It might help to clarify that the ship breakers in Gujarat are fundamentally different from those in Bangladesh. The workers are unionized. The yards have been certified by Indian Registry of Shipping.

Can someone provide a source for this please? (that the workers in Gujarat are unionized, that the yards have been so certified) I’ve been looking and I can’t find anything… thanks

In general it just might be beneficial, though it may not be demonstrated in the quarterly report. Avoiding workplace injury compensation payments and (workplace) personal injury lawsuits, cost involved in replacement are some of the direct benefits and avoiding bad publicity is an indirect benefit.

In this case the unlimited supply of labor force and its abject poverty, that motivates it, conceals the benefit. I liked what I read in the comment # 22, so, maybe soon Bangladeshi ship breakers would make this benefit more visible to corps.

Even M$ invests in ergonomic keyboards, mouse pads with wrist supports etc.

My inner econ geek was probably coming out… “internalized by the corp” means that the relevant advantages are realized by the corp (in the form of higher productivity, lower cost, etc.) and thus the corp doesn’t need external reason to do it. The examples cited above were clearly cases where the precautions helped people work etter.

Protecting safety of the worker, however, is NOT always “internalized by the corp” — particularly if it REDUCES productivity (for ex., gloves might make you work slower?) – these are “external”. Hence, OSHA, etc.

This is analogous to ‘if this were true, Microsoft would already have shipped Windows 2011.’ There’s a learning-over-time axis here and also a level playing field advantage to uniform regulation where no individual company takes a greater hit up front (even though advantages accrue later).

To be “internalized by the corporation” there has to be a government enforcing rules, coercing the companies to comply with (currently) non-existing employee safety regulations. Prior to the creation of OSHA in the US, and the enforcement of the safety regs, there was no reason for US companies to care about their workers either.

In reality, with basic protective gear, the workers will become more productive, the turnover rate will go down and all the savings which come from a low turnover rate, savings on time loss due to injuries should take care of the cost of the basic protective gear.

If this were true, then they’d already be doing it because then the benefits would be internalized by the corp.

a new person is more likely to make a mistake than somebody with experience. A mistake can lead to an explosion, or less seriously, a reduction in the amount of salvageable material.

If this were true, then they’d already be doing it because then the benefits would be internalized by the corp.

The saddest part is that the workers are now threatening a hunger strike to protest the fact that they won’t get to tear apart the poisonous ship

Which means that the individual workers – whom so many are trying so hard to save – consider the income more important than the imaginary risks. Some of them might be delusional about the risks. But I caution that some of us might be delusional about how important their income is.

Workers at an Indian shipbreaking yard have announced they will hold demonstrations over the next few days and, if necessary, go on hunger strike in protest against French President Jacques Chirac’s decision to recall the decommissioned aircraft carrier Clemenceau. The aircraft carrier, which contains a large quantity of asbestos, was to be demolished at an Indian scrap yard, but France’s highest court ordered the suspension of the vessel’s transfer. [Link]