View Single Post
  #61   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
John John is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 812
Default OT - Should Recalls Cause A Company's Demise?



Ed Huntress wrote:

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:05:04 -0700, Too_Many_Tools wrote:


Today it is beef....tomorrow toys...the next day...well something
else...fasteners, tires, tools?

It would seem that lack of quality control has just cost this company
its existence and its employees their livelihoods.

Should a company be responsible for its own quality control or is it a
responsibility of government to protect us?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks


-- snip --

It is the responsibility of government to protect us. Us as consumers,
not us as manufacturers. I think that being able to assume that my food
is safe, and my kid's toys are safe, and my walls and roof and piping, is
a fine thing and I want to stick with that.



When it comes to toys, food, and drugs, the question is, if not the
government, then who? And if the answer is the manufacturers, the next
question is, since when? And if the answer to that is since now, because we
have a newfound willingness to let the markets determine even such outcomes
as the number of deaths we'll tolerate to expose a manufacturer's
irresponsibility and resulting bankrupcy, the question is, whose deaths?

The fact is that we, as consumers, cannot evaluate the safety of many
products. And we have a very flexible scale when it comes to tolerating
deaths. For example, our magic number for deaths due to vehicle accidents
seems to be around 30,000 - 40,000/year.

The incentives for manufacturers to go beyond a minimum effort on safety and
inspection are slim. So we're getting about what market forces should be
expected to produce: dangerous intestinal bacteria in beef, for example, and
lead paint on toys.

This isn't a place where market forces are going to work. But, who knows,
maybe we'll tolerate 30,000 - 40,000 deaths per year from poorly inspected
food, too. And who knows that those kids wouldn't have lost just as many IQ
points from playing football without a helmet? It is worth dismissing those
problems as long as it keeps the free market as pure as driven snow.
Whatever they do in response to the forces of the market is, by definition,
the right thing. Right?

--
Ed Huntress



The ugly truth is that we are the ultimate factor in keeping ourselves
safe. If you are worried about losing some iq points from playing
football, simple answer is 'don't play football'.
IF you are worry about contaminated meat, don't eat meat or cook it
properly to kill the bugs.
As much as no one wants to admit it, there is a dollar value placed on
all human lives. In reality the scales are very convoluted, in this
last meat contamination issue there were fewer ten people that died.
That's a little more than a bad day in Baghdad, or about two hours of
highway deaths.

If you see your kid chewing on toys you got to make sure that nothing is
coming off them, lead paint or non lead paint. Same goes for attachments
to the toys.

We could digress into banning tobacco products, alcohol and a number of
other items, but it up to the individual to make the decision to use or
not to use them.


John