I want to see a lot more of these criminal cases. Those who were supposed to be in charge have blood on their hands.
1 Like
Well they would have 
…but yes I agree 
1 Like
I’m not sure if we really can say they have blood on their hands. OK, I don’t know the ins and outs of this particular case, so perhaps they did something specifically bad. But it’s the logic of the lockdown measures which intrigues me, and which I think are flawed. Let’s just restrict for a moment to Western nations.
They impose lockdowns, ostensibly for people’s health to avoid infection. Yet, at the same time, the whole food industry must continue functioning or society would disintegrate very quickly. Now, that can only be done if people do continue working in these places. In fact, there’s probably more work to be done with more people relying on shops as restaurants and pubs are shut.
So, those advocating lockdowns to `save lives’, should, to be consistent, also have been advocating closing shops, and food factories. Unless these workers are somehow expendable. To now point an accusing finger at these places who helped keep the system afloat seems wrong.
@Willem . Very diplomatically put in my opinion. I think there are two things here.
First, Cargill is not one of those companies deserving of any love. A bit like Monsanto’s baby brother, so getting prosecuted, won’t give me sleepness nights.
More importantly, as we now know, Sars Cov 2 is as dangerous as … er … flu! As Willem points out shutting down food processing companies is hardly consistent with saving lives. For those that follow The Ice Age Farmer, this is all part of the eugenics agenda. In case you have no clue as to what I’m talking about, here are a snippert of his podcast (usually short and to the point).
Hi @Willem
So as a minimum, a company has a duty of care to it’s workers. Staff raised concerns numerous times with Cargill management only to be ignored.
It’s not about lockdowns, it’s about protecting the most vulnerable workers - surely even the anti-lockdown proponents of the Barrington proposal would have agreed.
Sadly companies like Cargill have even less empathy that the Barrington proponents.
I’m sick of the most vulnerable in society being treated as if they are expendable. Governments and companies should be held to account for their massive and lethal failures.
Only if Cargill really did absolutely everything it could to address workers concerns and keep them safe. Otherwise they should be sued into the ground.
Cheers
Hahahaha! Good one.
Wait, you’re joking, right? Surely no one is this wrong after a whole year of data?
Lol - well put! I imagine it must be a fairly hellish job all round.
Hi PP,
Sure there should be a duty of care towards workers. I expect, as a rule, they will do the absolute bare minimum they can get away with, so yes, I also have little sympathy for their plight.
However, I also suspect that this company and many others like it have been told to stay open during these lockdowns. Now there are proper safety standards for all sorts of things, but for covid, this has been all over the place – often made up on the spot by politicians. And for good reason, because there was (is) no real consensus. First masks were unnecessary, then suddenly they were. I’m not quite sure we should expect these companies to have their own scientists to decide which policies to implement.
It reminds me of the situation of universities here in the UK. Many in the unions were calling on all classes to be moved online. Most universities didn’t, instead having reduced classes for tutorials and only putting lectures online. Still they were accused of putting lives at risk. But did Unis have to go beyond government advice and decide to impose more stringent measures? Based on what? Some managers’ reading of medical papers?
Cheers
Hi Willem
I understand that it might be confusing for an employer to know what to do. Although I just can’t see what you’re getting at by bringing the concept of lockdowns into the issue. Would the company have been safer without a lockdown? I don’t see the connection between worker safety and lockdowns or not.
Did you read the article? I thought it made some strong points:
April 6, 2020, marked Cargill’s first recorded COVID case. The same day, United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 401 brought the case to the attention of management and requested personal protective equipment (PPE) for all employees. The UFCW asked for financial assistance for self-isolating workers and a restriction in the flow of traffic at the plant. The union also floated the idea of closing the plant outright for two weeks.
Cargill decided to lay people off instead.
Cargill held a telephone town hall with its employees on April 18 and told them it was safe to return to work. Management completely excluded UFCW 401 from this conversation. However, the local had already scheduled their own town hall for the next day, where employees expressed their anxieties about the workplace. A further UFCW phone survey confirmed that 85 percent of employees were scared to go into work.
Finally, after a massive outbreak and at least one death,
Hiep became the first worker fatality on April 20, dying within days of falling ill. After her death, Cargill finally agreed to shut the plant down for two weeks, but by then the virus was ravaging High River.
So, they could have shut the plant for 2 weeks earlier, preventing a huge outbreak. They could have supported workers with paid sick leave instead of layoffs, they could have provided PPE and addressed workers concerns. They could have worked with the unions instead of cutting them out of the calls telling workers to go back to work.
Don’t let your reasonable opposition to lockdown policies blind you to criminal action by these monstrous corporations. The governments presiding over this catastrophe, and the companies that have massively profited from it need to be held accountable by all means possible.
Cheers
PP
1 Like
Apologies. My comments were rather straying from the topic. I agree this company has shown pretty awful behaviour and deserve being sued. As I said initially, I hadn’t looked at the case properly. By what you point out, they were negligent and could have closed. Given our system, it’s hardly surprising – workers are routinely expected to turn up to work even when they’re ill. Even at school this is encouraged.
My point about bringing in lockdowns was because it reminded me of an issue which always bothered me. It’s this. For those not wanting lockdowns, the food sector would continue running (as indeed other sectors of society), though measures could be taken to protect particularly vulnerable people. (Whether you think this is possible etc is another discussion.) But for those advocating lockdowns because of the dangers of disease*, there is a real problem: to be consistent, shouldn’t shops and factories also close like all other businesses because the workers there are exposed to a dangerous virus? I never heard this point made. It’s like people’s health counts, but only up to the point that it doesn’t stop the supply of food, toilet rolls etc. in the supermarkets. Then suddenly, it’s pragmatism that rules.
*as opposed to those “Great resetters” wanting lockdowns to change society whether or not they believe Covid is actually that threatening
1 Like