Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Inventorsmindblog's avatar

Leonard, thank you for this — and for the repost. I did not expect a comment with this kind of direct lineage to the actual case. Your father representing the Ottawa dial-painters, and then you spending a career on the other side of OSHA hearings, is a continuity I could not have hoped for a reader to bring to this piece.

Your point about subtlety is exactly the thread I was pulling on with the "crosswalks" and "scissor lifts" sections. The mechanical hazards got engineered out because they were visible and undeniable, in court and on the shop floor. Toxic chemicals and environments are harder to litigate and harder to train for precisely because the harm shows up years later, in a body part nobody's watching. If employers today are making the same arguments in a quieter register, that tells me the century between the Ottawa case and now changed the vocabulary more than it changed the underlying incentive.

I would genuinely value your read on which of those employer arguments have held up best against OSHA scrutiny, and which ones keep resurfacing no matter how many times they're beaten in a hearing room. That sounds like its own article.

Leonard Grossman's avatar

As the son of the attorney who represented the Radium Girls o Ottawa, Illinois, I am glad to see you lift their story. The shop floor may have changed, but the lessons haven't. Decades later I, too, became a lawyer. Among others things I represented OSHA in a number of hearings. Employers today,make many of the same arguments, they may be more subtle, but work places remain dangerous places. And some of the hazards you raise have not yet been thoroughly addressed. Especially in the area of toxic chemicals and environments.

No posts

Ready for more?