Why can Safeway Randall's unsafe worksites hurt their employees and get away on a technicality?

Answer

I don't know the details of this case, nor have i even heard of it. But your question is simple-minded and pre-supposes that Safeway Randall's "unsafe worksite" is responsible for the alleged injuries. It also pre-supposes that employers have an obligation to provide a safe workplace. To an economist such as myself, the only oblication that a company has it to turn a profit for its owners. Anything else is new-age social responsibility claptrap. Granted, much of that claptrap has been codified into law, and that pains me. But, from a purely economic standpoint, the only responsibility that a company SHOULD have is to turn a profit for its owners. In the process of producing and selling goods and services, the company will almost always end up providing JOBS for some people, but that is certainly not an obligation. And, once they give people jobs, they certainly have no moral obligation to provide health insurance, paid vacation, a safe workplace, or any of the other benefits that workers EXPECT nowadays. Thanks to meddelsome governments, they now have a LEGAL obligation, but the only MORAL obligation here is for the government to stay the hell out of it and stop telling companies what they HAVE TO do for their employees. They already gave them a JOB, what more do they want? It's crap like this that forces companies to automate, thereby eliminating jobs, and all the bureaucratic headaches that go along with them.

• What is the differences between promise to pay and negotiate?
• What banks offer a Second Chance account in Central Arkansas?
• How can you tell to your coustomers that some of the products are now available in a low price?