Comments on: Rachel Maines on the evolution of asbestos guilt

By: rxc

rxc — Thu, 12 Nov 2015 20:07:11 +0000

The concept of “guilt narrative” is fascinating, given all the similar situations where progressives have sought to engineer social change. Tobacco is the first one to come to mind, with nuclear energy a close second, and automobiles (the concept and the execution both being totally evil) taking third place. But now we have them trying to create a climate change narrative to de-industrialize the planet and re-distribute wealth. It is fundamentally a demonization of fire.

Quite an ambitious undertaking, but since it has worked before, and they know how to do it, and the media is in place to support them, why not shoot for the moon? It will be interesting to watch what happens in Paris.

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Wed, 11 Nov 2015 20:14:53 +0000

In reply to Chris Hoey. To the extent that they thought about it, I'm sure they rationalized it as "that's the material the bosses told us to use so it's their fault, really".

By: Chris Hoey

Chris Hoey — Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:11:05 +0000

As the asbestos litigation unfolded over the years, I often thought back to the time when I was with the NLRB as a trial attorney in Newark, NJ. It was over 50 years ago, probably in 1964 or 1965, and the underlying issue of the case was a company trying to use preformed fittings in pipe insulation, a new product on the market at the time. The defendant union was a local of the International Association of Heat & Frost Insulators and ASBESTOS Workers, AFL-CIO (Since purged of Asbestos and now known as “Insulators”) The new forms were made of asbestos, and were to be used on corners and other types of shapes found in HVAC installations. The union was striking to demand that construction employers be barred from using this new product, and continue the old practice of hand forming these shapes on the job by hand saws and other tools used to make L and Y shapes. Since the process the union sought to retain involved much more exposure to its members than use of prefabricated shapes, the thought occurred to me whether or not the unions had any liability or responsibility for its demand to retain a procedure that further endangered its members to the dangers of asbestos.
I knew the answer, and realized that my ruminations were of the type to be confined to a course in ethics, but I couldn’t help but wonder if the labor leaders involved ever felt a twinge of conscience about how their demands affected the members they represented?
The bottom line is that not only did building codes require asbestos, there was a powerful union that existed to represent the workers in that field that actually lobbied and struck to spread its use in construction.