Original Sawstop marketing pitch
barrydaniel
| Posted in Power Tools and Machinery on
Remember when Sawstop made a pitch to the Big Toolmakers (Delta, Jet, and Powermatic) about how their add-on safety system would prevent injuries. Whatever happened with that? Obviously Sawstop said the hell with those guys and made there own saws; however, why didn’t they produce a add-on for the consumer to purchase instead of a brand new saw. Sure I would love to get my hands on their cabinet saw but I can’t afford it and why get rid of my perfectly good table saw? Just some thoughts.
Barry
Camden, NC
Replies
In Short SS (Saw Stop) made a devise that while it works well (from what I have heard) is just not able to be retrofitted to existing saws. This had two effects. First it means if you want it you have to buy a new saw. And second it means that the companies would have to redesign a saw to sell it with a break.
Add in the cost of licensing the tech from SS and the rest of the market said thanks but no thanks. So SS went and did it themselves. And while it is a nice saw they kind of proved the point the others made that the cost of this would raise the cost of the saws a good amount. If you look at the cost of a SS vs a SC or Delta or what have you it is noticeably more money. And this is with out having to pay for the licence fee (being as SS owns said patent). So you would expect that if SC or Delta wanted to sell the SS break on a saw they would have to charge more buy what ever the licence fee would have been.
Not saying it is not a good saw, or that the tech is not worth the money, but it is expensive. So they had no takers. Now they are in competition with them and I do not think you will ever see anyone use the tech until the patents goes bye bye. Being as this would be paying your compation.
Doug M
In addition to what Doug M said, the other machine manufacturers are in a bind because they open themselves up to a tidal wave of legal action if they just offer it as an option or on a subset of their tablesaw product line.
I don't buy the notion that SawStop was too expensive for them or that they want to make unsafe products, but to offer a safety technology like this on one saw and not the rest of their products is a trial lawyers dream. Can you imagine the cross, "so Mr. Powermatic Executive, you offered SawStop technology on 1 of your tablesaws but not the others, therefore is it true to say that this safety device reduces injuries while your non-SawStop equipped tablesaws are therefore less safe and more likely to result in serious injury?".
I would also assume that there would have been engineering redesign and manufacturing retooling in order to offer the SawStop brake unit on other company's tablesaws, which probably contributed to their cold feet.
I'm not saying it's right, but in the end it will be competition in the market that results in safety technology being developed for machines like this. It's when consumers say it's important enough to affect their purchase decisions that manufacturers will respond. Car companies didn't give a hoot about mileage until consumers responded to $4 a gallon gas by not buying trucks and SUVs (not just U.S. either, Toyota's 5.7 litre Tundra is a great example).
Hey the lawyers gotta make their money. That makes total sense, never really thought about the implications if Maker "X" used the SS technology on top-of-the-line saw and not the least expensive one.
As far as the automotive and oil industries, I bet the backscratching sure is good. I own a Prius and 50MPG on average makes me happy and oil companies mad!!!
Barry
A couple of points. The Break system the way it is now would require a completely new inside workings for a saw. I have to think that the tooling for the inside of the saw is at least as much as for the outside case and top. And you may need new outside and top also depending on how the connections to the top and the openings for the handles could be worked out. So in effect you are replacing the tooling on most if not all the saw. So the cost would be very large. I can't see this being something you can just retrofit onto an existing saw. And none of us here (unless we have some tool execs) really know how much money SawStop wanted. But I bet it was not $5 a saw. They have a nice product in the break system, and they spend a good amount of money to design it, so I have to think they wanted (and deserve) to make a good amount of money on it.
As for the idea that the oil companies are getting the automakers to keep gas mileage low on cars. This is just nuts. With the trouble that GM and Ford are in (and even Toyota is not doing well right now in the US) their is no way in the world that they would do this. The fact is that the car you are talking about may be nice but it gives up a LOT to get that mileage. And until very recently very few people in the US would have been willing to buy it. Heck if it was that easy to do why did the maker of that car not do the same thing on all there cars? GM and Ford are losing Billions a year, if they could make a car that people want for a price that people will pay that gets 50MPG they would do so. This kind of edge would put them back on top. Either that or you have to figure that the oil companies would have to be spending Billions a year to keep them from building better cars. Now being as they are LOSING money not making money, I think we can rule out the idea that the oil companies are giving them kick backs big enough to keep them making high mileage cars. (I will concede that the oil companies are making enough money to do so however) And as has been pointed out even Toyota was/is making low mileage large vehicles.
It never fails to amaze me when people put this idea forward. The logic (as they see it) just escape me.
Doug M. (no I do NOT drive an SUV or a large car)
As I understand it, the primary issue is that other saws are not beefy enough to stand up to stopping the blade in time. If you look at either the SawStop table saw or the contractor saw you will see that they are much more heavily constructed. That's the reason that a retro-fit would not work.
Very simple, thanks to trial lawers the big manufacturers would never be able to improve upon the safety of there products. If they had accepted saw stops safety device, then they would be implying that prior saws were dangerous. opening themselves up to a whole slew of new law suits. It happens in almost all industries like that. I know that in General aviation the same thing was done. Somebody spent alot of time and money in inventing a seat that would be better able to withstand crashes and again the product could not be put into production for fear of implying that previous designs were flawed. I have a delta unisaw that was built in 1939. There is absolutely no difference besides HP motor ratings from mine to a new model built today. You would figure that in 69 years some improvements upon safety would have been made. Not gonna happen.
Mark
But, of course all the tables saw innards are being redesigned in order to accommodate riving knives. Hense, Powermatic 2000, the new Delta Cabinet Saw, and others.
But the redesign to accommodate the riving knife if fairly easy, and we know from the presence of riving knives on some portable job site saws, doesn't require massively beefy saws. Dealing with the large amounts of energy necessary to stop the blade almost instantly, probably does mean substantially beefier saws than the average. That "beef" is costly, and could well eliminate the entire low end of the table saw market. If no new table saw cost less than $1,000 or $1,500 what would happen to the state of the hobby. If your "first" saw had to either cost over a grand, or be of the demostrably less safe variety how many would dabble enough to get hooked. I'd think such considerations might affect the willingness of the existing manufacturer's to adopt an innovation that might well eliminate more than half of the numbers of saws that they sell.
While adopting new technology might not increase liability risk for the previously sold saws, it might well make it impossible to sell some with, and some without the new technology. Having SawStop out their selling trivial amounts of saws to niche buyers probably doesn't affect those decisions anytime soon.
I don't buy that you need to have a much beefier saw for the brake to be effective and not damage the saw. Yes the original sawstop is beefier to the tune of a couple of hundred pounds heavier than a unisaw-grade saw, but that's mostly overkill. The energy of the spinning blade goes into munching the aluminum block, and into pulling the blade down into that saw. If slamming the blade down would be a problem, they could always design in a second sacrificial block. I suspect that the real reason it won't work as a retrofit is that you'd have to engineer a different way to install it into each type of existing saw, and that that would be cost prohibitive. Designing it in, like designing in a riving knife, is no big deal, and should add comparatively much less to the cost of a saw.
Mark Fotze, I am a civil litigation attorney, and your comment leads me to conclude that you are a simplistic moron. If you will take your head out of your a$$ for a moment or two, answer me this:
If there is any truth or LOGIC to your position, why is it that cars went from brake shoes to disc brakes to ABS to ESC, etc? According to your logic we all ought to be still dragging our feet to stop . . . . Steve's comment re seatbelt and then airbags ought to perplex you, as it also points out the blatant fallacy of your comment.
You want to dump on lawyers? Fine, what field are you in? Your bio says "skilled trade worker" . . . . . are you still using the same criteria your trade had 100 years ago ? Have you not updated anything because of those damn lawyers? Tell me what you do and I will be happy to point out that your chosen (assuming you had a choice) craft probably has its' fair share of buffoons. Let's see what mindless crap we can spew about your buds. Looking forward to your early reply.
Most of my clients appreciate everything i do for them. I solve their problems, I fix their mistakes, I protect their families . . . .. and i care.
Come on bozo boy, you started this but i am happy to engage you. Whaddaya do fer a livin?
Edited 9/20/2008 11:58 pm by stpatrick
I do not have a SS, but have considered whether I should get one to replace my PM66. I think i will wait as i think the technology will develop further still . . . . . but i may jsut go get one now due to the ADDED safety feature.
Personally, and i would like to hear from other lawyers here, i think the major saw manufacturers are making a HUGE mistake by not licensing the SS technology. Since the technology is available and, relatively, affordable especially from a hindsight (always 20-20) perspective, i think a jury in a products liability case would be critical of a manufacturer that didn't at least offer this safety feature as an option. It is past the point of being theoretical or experimental. Most jurors are not going to be ww's, and even ww's will admit that TS's are dangerous. The added cost to benefit ratio will smack the manufacturers at some point. Note that alot of the saws are being sold to schools . . . . . that is compelling to establish that it is accepted as an effective safety device in the community at large. The manufactures will have to change at some point . . . . .
I love old cars, but new cars are safer due to seatbelts, airbags, disc brakes, electronic stability control, etc. I like my PM66 but that doesn't mean it couldn't be safer. Pretty darn soon i think all the new saws will have additional safety features.
Flame away, I'm in one of those moods.
Define " I fix peoples mistakes".
................................................
SOME PEOPLE ARE LIKE SLINKIES...THEY ARE NOT REALLY GOOD FOR ANYTHING, BUT...THEY STILL BRING A SMILE TO YOUR FACE WHEN YOU PUSH THEM DOWN A FLIGHT OF STAIRS
Don, i think i said " i fix their mistakes". Most of what i do in civil litigation is because people made mistakes, misjudged something, didn't realize the actual property lines, didn't understand their rights or obligations under a contractual agreement, hired the wrong person, trusted the wrong person, simply did something without any forethought (ie, stupid) which "bites them in their butt" , etc, etc, etc. They come to me with their problems, and they become mine to solve, to guide them through the process, to rectify the situation, to negotiate a peace, to take it to trial, whatever is necessary and whatever is best for them under the circumstances.
So, what did you think i meant . . . . . ?????
Sure doesn't sound like you negotiate settlements, leading off with name calling and personal attacks. As with all professions, there are litigators who perform a valuble function, and there are those who deserve derision.
Steve, a valid observation, but i also don't usuallly do it on saturday evening and it normally involves someone else's issue, ie easier to be objective. As a practical matter, it is also done with someone i can look in the eye, so there is alot more going on.
Steve, I'm kinda enjoying this exchange, and don't intend to participate on one side or the other, but I'm curious -- what did you see in #20 that was "name calling" or a "personal attack"? I'm not seeing it.forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
Jamie, i think it was the inappropriate salutation of stating my "simplistic moron" assessment (the irony of which is not lost on me) and my equally inappropriate "bozo boy" sign off.
I know better, and expect better of myself.
Don's deleted post ( #24 ) was of the "you scum sucking bottom feeding parasite . . . ." type. I assume his mental and emotional states were similiar to mine in the wee hours of last evening. It all appears to be abit different in the light of day.
Edited 9/22/2008 11:07 am by stpatrick
Hmmm, I missed the moron and bozo stuff Fun! Sounds like a newspaper column I heard about, directed at some of the reactions to the recent financial melt-down. Y'all behave now, ya hear? ;-)forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
I'm cool. Besides by profession I'm an economist turned junk bond analyst, (oops that's supposed to be high yield analyst) so I know something about professions that don't always get respect. (And, no I never was involved in trading any mortgage backed securities.)
Hello stpatrick
Here is my reply.
I hope that this does not drag out, I made a comment that offended you and your career. And I am sure that you hear this all the time, otherwise you would not be so P'Od.I respect the fact that you spent many years and hardwork in college to achieve your career goals. But I certainly am no litigator, and I could point to a blue sky and you can argue with me that it is cloudy and you will win.
Simplistic yes, but not neccesarily a moron. Otherwise I could not make the comments that I do. As far as being a Bozo, not a problem, I have been called worse. The comments that I made were from instances from my own personal life. I have severe issues with being the "man" and taking responsibilities for one's own actions.
The reasons why I made the statements that I did was simple. Trial Lawers literally killed an industry that needed an ACT OF CONGRESS to revitalize. This isn't fiction or something that I made up. And I can back up the fact that certain products will never be updated safety wise for fear of litigation.
I'm not talking of consumer products, like cars, and appliances and babycribs. For these products there are governing bodies and consumer protection agencies that can handle this. And yes, for the SHEEPLE masses out there we do need litigators like you to protect themselves from themselves.
The one industry that trial lawers killed was General aviation, not the weather, not the economy but literally trial lawers. The act of congress was GARA
http://www.gama.aero/resources/productLiability/index.php
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1263080
Again I am not talking of consumer products. But when a major corporation (Cessna) decides to shut down it's bread and butter product line. (remember Cessna is to light aircraft as GM is to cars) because of fear of future liability, there is a problem with that. Cessna was only one of the majors that decided the Benefits do not outweigh the risks.
And the sad part is, because of your loopholes. Trial lawers found an effective way to circumvent the law.
"The Caldwell decision provides a new loophole for plaintiffs to circumvent GARA, particularly in the western states, Almost every manual sold with an aircraft needs to be revised over time. If a manufacturer discovers a problem in the aircraft before or after 18 years from the date of sale, and revises its manuals, the manufacturer will have restarted the product liability clock. If the manufacturer elects not to revise the manual, and the "continued airworthiness of the aircraft" is at stake, the manufacturer may be accused of concealing or withholding information affecting airworthiness. Thus, a manufacturer may be damned if it does and damned if it doesn't."
In other words any safety update starts the clock ticking again. So quess what? Do you think that manufacturers will update or revise any known or unknown issue? They will be thinking long and hard before issuing any new updates.
So back in the day when I was flying for fun and could not purchase a brand new aircraft because of trial lawers, yes that would make me angry. I had to satisfy myself with aircraft that were anywhere up to 40 years old.
Look at the Thurman Munson case. You guys argued succesfully that he was a moron that should not have even been flying the plane he was flying. It's one thing to try a manufacturer. It's another to try and prove in court that the manufacturer was responsible for what happens to a product once it goes out the door. These are cases that just make you look bad. This is where I get my simplistic views from.
Myself, I am a homebuilder. I am in an industry that is governed by many agencies. I have OSHA to protect my workers, I have building codes to regulate a building standard. I have UL underwriters labrotories to standardize my electrical devices. I'm sure you get the hint. And I know that all these agencies were developed with the protection of consumers in mind. And I'm sure that it was lawsuits and litigation that brought about many of these safety issues. But you know and I know that many inherently dangerous devices and practices will not be updated for fear of litigation. And that is a shame. And I'm sure that there are attorneys out there that truly do things for the public good with the best of intentions, but the majority do it for the money, you know it and I know it.
I live here in the Pocono Mountains of Pennsylvania. There is a comercial that runs on TV here for an attorney. "If you INNOCENTLY get in the way of an 18 wheeler"
Enough said
Best wishes
Mark
Mark, first of all, I did go off half-cocked and as you noted, got more than just a bit PO'd. However, that should not be an excuse for my personal and less-than-professional (ungentlemanly too) mano-y-mano attack. My apology to you.
Your response was thoughtful and intelligent, neither of which i expected from the cavalier sling in the earlier post, although admittedly my viscereal reaction to reading the earlier comment may have caused me to make unwarranted assumptions.
I have not previously researched GA, and i am not really inclined to start now, but i did google "strict product liability and general aviation" and one of the early hits was this article from 1995, apparently from a research source not connected with either the lawyers or GA trade groups. I assume you will agree that GAMA may not be the most objective voice out there on this issue.
http://www.allbusiness.com/operations/shipping/526457-1.html
http://www.allbusiness.com/operations/shipping/526457-1.html
This article seems to be an educated evaluation of the factors then affecting the GA industry and analyses the various factors. I think when you read it you will agree it was a multi-factorial problem, and i will agree that the trial lawyers were designated by the industry as the bad guys . . . . . but even the authors point out the actual situation.
The following is an excerpt:
"In the debate over product liability and general aviation, the industry's focus on frivolous lawsuits became the conventional wisdom and eventually, through the zealous efforts of some in Congress, a bully pulpit from which lobbyists could wage a populist attack against trial lawyers. The focus on product liability makes political sense in that it builds on a popular perception that trial lawyers are abusing the system.(43) The industry and its supporters narrowed the more complex troubles confronting the general aviation industry and bombarded the public and politicians with statistical analyses to prove their point. The statistics are factually correct; however, they are somewhat misleading. This is especially true when they are taken out of context and the other factors affecting the industry are ignored. "
I have not yet read the Caldwell material you reference . . . .
"The Caldwell decision provides a new loophole for plaintiffs to circumvent GARA, particularly in the western states, Almost every manual sold with an aircraft needs to be revised over time. If a manufacturer discovers a problem in the aircraft . . . "
BUT must wonder, what do you contend a manufacturer should do if they discover a problem (presumably a design flaw) with an aircraft . . . .?
Hopefully the answer doesn't vary depending upon whether it is you, rather than me, in the the passenger seat. . . . (meant to be read in a lighthearted, jestful and friendly manner).
Mark, again my personal apology for the personal attack. I again failed to achieve my own standards. Patrick
Edited 9/21/2008 1:38 pm by stpatrick
STPatrick-
One characteristic that all good attorneys share is the ability to control their emotions, especially when confronting an opponent.
I would urge you to take the temper tantrums and name calling elsewhere. If you can't remain civil, you really don't belong here.
Now lets get back to woodworking.
-TH
Maybe I can add a little insight here as I am both a trial lawyer and a sawstop owner. I'm not quite sure where to start, but here goes.
1. the sawstop is a great saw. Sure its expensive. And I'm not wealthy. But the peace of mind of knowing that if I slip up that it won't cost me a finger and lost work and God knows what else it worth it to me.
2. I don't know enough about table saw manufacturing to venture an opinion as to whether a retrofit would be workable or not.
3. And of course I am going to defend my profession. "We are the butt of jokes and the cause of all evil, etc."- garbage. Without personal injury law and lawyers, manufacturers and others would be able to cut corners and do whatever it is they do, and HURT people, without the consequences of a potential lawsuit. The spectre of a lawsuit keeps them honest, and keeps you all safe.
PMM
The ONLY reason that you are seeing riving knives on the new model saws coming out is that Underwriters Labs will no longer put their seal on a new design without one!
On what evidence do you base this load of horsepuckey?
................................................
SOME PEOPLE ARE LIKE SLINKIES...THEY ARE NOT REALLY GOOD FOR ANYTHING, BUT...THEY STILL BRING A SMILE TO YOUR FACE WHEN YOU PUSH THEM DOWN A FLIGHT OF STAIRS
It is entirely true that UL requirements for listing call for the riving knive on a phased in basis. Since early this year all new models have had to have the knives, old models will have another couple (?) of years in which they can be manufacturered without having the riving knife.
UL listing requirements aren't reached in a vacuum; in fact it is probably more accurate to say that the saw manufacturers reached consensus through the medium of the UL listing agency, (a private organization, not government) to call for the riving knife.
UL listings don't have the force of law, but certainly do make an important distinction in the market place, since few retailers would choose to sell products without the UL listing if there are alternatives that are listing.
It's a simultaneous relationship--manufacturers decide that they would rather sell saws with riving knives, and therefore they opportune the UL agency to implement this decision, since that can't actually reach such a collusive agreement directly. But at the same time, the UL agency looks for ways to improve safety, knowing that manufacturers must agree. Riving knives come to the fore as more European saws enter the US markets. You can't say which comes first, without some other relationship to "identify" the system.
Now thats a far better explanation of why we are going to see riving knives. Actually the government was involved in the form of the CPSC. I found these notes on the UL Table Saw Guarding Working Group meeting interesting and an insight on how the industry has been pursuing riving knife adoption since at least 2001.
................................................
SOME PEOPLE ARE LIKE SLINKIES...THEY ARE NOT REALLY GOOD FOR ANYTHING, BUT...THEY STILL BRING A SMILE TO YOUR FACE WHEN YOU PUSH THEM DOWN A FLIGHT OF STAIRS
The notes are interesting. The CPSC could have promulgated rules itself--either for riving knives, or as Dr. Gass was promoting, for a saw stop device. But, instead, it asked UL to look at it. Now UL standards development is a collaborative process with UL clients. So in essence, the buck was passed back to the manufacturers, but with the UL as referee, so to speak. At least that's what it seems to me. UL might describe it differently.
There's a bunch of interesting documents on UL's site. If someone had to referee I'm pretty comfortable with UL. I get the idea with the disclaimer that I was reading between the lines, that CPSC might have taken a stronger stance had their research and record keeping not been so crappy.
I met enough mukety mucks in the machine tool industry to know that their attitude was not 'we won't make it safer until we're forced'. They were all passionate and commited to making safer and more useful tools, however the realitys of also dealing with marketing, attorneys, bean counters etc. frustrated their efforts to some degree.
All in all I'm surprised that the riving knife made it's way into SOP as fast as it did. The industry was convinced and not without good reason that the most effective device was the splitter guard combo and that the biggest reason for splitter guard related injuries was lack of education on the part of the consumer.
Interestingly, the PTI collaborated on an educational video which was finished 7 years ago (that I have never seen). The reason for it not being released was it was pending approval from the CPSC.
Good to communicate with you again Steve, I missed the back and forth while I was on hiatus.
................................................
SOME PEOPLE ARE LIKE SLINKIES...THEY ARE NOT REALLY GOOD FOR ANYTHING, BUT...THEY STILL BRING A SMILE TO YOUR FACE WHEN YOU PUSH THEM DOWN A FLIGHT OF STAIRS
Please don't get the idea that I am bashing lawyers. I'm in no position. As a matter of fact I doubt there is a profession out there that doesn't get bashed. If there is let me know I'll get out of the USCG (22 years worth) and go to work for them.
My initial question was to ask a question as to why the SS system was not persued by the big companies. After the answers I receieved, I can see why. From system design, retooling costs, and liability costs. Also, from the comments on this post and others, I can tell SS owners are very pleased with the performance and, of course, safety features.
My major complaint, gripe, concern, what ever you want to call it, is that I cannot get the SS safety feature without buying a new saw. I saved my money and got the best saw I could afford at the time (Jet Contrators saw with cast iron wings). I am extremely pleased with it and would hate to sell or get rid of it for no other reason than the SS style safety system.
Barry
It's just like the situation where you couldn't get air bags without buying a new car.
By the way, as a boater, I appreciate the work of the Coast Guard. It's a tough job, especially as it has now been tasked toward law enforcement, homeland security, as well as promoting safty on the water, including the saving of life at sea role you may have though you were signing up for when you joined 22 years ago. We are glad you are Always Ready.
"And of course I am going to defend my profession."Everybody criticizes trial lawyers... until they need one.
Don, you and i both know rubber blades wouldn't cut anything. Most of the framers down here use wormdrives; back in the day, some had modified their saws to have a totally exposed blade spinning which they used overhead to trim raftertails . . . . maybe called sidewinders?? .. . . OSHA took those away because the perceived danger outweighed the potential benefit. Drill presses used to eat peoples hands and arms, but then guards became mandatory. Some employers used to chain the exit doors to keep the people working, but fires burnt them (Shirtwaist company ?? early last century). Can't be done anymore, and exits in large places have to be marked, remain open during business hours, doors have to open out in case of panic, etc. I think most would agree that these have been good things.
Regardless of the general intellect or gullibility of the american public, which is more of an indictment of the public education system, i doubt they would indict a ham sandwich . . . unless it claimed it was kosher.
Although i doubt it matters to you, i have been practicing law for 29 years and the first 20 - 22 of those were spent solely defending people, doctors, entities (Boy Scouts, Franciscan Friars, HOA's, cities and counties ) and companies who had been sued. Some claims were bogus, many were overblown or embellished, but overall most were serious situations where peoples lives had been impacted in a significant way. Over the past 7-8 years my practice has been more balanced, but I have never filed the type of cases to which you refer, nor will I.
Are there bad lawyers out there? Sure, just like every other walk of life. Does that make every lawyer an ####? I think not.
Are there crappy and unscrupulous contractors out there? Sure, but is that an indictment of each and every one?
Are all Priests pedofiles? Haven't decided yet, but probably not .. . . . .
Are there dumb blondes out there? Sure, but a heck of a lot of smart ones too.
Are there lying cheating horndog husbands out there? Sure, but that doesn't mean every guy is wandering around out there cheating on the wife.
So my friend, do you want to discuss anything in particular, or do you just want to believe that since i am a lawyer the analysis of whether i am an honest man, a decent being, a faithful husband, a good father, and trying to do what's right on a daily basis matters not?
shalom, slainte, cheers, do good, peace out
"Rubber blades would be safer also. should we sue manufacturers out of existance for not providing anything but?"
Don, so who has been sued out of existence? FoMoCo got sued on the Grimshaw (exploding gas tank on a Pinto) case and is still here. McDonalds got sued on the oft misquoted and taken-out-of-context coffe case, and is still here. I can go on, but to which corporations are you referring?
I thought it was labor rates and taxes that were to blame for the changing face of manufacturing in this country; now it is the damn lawyers??? I thought the railroads got destroyed by the unions, not the lawyers. We can't get blamed for everything, can we?
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled