post by pram »

rtkwe wrote: post #40
adventured wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm endlessly amused that the Richard Nixon years gave us OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Act, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and NIOSH - National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act (proposed by the Nixon Administration, passed by Ford), the 1969 Nationa…

It’s kind of crazy how fast American politics went off the rails. Really seems like it really kicks off with Reagan but I’m not versed enough to be sure if he’s the cause or just one of the symptoms (most likely both really in the end) but it’s always wild to see just how many of the ‘big government run amok’ agencies came out of the Nixon admin.

Nixon was planning on redistributing money through a negative income tax as well. I’d say what you’re describing really started with the ideology behind the Goldwater candidacy.

Re: How factories were made safe

#49

Post by InitialLastName »

rtkwe wrote: post #40
adventured wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm endlessly amused that the Richard Nixon years gave us OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Act, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and NIOSH - National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act (proposed by the Nixon Administration, passed by Ford), the 1969 Nationa…

It’s kind of crazy how fast American politics went off the rails. Really seems like it really kicks off with Reagan but I’m not versed enough to be sure if he’s the cause or just one of the symptoms (most likely both really in the end) but it’s always wild to see just how many of the ‘big government run amok’ agencies came out of the Nixon admin.

I've seen the idea float around that in order for democracy to function, the people need to see the political leadership as a) competent and b) acting in good faith. For the group of people who were coming into political adulthood in the 70s-80s (mostly born circa 1945-1965), those sentiments were deeply undermined by the Iran-Contra affair/hostage crisis and Watergate respectively.

That cohort have now been the modal force in politics, business and the electorate for a few decades, and we're seeing the results.

Re: How factories were made safe

#50

Post by OneEyedRobot »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #18

It's tempting to use macro trends, like the advent of workplace safety, to confirm one's existing beliefs. Economy-wide changes like this are pretty much without exception driven by a bunch of different factors working together and you can pretty much always find some to cherry pick to back whatever your opinion is that minute. Pretty much all the current literature about workplace safety seems to follow one ideologi…

I absolutely agree.

3..2..1 until someone blames or credits some President or the other or a famous worker strike. Models are particularly comforting when they are so simple as to be useless.

Now, back to some work on the lathe while wearing my necktie.

Post reply on HN