more on Firms formulate guidelines for employee cellphone use

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ 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 Š 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/