I will say I find the writing a little off putting. Felt like they wanted to rope in every name, company and person involved here.
"medieval hazards" I don't even know what that means but mold is a thing in the modern area too.
Clearly this publication is pro labor unions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Notes), but it is strange that they push this narrative and note how people in the labor union were working in these poor conditions:
"many have required their union workers to build on 12-hour shifts, seven days a week. Despite months of worker concerns, managers waited until early February to take basic precautions against the mold—precautions that might slow construction"
Gee thanks labor unions for helping out?
This article is all over the place.
There's a story here that IMO could have been told, and accomplished the same goals without the internal weirdness of the article sort of pointing back at itself.
FWIW I agree with you. The title hardly makes sense to me as well.
"Ford's Battery Flagship" - even after reading the article I'm still not sure what this is. "flagship" is used only in the title and nowhere else. Based on my knowledge of Ford, I would assume their "flagship" would be the F150, but this article seems to be talking about some sort of battery factory that a South Korean company is building?
Similarly, "socked by mold sickness" is a weird phrase. Feels like an inappropriate use of "socked" here. If the project is delayed because workers are getting sick, just say that.
The title strikes me as a failed attempt at clickbait, and immediately makes me distrustful of the rest of the article, which is confirmed by the "all over the place"ness that you mentioned as well.
Socked here is just "hit or struck" which isn't that weird of a phrase to use in the context. We use it all the time for natural disasters, cities are socked by a hurricane.
I've literally never heard "socked by a hurricane" despite living in an area where hurricanes hit the coast every year. I just did a google search for "socked by a hurricane" and there were a mere 8 results. Seems like a stretch to say this is used "all the time".
I know I'm being pedantic and it doesn't really matter that much, but I stand by my original comment that the headline phrasing was offputting to me.
I’ll throw my hat into the ring and agree that this phrasing makes no sense.
To help the AI with its clickbait generation for next time: “Workers at Ford EV battery plant marred by mold”, “Foibles at Ford battery plant! Mold infestation takes down workforce”
""FORD TO LEAD AMERICA'S SHIFT TO ELECTRIC VEHICLES WITH NEW BLUEOVAL CITY MEGA CAMPUS IN TENNESSEE AND TWIN BATTERY PLANTS IN KENTUCKY; $11.4B INVESTMENT TO CREATE 11,000 JOBS AND POWER NEW LINEUP OF ADVANCED EVS
FORD TO BRING ELECTRIC ZERO-EMISSION VEHICLES AT SCALE TO AMERICAN CUSTOMERS WITH THE LARGEST, MOST ADVANCED, MOST EFFICIENT AUTO PRODUCTION COMPLEX IN ITS 118-YEAR HISTORY""
What they wanted to say was "Ford's flagship battery plant" or something else. Flagship is an adjective unless it's meant to denote a ship that carries an admiral's flag.
It's HN, things that are clear cruel nitpicks elsewhere, are signal to be remarked upon, we're highly sensitive, in ways good and bad.
You're right, once is a typo. But the consistent pattern is quite rare in good writing.
Also, you make a good point re: OP's comment was not so much focused on grammar --- they had an interesting observation re: style I'm, and I wanna see I'm familiar with from labour-focused news publications. Which I support!! But, in a sentence, there's a sort of forced first-person, emotional, lengthy narrative that is quite appealing, but you're also not quite sure what actually happened.
Interesting. I understood it immediately, but I'm a pretty smart guy and can comprehend things without them being explicit, so I asked Claude.ai to see if it could do it.
> Prompt: I saw a headline titled "Ford's Battery Flagship Socked by Mold Sickness, Workers Say". What do they mean by "flagship", a literal ship?
> Claude Opus: No, in this context, "flagship" is not referring to a literal ship. In business and marketing, the term "flagship" is often used to describe the most important or leading product, location, or division of a company.
> In the headline you mentioned, "Ford's Battery Flagship" likely refers to the company's primary or most advanced battery manufacturing facility or division. This facility or division is considered the "flagship" because it plays a crucial role in Ford's strategy to develop and produce batteries for their electric vehicles.
> So, when the headline states that the "Battery Flagship" is "Socked by Mold Sickness," it means that this important battery facility is facing issues related to mold growth, which is reportedly causing health problems for the workers.
But Claude Opus is a remarkable LLM. Very powerful. Mixtral 8x7B quantized down to 4 bits is also a remarkable LLM, but much smaller and runs on my laptop. I gave it the same prompt.
> Mixtral 8x7b: "Flagship" in this context refers to the main facility or center of operation for a certain activity or product. In this case, it refers to Ford's main battery production plant.
That was generated in 1.2 s. Not bad. Checking the actual article, it appears that is what the article is about. In a world-modeling and text-comprehension sense these models appear to beat many human beings on meaning inference in ambiguous contexts. Quite cool! One can imagine a future where humans without this inference skill can use a rapid-response text model to auto-translate things down to their comprehension level.
After all, this entire discussion tree is a discussion about communication breakdown. It would be entirely obviated if these LLMs were placed in the comprehension path. Then we'd be operating at a higher level of discussion: talking about the referent rather than the reference, so to speak!
While I understand fairly well what "Flagship" means in business context... my immediate assumption would be "top EC model", considering that Ford is an automotive brand.
To give you another example: if I read "Uniqlo flagship in Berlin is plagued by mold" I immediately understand the implied term (flagship STORE) but if the title say omits "in Berlin" I would try to figure out if maybe there is a new type of mold that destroy... what? Heattech? Pima cotton?
Yeah, I know the forum dislikes LLM-posted comments but I thought it was a pretty good opportunity to show how it could improve human-to-human comms. I think if we'd like we could each get a lot more information extraction ability from the world with this new machinery.
We think about the technology as accelerating development of other stuff purely through generation: code, images, video, sound. But it could actually accelerate comprehension of text because in many cases its skill at teasing out value outstrips ours.
They compared it to a sentence that doesn't make sense, and said "makes no more sense".
If they weren't saying "flagship" makes no sense as a non-ship noun, then they used the wrong words.
Oh unless by OP you meant someone other than jvanderbot, but jvanderbot is the person that prompted the claude reply. It wasn't a reply to duxup, who didn't even mention the headline.
Ok, so you realize now you lied, and the poster never claimed it didn't make sense. That was thin gruel already, they made very clear their complaint was about usage, i.e. the part of adjectives is half their comment, that the LLM poster themselves noted.
Given that, do you still believe the huge, unedited, LLM explanation of "flagship" was responding to someone?
If so, who?
If not, I'd like to avoid normalizing spamming long, child-like, auto-generated, explanations of things to prop up straw-men in service of condescending.
A message board where that was mundane, everyday, behavior wouldn't be fun to be on.
I might enjoy it if I think someone deserved it, but I'd still balance that with the long view, because that sort of behavior is extremely corrosive.
> Ok, so you realize now you lied, and the poster never claimed it didn't make sense.
I'm not lying. I stand by the claim that jvanderbot was saying it didn't make sense.
> Given that, do you still believe the huge, unedited, LLM explanation of "flagship" was responding to someone?
> If so, who?
Is this a real question? Do you not see how it's a reply to jvanderbot...?
> Is it helpful to normalize spamming long child-like auto-generated explanations of things to prop up strawmen? Would that be a fun board to be on?
The ship comment is just as child-like, and it came first. So while I don't think AI comments are good in general, I think in context it wasn't egregious. If we're trying to filter toward good discussion, then jvanderbot's comment should not be treated as much better than the claude comment.
1. You know what they said. ("They said "makes no more sense".)
2. They demonstrated they understood, via note on part of speech and reworded example.
3. You're happy to lie about it. ("I stand by the claim that jvanderbot was saying it didn't make sense")
4. LLM spam is good because it proves what they didn't say is wrong.
I think we all agree on #1, I and the spammer agree on #2, and I alone believe #3, and you alone believe #4.
With that, best to leave it at our interests differ: I'd prefer a forum that wasn't overrun by people making up things other people said* and posting LLM responses to the made up thing.**.
You're missing that jvanderbot's post was itself a strawman, about the title.
And I still say the way they insisted on flagship being the wrong word while using the phrase "no more sense" was a form of not understanding. Doing it on purpose doesn't mean not doing it.
If that's not what you meant by "understanding" then I'm sorry for not reading your mind. It doesn't make me a liar. And you don't seem to have made any attempt to understand what I meant.
And you're doing your own strawman with 4. You know that, right?
It was a demo on how to use the tool. Would you like to learn how to? Try the following steps to construct a prompt on Claude Opus:
1. Type in "I saw this comment on Hacker News:"
2. Hit `>` to start a blockquote.
3. Paste in my entire previous comment
4. Type in "Is this person saying that we should copy-and-paste LLM output as comments to others? Could you explain what he is suggesting I should do if I misunderstand?"
5. Hit Enter
I just tried it and the explanation is right on the money. Not everyone can pick up on human language well, even if they're skilled at other stuff.
You can repeat that with the original sequence of comments as well.
0. Type in "I saw this sequence of Hacker News comments:"
1. Paste in Arrakeen's comment in a blockquote starting with "FWIW I agree with you"
2. Create a nested blockquote with the next response '"Flagship" means important.'
3. Create a third level of nesting with the next response Ford's battery "Important"
4. Exit the nesting and ask: "Does it appear that these people understand what "Ford's battery flagship" means or are they confused by the term?"
And it will correctly detect that they were confused as they said:
> FWIW I agree with you. The title hardly makes sense to me as well.
"Ford's Battery Flagship" - even after reading the article I'm still not sure what this is.
See, he does not know what it means, but if he had asked a high-powered LLM it would immediately have gotten him there and saved him some time commenting. And it looks like you could have too! It's really pretty good stuff. Thanks for working on them.
I think my original comment about "flagship" was worded poorly, and has led this thread down a path I didn't intend.
I know what "flagship" means, and I did correctly assume that the article was trying to convey importance of _something_ related to Ford (my first thought was a flagship car model, but after reading the article I can infer it's about some sort of factory). My gripe with the title is that the article doesn't actually explain why or how it is important, and just assumes you will take the "Ford's Flagship..." description at face value and trust the author that it's important. It's unsurprising to me that an LLM would interpret it this way, because you asked it to just interpret the headline, which it did.
However, in _my_ reading of the article, I'm skeptical of the "Flagship" claim in the article because 1) it is never really explained and 2) the article seems to be going extra hard (too hard) to imply this is a big deal by attaching a bunch of other names (Joe Biden, Department of Energy, Inflation Reduction Act, multiple contracting companies, a SK investment company, state of Kentucky) to the project, but again never really explains why or how. It's almost like the journalistic equivalent of an appeal to authority, I guess.
Yes I'm aware that "flagship" indicates importance, but I stand by my comment that the article does a poor job of explaining it. It only says "flagship" in the title, and also the title is the only place where it really even links the factory to Ford to explain why it's important to Ford. Also from reading other sources, the factory mentioned in this article is only 1 of 3 factories that are being built as part of the project.
Other than that, the article calls the factory a "banner project for Joe Biden", as well as saying it's an "unprecedented" project for Kentucky", mentions investment by the Department of Energy, and also that it is being built for "SK On, a South Korean company". The article seems to be going out of its way to try and imply that this factory is some huge deal by name-dropping a bunch of people and attaching grand sounding adjectives, but doesn't actually explain why. It is, as the GP comment said, "all over the place".
It seems there's a story here about mold that needs to be told, but in the best case this article is just bad writing, and in the worst case it seems like it's actively being clickbaity/deceitful.
I don't think the word "flagship" is the issue. The issue is that no other noun follows. If this was "flagship factory" or "flagship truck" it would be much clearer. To me the headline wasn't clearer do to "flagship" being followed by "socked" which I am most commonly used to seeing as a noun rather than a verb, especially in a news article rather than a conversation in a pub.
As a Car Guy, when they said 'battery flagship', I immediately understood that to mean the F150 Lightning: the top-of-the range version of their most popular vehicle, which also (now) runs on batteries. (The Lightning used to just be an obnoxiously-fast V8 truck.) Therefore: "Ford's F150 Lightning is moldy." Ew, nasty!
Finding out that the author didn't intend "flagship" mean the truck, but a factory, is baffling.
It's not normal usage at all, as it's missing the main "thing" that is the flagship. Flagship What?? Imagine it applying to any other thing to see what we mean.
Labor Notes is pro workers. It's a very well-established and highly respected publication that advocates for strong unions (controlled by workers) over weak unions (controlled by bureaucrats).
I kind of get the impression that it's another EV hit piece. The fact that the factory will be making EV batteries has nothing to do with the mold problems, yet the reader is constantly being reminded of it.
I've been noticing a lot of these "EV hit pieces". What's going on with that? Is it organic? Are there nefarious actors (ahem ... oil?) trying to stem the tide? What's going on?
If you ask me, it's the natural "immune system" taking it's course to a drastic change to it's host body (society). There is a lot of momentum, jobs, money, insurance, loans, real-estate, etc all tied up in all-things mechanical and car that along with the ICE engine. Yes, EV cars have some of it too, but no where near the same levels. Not to mention that the top or favorite or most-well-known or most controversial EV company happens to bypass dealerships entirely, thereby threatening their entire existence.
I'd go further and take a guess that this same EV company is anti-union, threatening them too on some level. Haven't confirmed this, but it fits the pattern so I'd bet it's playing a part too.
Given the pro-union affiliation of this publication that the parent commenter mentioned, as well as the fact that EVs take less labor to assemble and maintain, my guess would be that they're trying to protect their jobs.
Yes. UAW, the US auto mfg union, has come out publicly in wanting to slow down the EV transition and soften emissions regulations. They care about their jobs first, climate change and efficiency somewhere else down the line.
'The United Auto Workers union on Friday called on the Biden administration to soften its proposed vehicle emissions cuts that would require 67% of new vehicles to be electric by 2032.
The UAW, which represents workers at General Motors, Ford Motor, and Chrysler parent Stellantis, said the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed standards should be revised to "better reflect the feasibility of compliance so that the projected adoption of (zero emission vehicles) is set to feasible levels, increases stringency more gradually, and occurs over a greater period of time."'
I have no inside info but it stands to reason that big oil, legacy auto, and short sellers of EV-associated stocks would not be opposed to negative coverage of EVs.
BRICS and OPEC are two very different things. Except one country in BRICS, the remaining ones are oil importers. They would gladly get rid of that dependency for national security reasons alone.
The comment here is out of place, as the general point of the article is sufficiently said.
I'm not sure why this is top comment, it's detractive of discussion.
A better solution would be to summarize your findings, and state that the article was poorly written. 'Socking' the author is clearly anti-discussion, distracting, and not worth the toxicity other than a quick offhand remark to accompany an opinion that talks of the main topic at hand
> "medieval hazards" I don't even know what that means but mold is a thing in the modern area too.
A definition from google "medieval" -> primitive or very old fashioned. The implication is that those running the operation have an old or primitive mindset or safety standards.
> The implication is that those running the operation have an old or primitive mindset or safety standards.
What? That isn't at all what it said.
> But under all the high-tech green fanfare, several construction workers, including some who wished to be anonymous, say the site has been gripped by mold and respiratory illness—medieval hazards that workers feel managers neglected in the pressure to quickly open the plant.
They were contrasting the high tech and modern nature of the plant to the medieval hazard of mold. The assertion being that mold isn't a modern day problem. Mold, insects, vermin, and disease were common everyday problems in medieval times that were overshadowed by the more pressing needs around food scarcity and clean water.
> "medieval hazards" I don't even know what that means but mold is a thing in the modern area too.
The author was just trying to convey that these days we remediate mold issues, where as in medieval times mold was just something you lived with because you had bigger issues.
They were trying to juxtapose the fact that the this was suppose to be a modern state of the art battery manufacturing facility with the fact that they were being told to just live with the mold.
Imagine they popped open a crate and it was infested by rats. Would management have just told them to work around the rats?
Generally in the same place, just not for the same reasons. A lot of journalist writing is inherently sensationalistic, because the metric has become an ambulance chasing and gross out horror metric.
Personally, have more issue with the automaton-like reactions of the workers. 1000 workers, who are holding fundraisers to help each other find other work, and recover from illnesses, smell mold so strong it "hits you when you walk by the plant, and yet almost no personal responsibility.
Have to be forced to wear masks. Don't just buy bleach and nuke the area into oblivion. Boxes had large Do Not Bring Inside, boxes are brought inside. Obviously illegal behavior. Where's the documentation of provable illegalities? Every phone's got a camera with timestamps. (also a serious issue with the military barracks situation. You went home to this every night? Took years and a Reuters expose? [1]).
However, still sympathetic. "Electrical workers complained to foremen." Objects replaced just prior to safety inspections. Months of mold complaints, largely ignored. 12 health or safety investigations, half closed, half limbo. Must be infuriating working in technician industries. Reuters investigation of SpaceX was basically a deja-vu story. "Bad safety results? Stop reporting." [2] These days it seems better to go to a journalist, than the safety agencies, they're far too financially motivated. "Good for Kentucky business. Die of mold? We'll give you a plaque somewhere, in a decade or two once the money's extracted."
Yes, this sort of writing is very common from heavily slanted/borderline propaganda sources. Strongertowns is the same way. Lots of scare words, minimal substance.
> "medieval hazards" I don't even know what that means but mold is a thing in the modern area too.
Maybe. But the situation sounds unlike any modern workplace I know of:
> Worker complaints piled up until, on December 8, Abel management hired the firm Environmental Testing & Consulting of Kentucky to take “limited samples” for mold. Their report, sent to Abel less than one week later, found seven types of mold inside the wooden crates, including three in “heavy” concentrations. It also noted an “intense mold odor” inside the containers.
> To limit exposure, the report included a recommendation for handling the wooden boxes: “DO NOT PUT INSIDE.”
a) I like the language use. The title is punchy, and it makes you check it out just because you want to know what it means. Medieval hazards sticks with you.
b) there’s not a lot of money in being a commie journalist so this is probably some volunteer.
c) I live in Kentucky and had not heard about this.
I think what you are missing is that Labor Unions are people that are generally trying to do the right thing. So were probably working for awhile with the mold, and raising concerns, but as time goes by, and issues are ignored, you have to start complaining louder and louder. Then by the time someone listens, it seems like you are screaming about nothing.
A reminder to the audience that Ford's labor unions voted to reduce their wages by like 30% back when Ford was struggling in 2009. A labor union WANTS to work, so they can make money. They aren't going to strike the second the first moldy crate comes in, because they want money. They will do their damndest to work within the system to solve things, because they worked very hard to build those resolution systems into their working contracts during the previous negotiation cycle.
Union laborers didn't want to stop working, they wanted to stop breathing in mold.
The article directly says the opposite, and reinforces what GP comment was saying about the union not being helpful:
> Although Dugan, Shaffer, and other members say their union stewards on site helped press their concerns to management, they say that local and international IBEW officers who visited the facility scoffed at their concerns. Dugan says a local officer refused to file a grievance on his behalf about the mold in January. One worker requested to stay anonymous out of concern that union officials might withhold his future job placements if he spoke out.
Guess we need to separate the local union members from the national organization.
This is a labor focused web site talking about labor issues. Not run by any one particular union, it isn't a union controlled web site that is trying to pump a particular message.
It is an article about labor, where the factory, local union, and national union organization, all had some part to play. So this article is covering all of those issues, not trying to be all 'super pro union'.
the NLRA/B don't cover managers, and union leadership is a separate role from on-the-job management. for the readership of a magazine targeting current or prospective union members and leadership, this is fundamental knowledge, so it won't ever be spelled out in an article
it's also worth clarifying that labor notes is _pro labor_, not necessarily _pro union_, and especially not _pro one specific type of union (e.g. industrial vs craft)_. when a labor union fails its members, this is one of the canonical publications covering it
Right. It's also assuming knowledge about the auto industry. Ford is building
what they call "Blue Oval City" near Glendale, Kentucky, an all-new complex of plants.
If the article only works if you approach it as preaching to the choir ... maybe it does make sense.
But it certainly makes it a poor article if they're "advocates for a revitalization of the labor movement" beyond the the rank and file union choir who would assume the union took action. You'd think they'd want to appeal to others too.
For the record, I don't so much care what the union did or didn't do, my comment was more about the article itself.
right, i'm not taking a side either, just saying your comment showed you lacked the context to understand what you were reading. as you stated and defended. you made a misinterpretation that can only happen if you _don't know the basics what a union is_ — important context for reading a labor publication targeting labor people.
Certain types of plywood are a magnet for mold growth. The natural oils in the wood (like birch) plus certain types of glues that contain organic compounds are the perfect environment for mold to thrive.
From my understanding, marine-grade plywoods are more resistant to mold growth, and of course, you could paint the plywood with mold-inhibiting paint.
This is a supply chain issue that needs addressed at the source (supplier level).
There are well known charts that define safe operating environments for temperature and humidity. If you go outside these bounds, its easy to calculate the number of days until an object develops mold.
> Dugan and scores of others now believe they are in the midst of a health crisis at the site. “We don’t get sick pay,” Dugan said. “You’re sick, you’re out of luck.”
There was a post yesterday slamming the CHIPS act for having too much D&I in which they referenced the "huge" costs of forcing construction firms to give full healthcare coverage (and more) to employees. This is a perfect example of how the market does not meet the bar without intervention.
The slightly confusing thing to me is that there is already intervention here: it's a unionized workplace. Seems like the union should be doing better for its members here.
It's almost as if unions are just another power structure with their own goals. I've seen more stories of union corruption than I can count, and we can add this example to the pile.
>>> Although Dugan, Shaffer, and other members say their union stewards on site helped press their concerns to management, they say that local and international IBEW officers who visited the facility scoffed at their concerns. Dugan says a local officer refused to file a grievance on his behalf about the mold in January. One worker requested to stay anonymous out of concern that union officials might withhold his future job placements if he spoke out. Officers with the IBEW local and district did not return requests for comment.
From the perspective of someone who's done formal mold abatement projects everything about this is deeply frustrating. PPE to work in a mold contaminated environment safely is inexpensive and ubiquitous. Likewise, the equipment and materials required to safely segregate mold contaminated materials from the larger working environment are inexpensive and simple to install. This could have been avoided.
> Although Dugan, Shaffer, and other members say their union stewards on site helped press their concerns to management, they say that local and international IBEW officers who visited the facility scoffed at their concerns.
Why did their own union scoff at the safety concerns?
Let's ask the reverse question also, why would the union do anything to help the workers? Do they get paid more in that case? Incentives are the answer to all these questions.
There is no incentive for a union to care about safety concerns. they have a monopoly.
Every union officer is elected by the workers, so yes, they have an incentive to please them. Historically, unions have been responsible for a massive amount of health & safety improvements in the workplace.
union leadership, esp the IBEW have a history of not actually caring about safety but of making sure they get their due, AFL-CIO affiliated unions were part of keeping communism out of america at any cost and that was it.
Doubly unfortunate, being that mold remediation on an item isn't terribly complicated or difficult, but mold remediation in-vivo, or in a structure, is much more complex.
That's not to say hosing down hundreds of crates with biocide is great, it's not, but, it's certainly far better than what they're doing here...
Seems like the factory wasn't even complete yet, so access to clean / deal with it should have been maybe a little easier at that point rather than later.
Good opportunity get to every nook and cranny and etc.
I recently did a big home remodel. Discovered the same thing. I chose far from the cheapest, but what they do standard was "extra" for a lot of other contractors.
The corruption angle I can believe (the sibling post), but "middleman" is kinda a weird way to think about it? In my experience, an un-unionized workplace doesn't mean you have more direct negotiation power. It generally means you have zero. Unions at least provide some collective bargaining power.
Did Ford figure out their "unspecified quality issue" and actually resume production yet? Last I saw was it was halted in February. Is it possible it was related to this issue in terms of their battery production?
When Dugan walked in, huge wooden boxes containing battery-making machines, largely shipped from overseas, were laid across the mile-long factory floor. Black streaks on those wooden boxes, plus the smell, immediately raised alarm bells for workers.
Has anyone thought about nefarious foreign actors introducing biological agents to stymie the build ?
I honestly have no idea anymore who you're making fun of with a comment like this. It's truly amazing how farcical that whole culture war became. Good riddance to all that nonsense!
Can mold cause a bacterial infection? Or are they trying too hard to connect the dots? Similarly, it seems like the rest of the article is filled with numbers that may sound significant on their own but I would like to see how they compare to normal. A certain number of people will get sick whether they were exposed to mold or not, with thousands of workers on site the number of illnesses will always be a good bit greater than zero.
The mold itself doesn't cause a bacterial infection, but it can encourage the conditions for a bacterial infection. Pneumonia would be the most well known example.
Anecdotally, my understanding is the flu itself isn't what's dangerous to at risk populations. Its' the pneumonia that you're much more likely to get.
It's attitudes like this that perpetuate injuries and death on job sites around the world. By all means, pontificate from your cozy,filtered and climate controlled environment.
If a slight mildew issue broke out in your office all hell would break loose. All work would stop until everyone was remote and a hazmat mitigation company would be brought in by management after a few emails got around.
Go on, explain to us why these workers should just suck it up.
> It's attitudes like this that perpetuate injuries and death on job sites around the world.
I assure you, the safest industries in the world got that way because of data-driven solutions, not emotion. Go ahead, get angry from the comfort of your office, yell and scream about the injustices of the world. That's how we got to be so incredibly divided, so it must be the right way.
I will say I find the writing a little off putting. Felt like they wanted to rope in every name, company and person involved here.
"medieval hazards" I don't even know what that means but mold is a thing in the modern area too.
Clearly this publication is pro labor unions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Notes), but it is strange that they push this narrative and note how people in the labor union were working in these poor conditions:
"many have required their union workers to build on 12-hour shifts, seven days a week. Despite months of worker concerns, managers waited until early February to take basic precautions against the mold—precautions that might slow construction"
Gee thanks labor unions for helping out?
This article is all over the place.
There's a story here that IMO could have been told, and accomplished the same goals without the internal weirdness of the article sort of pointing back at itself.