Best of 2023: Unlimited Liabilities w/ Nate Holdren
Jan 3, 2024
auto_awesome
Nate Holdren discusses a recent California court ruling that denied a covid worker's compensation claim due to the potential economic impact. The hosts analyze the implications on the pandemic response, explore arguments about employer liability, and discuss the concept of social murder and lack of accountability in COVID-19 workplace cases. They also highlight the iterative process of ending the pandemic and express gratitude to the guest and patrons.
The court decision emphasizes individual responsibility for COVID-19 risks, disregarding the societal impact and limiting businesses' liability.
The prioritization of businesses and the economy over protecting individuals perpetuates harm and injustice.
The depoliticization in the legal framework surrounding workers' COVID-19 lawsuits favors businesses' interests, leaving vulnerable workers without recourse.
Deep dives
Floodgates Argument and Liability
The court decision revolves around the floodgates argument, claiming that allowing employers to be held liable for COVID-19 transmission to non-employees would open the floodgates to a deluge of lawsuits. The court argues that the potential liability and its impact on businesses and essential services would be too burdensome, leading them to decline imposing such liability.
Individual Responsibility vs. Societal Responsibility
The court decision reflects a broader narrative that places individual responsibility for COVID-19 risks while discounting the broader societal impact. It highlights that individuals should take their own precautions and that businesses cannot be held liable for transmission to non-employees, even when public health orders are violated. The decision reinforces the notion that businesses and the economy take precedence over protecting individuals and communities from harm.
Capitalism as a Death Machine
The court decision ultimately upholds the idea that capitalism is inherently a death machine. It suggests that the scale of social murder caused by the pandemic is so large that it cannot be stopped, and attempting to hold employers accountable for transmission would be too costly and disruptive to the economy. The decision prioritizes the preservation of businesses and the status quo, perpetuating the cycle of harm and injustice.
Depoliticization and Technocratic Approach
The court decision reflects a depoliticization stance, asserting that nothing can be done to address the societal impact of COVID-19 transmission within the workplace. It mirrors a technocratic approach where the responsibility lies with individuals and businesses rather than the justice system or broader political action. The decision reinforces a narrative that there is no political solution or accountability for social harm caused by capitalism and the pandemic.
The Depoliticization Angle in Legal Frameworks
The podcast episode discusses the depoliticization angle in the legal frameworks surrounding workers' lawsuits related to COVID-19. The judges in these cases use a depoliticizing liberal framework to deny the responsibility of employers for workplace infections. They argue that the cost to society of imposing liability on employers would be too great and that it is not practical to trace a series of events beyond a certain point. This depoliticization serves to protect the interests of businesses and leaves vulnerable workers without recourse.
Normalization of Social Murder and Cost-Benefit Analysis
The podcast highlights the normalization of social murder and the use of exaggerated cost-benefit analysis in the legal system's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The legal framework, influenced by capitalism, minimizes the significance of workplace injuries and illnesses, shifting the burden onto workers. By naturalizing social murder, the courts prioritize protecting the interests of businesses and maintaining a sense of order, rather than addressing the structural harm caused by exploitative working conditions. The decision-making process reveals the discrepancy in justice and the devaluation of vulnerable lives in the pursuit of economic stability.
As we send off 2023, we’re releasing a series of some of our favorite episodes of the year—including some newly unlocked episodes that have previously only been available to patrons. This episode was originally released for Death Panel patrons on April 3rd, 2023. To support the show and help make episodes like this one possible, become a patron at www.patreon.com/deathpanelpod.
Original description: Bea and Artie speak with Nate Holdren about a recent court ruling in California that denied a covid worker's compensation claim because recognizing employer liability would have "the potential to destroy businesses and curtail, if not outright end, the provision of essential public services."
Full transcript: https://www.deathpanel.net/transcripts/unlimited-liabilities-nate-holdren
Find our book Health Communism here: www.versobooks.com/books/4081-health-communism
Pre-order Jules' new book here:
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/733966/a-short-history-of-trans-misogyny-by-jules-gill-peterson/
Death Panel merch here (patrons get a discount code): www.deathpanel.net/merch
As always, support Death Panel at www.patreon.com/deathpanelpod
Get the Snipd podcast app
Unlock the knowledge in podcasts with the podcast player of the future.
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode
Save any moment
Hear something you like? Tap your headphones to save it with AI-generated key takeaways
Share & Export
Send highlights to Twitter, WhatsApp or export them to Notion, Readwise & more
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode