Re: Safety Violations at Oracle HQ

In article <7618.2c428f17_at_hayes.com> fgreene_at_hayes.com writes:

>In article <1607100011_at_igc.apc.org>, Worklife Education Resource Center <worklife_at_igc.apc.org> writes:
>> From: Worklife Education Resource Center <worklife>
>> Subject: Safety Violations at Oracle HQ
>>
>> NUMEROUS HEALTH & SAFETY VIOLATIONS CITED AT ORACLE
>>
> As I read the 'violations' they all revolve around the methods used by
> an independant subcontractor to manage and control their employees.
> How, by any stretch of the imagination is this the fault of Oracle
> Corporation?
>>
>> WHY DOES ORACLE CONTINUE TO DEFEND LAWLESSNESS?
>>
> Define 'lawlessness.' Oracle has entered into a legal and binding
> contract for the services. If, based upon the information so far
> reported, they arbitrarily cancel that contract, would they not be
> liable for action by the janitorial service?
 

>> WHY DOES ORACLE BLOCK INFORMATION?
 
> In what regard can it possibly be argued that Oracle has a
> to interject itself into a dispute between an independant
> subcontractor and its employees? Oracle has no legal responsibility
> to take one side or the other.
 

>>
>> WHY IS ORACLE FIGHTING SO VICIOUSLY OVER PENNIES?

> Oracle is not arguing over pennies. It is operating in conformance
> with a legal contractual arrangement.

Your comments unfairly put Oracle in a bad light. Are you suggesting that Oracle should engage in any contracting, employment, sales, or advertising practice, however immoral or unethical, as long as it isn't illegal?

The key issue here is the extent of Oracle's control over its janitorial contract. Is this service provided by the building owner, without input from Oracle? If Oracle found its offices sloppily cleaned, would it have any say in the choice of a new janitorial contract?

If Oracle did have any say in its janitorial contract, then in my opinion it would be acting immorally to retain a contractor that pays its employees subpoverty wages, is guilty of safety violations, and otherwises mistreats its employees. I believe that some of the replies on this subject either brushing off the charges against Medallion or expounding on Oracle's minimal legal requirements have only confounded the issue.

• David Scheim

/*********************************************************************/
/*                      --- David E. Scheim ---                      */
/* BITNET: none                                                      */
/* INTERNET: des_at_helix.nih.gov           PHONE: 301 496-2194         */
/* CompuServe: 73750,3305                  FAX: 301 402-1065         */
/*                                                                   */
/* DISCLAIMER: These comments are offered to share knowledge based   */
/*   upon my personal views.  They do not represent the positions    */
/*   of my employer.                                                 */
/*********************************************************************/