Interesting People mailing list archives
more on Firms formulate guidelines for employee cellphone use
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:44:32 -0500
------ Forwarded Message From: Bob Frankston <Bob2-0406 () bobf frankston com> Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:29:35 -0500 To: <dave () farber net>, 'Ip' <ip () v2 listbox com> Subject: RE: [IP] Firms formulate guidelines for employee cellphone use This is truly frightening. It's even worse than the superstitious approach airlines take to PDAs. It's very hard to innovate when one is subject to the lottery of the legal system as in these cases. If society becomes risk-averse innovation become terrorism. It's one thing to bankrupt Dupont based on weird science applied to breast implants. It's another to start going after basic technology that we are still discovering. The small plane industry was decimated because of liability for designs done decades earlier by legal entities with only a tenuous connection to the later "owners". Legal liability has a tradition of looking for deep pockets and perhaps statistically it does serve society in reflecting societal cost back to the original manufacturers. In the classic example, if your lawnmower kicks out a rock and injuries someone the company can be liable. Initially companies were blasé about such risks so the system served a purpose but when it is applied to low probability events things become far more problematic. The cell phone example is frightening because it buys into so much technophobia. When I¹m told to shut off my digital camera in an airplane because it might crash while taxing I get scared. Stopping to use a cell phone is not necessarily safer than driving and certainly increases the cost of doing business. It's going to get far far worse when software manufacturers find themselves liable for the consequence of the use of their programs. We insured against this for VisiCalc 25 years ago but ... I remember when I took a joint seminar with Harvard Law -- they were desperate for those with technical expertise but couldn't attract them. When those who are illiterate about technology manage technology and view risk as entirely preventable or, at least, they can assign liability. It doesn¹t help that many companies are still indifferent to risks such cases reinforce the perception that risk is entirely avoidable and that cost is never a factor. -----Original Message----- From: owner-ip () v2 listbox com [mailto:owner-ip () v2 listbox com] On Behalf Of David Farber Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 09:54 To: Ip Subject: [IP] Firms formulate guidelines for employee cellphone use ------ Forwarded Message From: Monty Solomon <monty () roscom com> Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:31:06 -0500 To: David Farber <dave () farber net> Subject: Firms formulate guidelines for employee cellphone use Firms formulate guidelines for employee cellphone use By Joyce Pellino Crane, Globe Staff, 1/23/05 Somewhere near Winslow, Maine, is a scenic view of China Lake where Monsanto Co. salesman Robert Pierpont regularly makes client calls from his cellphone - one of many locations at which he pauses along his route. "I know all the scenic, beautiful views," he said. He should. While Pierpont traverses 3,500 miles a month across New England and eastern New York selling animal health products to dairy farmers and veterinarians, Monsanto says he cannot conduct business on his cellphone unless his car is stopped. St. Louis-based Monsanto is one of a small but growing number of companies publishing guidelines for cellphone use inside the office and the car, as some high-profile liability cases catch the eye of corporate America. "It's a hot liability topic," said Kathryn Lusby- Treber, executive director of the Network of Employers for Traffic Safety in Vienna, Va. "If [companies] don't have a policy in place, they should. The company is certainly at risk. If they have an employee who's driving for business and they're in a crash, the employer can be held responsible for the crash." An April 2004 survey conducted by the Society for Human Resource Management, in Alexandria, Va., showed that of 379 responding companies, 40 percent already had a cellphone policy in place and another 12 percent expected to develop a written policy within six months. But even more companies may be reconsidering their positions after reading about a lawsuit against an employer involving an employee's cellphone call inside an automobile. In October, the San Francisco law firm Cooley Godward settled a $30 million lawsuit in the death of 15- year-old Naeun Yoon, who was struck and killed in 2000 on a busy highway outside Fairfax, Va., by one of its employees - a lawyer accused of making a business call on her cellphone while driving. After serving a year in jail and surrendering her law license, Jane Wagner was ordered to pay $2 million in damages to Yoon's family by a circuit court jury in Loudoun County, Va. While the firm's insurance company paid $92,500, according to its attorney, John McGavin of Fairfax, the firm was not held liable. http://bostonworks.boston.com/globe/articles/012305_cell.html ------ End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as BobIP () Bobf Frankston com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ ------ End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- more on Firms formulate guidelines for employee cellphone use David Farber (Jan 27)