 |
| Still from The Fountainhead (1949), directed by King Vidor, starring Gary Cooper |
According to Soni, Signal's "man camp" was built in an area with "toxic levels of lead" that threatened to poison the workers.
Governmental regulations require the company to apply to the "Department of Environmental Quality" for approval.
Do you agree that governments should have the power to impose regulations about where businesses can build? Or should businesses have the freedom to build wherever they want to?
Should it be the responsibility of the workers--not the government--to decide whether the working conditions (and any associated risks) are worth the compensation offered?
Answer these questions only after you've read part two, chapter three and all preceding chapters.
In relation to the first two questions:
ReplyDeleteI would like for businesses to have the freedom to build wherever they want, but the truth of the matter is that there will always be people who abuse that privilege. Signal’s main camp being built in a toxic area is a great example of this, with another (although a lot older) example being the Tower of Pisa. Building a big tower on squishy soil isn’t the smartest idea. If there was regulations that required an inspection of the area before construction, accidents would be a lot less likely. I assume it would be under the Department of Health and Human Services or another similar government department. Overall, the decision on where business can build should be regulated to ensure safety. It doesn’t need to be regulated by the government technically, as long as it is managed by professionals in that field.
- Zachary Clouse
In response to Zachary Clouse's comment, I agree that people would abuse the privilege of having the freedom to build wherever they want. Such as when Signal built the man camp, they knew of the lead poisoning and chose to cover it with a clay cap that would need to be drilled into when creating the camp. They still decided to go on with it, knowing the risks, and did not apply to the "Department of Environmental Quality" for approval until months after they started building. We also find out later that going the cheaper route with the contractor caused even more safety issues within the man camp. Therefore, yes, I do think businesses should be regulated when it comes to where they build.
Delete-Abigayle Shropshire
History has demonstrated that the only calculus of private corporations, in general, is that of what is profitable. In selecting a location for building, Signal clearly did not demonstrate a strong concern for the well-being of the workers who were to occupy the man-camp. Although it seems cheap to simply agree that governments must be able to impose regulations on corporate building, there is no alternative that will ensure the safety of prospective workers. Given the many concerns that are levied upon those searching for work as is, consideration of health conditions should not be added to the mix. Additionally, if there are no regulations against where corporations decide to build facilities, would there be any requirements for these entities to disclose health risks? Would workers have to develop cancers before they realize the hazards they have been subjected to?
ReplyDelete-Eli Grasso
DeleteI agree with you Eli, health risks are not something I should have to anticipate while applying for a job. If there are no regulations, there will be no compensation for health problems related to an unsafe work environment.
Delete-Jenna Whitehead
I believe that there should be a regulation in this case. As we are shown by Signal's actions, their only objective is to make a profit. These workers' health was put in jeopardy because a business built where ever it wanted. So, I do not believe that environmental health concerns should be handled by the owner of the land who would have a bias in how the land is used but determined by the professionals that work for the government agency. Even though it failed in this instance, I think it is a safer process than letting businesses build anywhere.
ReplyDeleteRegulations are put in place for multiple reasons; in concerning government regulation of where companies can build, I think that it's done in majority for the safety of employees and contract workers. Without the proper restrictions put in place, who's to say that the company won't cut corners when it comes to making profit over protecting their workers. The government should be able to place regulations on company building projects and working conditions. If workers do feel inadequately compensated, I think that they should first talk with the company and discuss their concerns. While OSHA guidelines are a baseline for worker protection, they don't guarantee satisfaction for workers. If a worker or employee truly feels violated in the workplace due to unsafe conditions, they should report this, and an investigation should be launched.
ReplyDeleteI think that businesses should definitely be regulated on where they can build. Having people work in an unsafe environment can be very dangerous, especially over a long period of time. In a perfect world, the business would build wherever they want and it would be up to the workers to take on that risk. However, many workers may not fully understand the risks of working in a dangerous area such as an area with toxic levels of lead. The business may also not adequately explain those risks to employees in hope of more employment. Because of these reasons, it is for the best that these businesses are regulated in such ways.
ReplyDeleteThe government should have some say in what conditions are and are not safe for a company to build in. It has been shown time and time again that some companies only care about profit margins and have little regard for the safety of their employees. In some instances, companies are willing to put lives on the line for a quick buck. Although not all companies are as malicious with their intents, regulating where they can build still provides a safety net for the employees. If it were the employee's responsibility to decide what conditions are safe to work in, how do we stop companies from hiding the fact that they built on dangerous land? Also, if these companies are hiring immigrants like Signal did, their employees may not have the resources available to fully research the work site before hand, and some may overlook it because they need the work so desperately.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I feel as if the government should have a say in where a business can and cannot be built due to some conditions of the environment being not good to build on or have people working there. Like it is stated in the question above, the land where Signal built their man camps on had toxic levels of lead, which is incredibly harmful to people and can lead to a multitude of health issues. Furthermore, another reason as to why I think that the government should have control is because people would not even consider the other things they could harm if they were to build on random pieces of land. By doing this, it can harm the environment by disrupting whole ecosystems throwing off everything in that general area and it could cause high levels of pollution from waste build up during the construction process or pollution from trash build up and chemicals that were used in the building or on the construction site. In addition, in the event that this happens, when it rains the waste that builds up from businesses can runoff into near by water ways such as rivers, ponds, streams, etc and can pollute the environment and the ecosystem within the river harming living organisms in the river like plants and animals.
ReplyDelete