The court's decision reflects a lack of belief in the legal system's ability to enforce safer working conditions and protect workers.
The narratives of individual responsibility and perpetual pandemic contribute to a lack of accountability for employers in this court decision.
The court prioritizes the economic well-being of businesses over the health and safety of individuals in this decision.
Deep dives
Floodgates argument makes assumptions about liability litigation
The floodgates argument made in the court's decision assumes that holding employers liable for COVID-19 transmission wouldn't deter the spread of the virus in the workplace. This assumption demonstrates a lack of belief in the legal system's ability to enforce safer working conditions and protect workers. The argument also reflects a questioning of the legitimacy of liability litigation as a deterrent to negligent behavior. By prioritizing the fear of an overwhelming number of lawsuits, the court devalues the harm experienced by individuals and reinforces the protection of employers rather than workers.
Contrasting narratives of individual responsibility and perpetual pandemic
The narratives of individual responsibility and perpetual pandemic both contribute to a lack of accountability for employers in this court decision. While policy rhetoric emphasizes personal responsibility and risk management, the court argues that COVID is ubiquitous and unavoidable, making attempts to hold employers liable futile. This contradictory framing highlights the failure of both narratives to address the systemic issues of workplace safety during the pandemic. The decision showcases a disconnect between the reality of social murder and the unwillingness of institutions to hold those responsible accountable.
Privatization of risk in protecting businesses over individuals
The court prioritizes the economic well-being of businesses over the health and safety of individuals in this decision. The argument of potential harm to businesses and the economy dominates the court's reasoning, leading to the conclusion that holding employers responsible for COVID-19 transmission would be too burdensome. The decision further exemplifies the privatization of risk, where the costs and consequences of workplace safety are shifted onto individuals, downplaying the responsibility of employers and reinforcing systemic inequalities.
Depoliticization and oppressive technocracy
The court's decision aligns with the broader trend of depoliticization, rejecting the notion that political action can address the systemic issues of workplace safety during the pandemic. This depoliticization is indicative of an oppressive technocratic approach that denies the potential for change and accountability. The absence of political will and the prioritization of economic interests contribute to a bleak and dehumanizing view of the pandemic's consequences, allowing social murder to continue unabated.
Depoliticization and Privilege in Legal Decisions
This podcast episode discusses a court case in California where a worker sued their employer after contracting COVID-19 at work. The court ruled in favor of the employer, stating that it would be too costly to hold them liable. The podcast explores how this decision reflects a depoliticizing liberal framework and highlights the privilege and disregard for vulnerable individuals. Another court case from Wisconsin is referenced, which similarly demonstrates the depoliticization and lack of concern for the lives of workers. The episode argues that this decision illustrates the class-based nature of legal outcomes and the systemic acceptance of social murder.
The Disregard for Workers' Rights and Compensability
The podcast delves into the broader context of workers' rights and compensation, highlighting the inherent bias in the system. It discusses how the law often disregards the real harms and additional consequences that workers face, dismissing them as individual problems. The episode draws parallels to the treatment of disabled individuals in the legal system, where they are expected to rely on assistance and face significant barriers in seeking compensation. This case exemplifies the prioritization of protecting businesses and the normalization of social murder, with the law emphasizing business confidence and maintaining the status quo.
We're taking the week of the 14th off for research and to gear up for what we've got planned for the show in the fall. In the meantime, if you appreciate this episode, or just want to support our work, become a patron at https://www.patreon.com/deathpanelpod to unlock more patron exclusive episodes just like this.
In today's show, 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."
Transcript:
https://www.deathpanel.net/transcripts/unlimited-liabilities-nate-holdren
Find our book Health Communism here: www.versobooks.com/books/4081-health-communism
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
