Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    It's very simple: The employer reduces the lead to safe levels.
    
    						Ann B.

    I used to work in a Pharmaceutical Lab. where we prepared drug formulas
    for all kinds of tests and on the same site we had plants manufacturing
    active substances and various dosis forms.
    Within this company rules were simple.
    Levels of toxic substances are kept as low as technically possible.
    Where required, safety measures are taken and personal protection is
    obligatory and equipment is available.
    As soon as pregnancy is confirmed, women report this to their manager
    and actions are taken to prevend exposure to hazardous materials.
    In some research labs where cats were used as test animals women would
    not be employed because sometimes injuries caused by cats or contact
    with cat faecies could harm the reproductive system.
    Had this anything to do with preventing women to do certain jobs.
    NO! It had everything to do with looking after their and their future
    children's health.
    Even if all possible safety measures are taken, accidents *can* and
    *will* happen (and I've seen them happen).
    I *do* favor equal oportunity, but there are situations where it's
    just impossible.
    And... if someone for the sake of equal rights wants to take the risk,
    sign a paper relieving the emplyer from his liabilities.
    
    Charles

    Reducing the lead exposure to "safe levels" does seem to be the obvious
    answer.  However, determining what level is actually safe is not
    simple.  Many materials which were felt to be "safe" 20 or even 10
    years ago are not considered safe today.  "TLVs" -- the level
    at or above which exposure to a particular material is no longer considered
    safe -- for many materials have been reduced in recent years.  What
    was "safe" a yesterday is not "safe" today and what is "safe" today may
    not be "safe" tomorrow.
    
    Do I think that the only answer is banning women of child bearing age
    and capability from certain jobs?  No, I just don't think that there
    are easy answers to the dilemma.  However, one solution might be for
    the company to fully explain the risks; to offer to pay for the
    newer very sophisticated pregnancy tests which detect pregnancy very
    shortly after conception, and/or to offer alternative jobs at equal pay
    to women who are preganant, trying or planning to get pregnant.  This
    may not be possible in smaller companies or in companies where there
    are very few jobs that don't involve exposure. 
               

A similar situation happened in the UK, at Sellafield, the nuclear re-processing
plant. Children with fathers working in 'risk' areas at the plant were 3000 times
(can't remember exactly) more likely to have leukemia. 

The employer tried to get people who were past child-producing age, but in
an area of high unemployment several appeared on TV saying "what can we do ?."

I can't remember how this ended. There was a lot of manipulation of the media
and discrediation of the report by the employer.

Jane

    I agree with .2 that if the employer is not allowed to ban women
    from these jobs, that women should not be able to sue the employer
    if they have a baby with birth defects.  This is assuming that the
    women are told about the risk and agree to taking it.  There are
    certain jobs that are nonhazardous to adults but are hazardous to
    developing fetuses.
    	Linda
    		(who would like to see a cap on personal injury settlements).

                       <<< Note 429.5 by NAVIER::SAISI >>>

>    I agree with .2 that if the employer is not allowed to ban women
>    from these jobs, that women should not be able to sue the employer
>    if they have a baby with birth defects.  This is assuming that the
>    women are told about the risk and agree to taking it.  There are
>    certain jobs that are nonhazardous to adults but are hazardous to
>    developing fetuses.
>    	Linda
>    		(who would like to see a cap on personal injury settlements).



unfortunately this is the real world.. and here in the real
world any baby born with any defect that could under any
circumstances be blamed on "high levels of <anything>"
would lead to one (or many) court cases

(Baby learns slow? = sue, baby short/tall/fat/thin? = sue)

result for the company?  lots of very expensive law cases

result for the company?  company goes out of business

result for the workers?  on welfare

the only people that would be happy are those that JUST HAVE to
make a point no MATTER *_WHAT_* the cost 

Why not just push something till it breaks ?

    
    >I agree with .2 that if the employer is not allowed to ban women
    >from these jobs, that women should not be able to sue the employer
    >if they have a baby with birth defects.  This is assuming that the
    >women are told about the risk and agree to taking it.  There are
    
    I understand that the issue is not *just* with the possibility that the
    women could sue the employer (a legal binding waiver could handle this)
    but that the *children*, after reaching legal age, could sue the
    mother's employer.  (A fetus cannot sign a waiver...)
    
    						/R
    
    

    If the process harms fetuses or whatever, I wonder if it also affects
    sperm adversely, thus potentially leading to birth defects?  Should the
    men working with the materials be certified as sterile also?
    
    -Jody
    

    re .9
    It's not the women's fault if they're not educated enough.
    The women I worked with in the lab were professionals like myself and
    trained in handling hazardous materials.
    Besides that it's the employers task to educate if necessary.
    And... the labs I used to work for made *no* allowances for people who
    ignored safety rules. Usually after 1 warning suspension was the next
    step.
    
    B.t.w. would you like to guess how many *man* are not educated enough?
    
    Charles

Actually, there's two issues here:
	- women possibly being overexposed to lead, and its possible consequence
	  on them and offspring.
	**women not being promoted unless they work in the area/job that 
	  includes such exposure.

Could the company rethink its promotional/seniority/rewards "culture" so that 
this job is NOT a requirement for advancement?  Or that there is some other
equally-regarded alternative that does not require exposure?  This is far from
an easy solution, I realize, but offers a different approach to solving the 
problem.  Note that they suspect but haven't proven that it could affect men,
too....

Another problem with waivers, btw.  Could the woman later claim that she signed
it under duress, as she wouldn't have been given the job (and the resulting
raises and promotions it can yield) if she refused to sign.... ?

		Helen

    
    see also:
    
    Womannotes-V2
    735 - 2-legged incubators
    
    -Jody
    

    The more I think about it, the more I like Ann's suggestion that
    the employer should engineer the job so that workers aren't exposed.
    If the environment is hazardous it is hazardous.  This required a 
    mental swap on my part to realize that I was thinking about women
    again as "the exception to the norm".
    	Linda

    This isn't really simple, is it?   .2 and .5 seemed to think the issue
    is protecting a potential fetus, and .6 is convinced that the issue
    is "whose liable?"
    
    Lots of issues here, and NONE of them simple.  The case is going to set
    some dangerous precidents.  Consider
    
    
    1.  Is "protecting" a woman and her health really a good thing, if she
    does not want to be protected?   Is it legal?
    
    2.  Is the right of the fetus to be considered here?  Would this mean
    that right-to-lifers would win some sort of victory ?  Is the right
    of a fetus-yet-to-be more important than that of a woman?  
    
    3.  Is the woman in charge of her own body?  If she can then decide
    on the risks, for both herself and a possible unborn fetus?
    
    4.  Does .6 have the right of it, and the whole issue is whether or not
    one or more parties in the case will get sued in the future?
    
    5.  should the employer be made to make  the environment safe for all?
    Even if that puts him/them out of business?  If so, are the rights
    of the women involved preserved, if the jobs in question go away
    anyway?
    
    
    This is very complex - I find myself feeling that the women have the
    right to protest, and that discrimination has occured.   On the other
    hand, the *moral* thing to do is to make the  workplace safe for all.
    On the other hand again, is it right to force an employer out of
    business, if "reasonable" restrictions could solve the safety problem
    for women?
    
    I fear that justice will not be done in this case, and that - as base
    note indicates - the legal question is whether or not this is a true
    occupational requirement issue.
    
    I'll be interested in seeing how it turns out.
    
    
    -m

    A few   more   notes  I  found:  The  company  (Johnson  Controls)
    previously  asked  women  to  agree  not  to become pregnant while
    working  in  areas with lead. Eight women who agreed not to become
    pregnant did become pregnant (I don't know out of how many).

    It takes a while for blood levels of lead to drop, so having women
    leave that area when they become pregnant may not be safe, as they
    will  have a high blood level of lead for part of the pregnancy. I
    don't  know  what blood level is considered safe in pregnancy, but
    the  safe  levels for children have been dropping as more is found
    out about the harmful effects of lead.  

    It's not clear that the technology exists to keep the levels down.
    One  of  the  jobs  was  crane  operator  pouring  lead from large
    containers   into   molds.  Reducing  airborne  lead  in  such  an
    environment could be very hard.

--David

    David, I'm not sure I buy it that the technology doesn't exist.
    After all, there are always things like self-contained environments,
    robots, etc..  Perhaps conversions to a safe environment would cost 
    the company $$$ and that is the real reluctance.  Also there have
    been alot of new reports suggesting that exposure to hazardous
    materials by men can also cause birth defects in their offspring.
    There doesn't seem to be a big interest in pursuing this for some
    reason.  ;-|
    	Linda

    <esc>[?451h
    Pouring molten lead into molds?!  That was the lead-handling
    "technology" they used in Roman times!  Nothing better has turned
    up in over two thousand years?  Someone isn't trying.
    
    <Mount hobby horse.>
    "It's too expensive to do it that way." is the whine that leads
    to pollution, toxic dumping, unsafe work practices, et cetera.
    I don't think it should be allowed ever again.
    <Dismount.>
    
    Okay.  This company makes lead-acid batteries for cars.  Do only
    lead-acid batteries provide the need power?  If "no", convert to
    making another kind that works.  If "yes", is this the only provider
    of this product?  If "no", study methods the other compan{y|ies}
    use.  If "yes", tighten the controls and stop worrying; the market
    must pay the higher price.
    
    What if other companies are producing lead-acid batteries only with
    the high levels of lead?  They too should have the more stringent
    controls applied.  What if these other companies are not in the
    U.S.?  Import of their batteries should be restricted on the same
    grounds.
    
    Rationale:  The Taguchi method emphasizes that the social cost of
    a product must be factored into the total cost of a product.
    <esc>[?451l
    
    						Ann B.

    I will diffidently point out that lead is not gender-specific in some
    effects: first it makes you stupid, then it kills you.  The research
    mentioned in this string and elsewhere says that lead exposure may very
    well have an effect on men's ability to reproduce, as well as on
    women's.
    
    First see reality.  Then deny it if you can.
    
    

    Why should we buy interpreters for politicians, when some politicians
    can speak Russian, and the rest have the ability to learn?  Why does 
    a company have to buy elevators when it could only hire employees who 
    can walk up stairs?  I am not 100% in favor of this solution, just
    pointing out that there is precedent.  It all depends on who you
    are willing to accomodate, and who you consider normal vs. an
    exception.  I think the worst possible way to decide this case is
    to allow the fetal police to put another restriction on women.
    	Linda

    Dutch TV yesterday devoted a "Werken aan Werk" ("Work for Work" or
    something like that) episode to a woman who worked for a big truck
    company (guess which one - they made it impossible to identify the
    company, all we know is that they make trucks, and have a short name
    ending on an F - now that puts us at a loss, doesn't it, Charles? :-))
    as a paintsprayer (?). 
    
    They had a chat with one of her co-workers who was positive about
    "women at the workplace" and also commented it helped improve work-
    environment conditions. Huh? Well, he explained, as soon as there are
    women working, that triggers to think of ways to make the work lighter,
    because women aren't usually physically as strong as men. He
    illustrated his argument by naming the lift truck which was invented
    during WW I when there were a lot of men involved in the war and a lot
    of women, consequently, were needed in the factories. These women
    couldn't lift heavy things as easily as the men who worked there, so
    voil�, the lift truck was invented. He then said, if this situation
    hadn't occured, there would never have been an immediate need for a
    lift truck, so it'd still be unknown.
    
    I wonder whether he's right - it sure is something to think about.
    
    Ad

    Re .19: Just to point out - the argument wasn't that the conditions
    were safe for men and unsafe for women, but that they were unsafe for
    developing fetuses. [And of course we're trying to find some way around
    the limitation. Isn't that what human beings do best? ;-)]
    
    While I can understand the various concerns over costs and liability, I
    still think it's rather a raw deal to prohibit all potentially fertile
    women from a job just in case they might become pregnant. However,
    since it appears that, in most cases, these jobs aren't intrinsically
    desirable for their own sakes, but rather for the sake of the pay
    and/or advancement opportunities they rate, I should think there is
    room for compromise. [I'd also like to see the working conditions made
    safer across the board; seems like a really raw deal to encourage
    people to put their health at risk because it's the only way they can
    earn that kind of money.]
    
    -b

    
    It would pay to keep in mind that in many cases changes in the
    workplace to introduce technology are resisted by the WORKERS.  They
    don't want to put their jobs at risk by "asking" for automation.  I
    think it's easy to sit in an office and say,"they should do this and
    should do that".  What you can never be sure of is what IS actually 
    happening. 
    There is most likely resistance to change on both sides.
    
    		Holly