Semi_Hemi_Demigod 27 points 9 months ago

To hide the leaks in the tank they painted it brown to match the molasses.

path: 0 21576514, hotness: undefined, score: 27, children: 3

PugJesus 33 points 9 months ago

And blamed the failure on 'anarchists' despite the tank not even meeting the incredibly low safety standards of 1919

save

path: 0 21576514 21576872, hotness: undefined, score: 33, children: 2

SalamenceFury 20 points 9 months ago

Anarchists getting strays from both capitalists AND tankies is so fuckin annoying bro 😭

save

path: 0 21576514 21576872 21576991, hotness: undefined, score: 20, children: 1

peoplebeproblems 9 points 9 months ago

But it's how you know you're doing something right!

save

path: 0 21576514 21576872 21576991 21580553, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 0

PugJesus 23 points 9 months ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Molasses_Flood

save

path: 0 21575676, hotness: undefined, score: 23, children: 1

JakenVeina 2 points 9 months ago

the resultant wave of molasses rushed through the streets at an estimated 35 miles per hour (56 kilometers per hour)

JFC, that is so much more horrifying than I was imagining. I have TROUBLE imagining a wave of molasses moving that fast.

save

path: 0 21575676 21614323, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

SalamenceFury 18 points 9 months ago

Another good case of corporations killing people AND getting away with it! Hurray!

save

path: 0 21576469, hotness: undefined, score: 18, children: 7

far_university1990 7 points 9 months ago

but a court-appointed auditor found USIA responsible after three years of hearings, and the company ultimately paid out $628,000 in damages ($11.4 million in 2024, adjusted for inflation). Relatives of those killed reportedly received around $7,000 per victim (equivalent to $127,000 in 2024).

What not get away in you book?

save

path: 0 21576469 21578906, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 6

SalamenceFury 13 points 9 months ago

That seems a little light tbh. There was so much neglect and purposeful head-on-sand burying to cause this accident compared to what they paid out. I am a pretty staunch advocate for throwing the book at corporations, tho, so I'd settle for having the company dismantled and the assets sold to pay out all the families instead.

save

path: 0 21576469 21578906 21581038, hotness: undefined, score: 13, children: 0

PugJesus 12 points 9 months ago

That's pretty light for what was effectively killing people to save a few bucks. It's not literally nothing, but I would've liked to have seen something much steeper than that.

save

path: 0 21576469 21578906 21580411, hotness: undefined, score: 12, children: 0

acockworkorange 6 points 9 months ago

No criminal charges? Yeah, getting away in my book.

save

path: 0 21576469 21578906 21600273, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 3

Gathorall 4 points 9 months ago

Intentionally shirking on safety is nothing short of killing people with malice aforethought. Every industrial accident caused by it should have every in the direct chain of command indicted for first degree murder. Anything less is indeed getting away with it, murder that is. But murder is barely a misdemeanor if you do it to make money for a corporation.

save

path: 0 21576469 21578906 21600273 21601186, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0

PugJesus 2 points 9 months ago

Corporate personhood, for better and worse, makes it harder to charge individual employees with a crime unless you have really specific evidence for their particular involvement.

On one hand, this is good, because it's much easier to prove "This business clearly fucked up" than "This individual was definitely involved in this fuckup" that trials of individuals go through. Separately, but non-negligibly, it also provides for a much greater insulation of economic and social competition; some guy pursuing a legal vendetta will not sink a company when the founder goes to jail for an unrelated matter, and nor will an investor whose only involvement was liking the funny acronym and buying stocks be charged with murder for the negligence of some fuckwit boss.

On the other hand, it's bad because it encourages bad actors to use corporate personhood as a shield. As corporations have no sense of self-preservation, running a corporation into the ground - either by dismantling it or intentionally running dangerous shit like this - has very few downsides to its investors/controllers, so long as they do so intentionally and with a mind to profit from it.

save

path: 0 21576469 21578906 21600273 21611168, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 1

acockworkorange 5 points 9 months ago

I was a chemical process safety specialist once, not in the US. The Hazards Analysis team has, in that jurisdiction, criminal responsibility of identifying reasonable risks according to industry best practice. Someone with executive power is appointed within the company to bear criminal responsibility for executing the HA recommendations in a timely manner, usually a site manager.

So let's say a toxic release happens and people have to be hospitalized and there's death to river fauna and flora. The company bears financial and civil responsibility for it. But the people in the HA team and the company executive bear criminal responsibility.

I actually worked under a site manager that had to answer a criminal case for a pollution incident. The the people were acquitted (and rightfully so, there was no negligence nor malice), and the company had to pay environmental recovery and a fine.

You can bet that manager was on top of all safety and environmental studies on that site.

save

path: 0 21576469 21578906 21600273 21611168 21611755, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 0

StarvingMartist 12 points 9 months ago