Document 2qMQkn63VZg5Xe43d38QzM7ng

FILE NAME: General Motors (GM) DATE: 1982 DOC#: GM041 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: NYT Letters to the Editor RE Asbestos, BC Correspondence with GM & Congress RE GM/Asbestos urrrsS Asbestos: The Arguments for a Fund. . The health effects cf asbestos expo- sore possibly constitute the most enor mous occupational disease problem ever to lace the United States. It is therefore unfortunate that both Pro fessor Paul MacAvoy in " You, Too, Will Pay far Asbesrosis" (Fab. 14) and attorney Robert E. Sweeney in " Asbe stosis" (Feb. 21) concentrated mare on finger-pointing and rhetoric than on addressing the main issue -- how to provide prompt and equitable com pensation for genuinely injured work ers and their survivors. Letvs take another look. First, virtually all claimants in law suits against Keene and others are now receiving compensation totally apart 'from the lawsuits. People who had been employed in Federal shipyards are receiving compensation through die Federal Employees' Compensa- tion Act. Other claimants are being compensated under state workers compensation laws. Second, in the chart accompanying the MacAvoy article, Keene is depict ed, along with Johns-Manville, as a " major" asbestos company. While perhaps flattering, the comparison is ludicrous. Keene, which got involved in asbestos-containing products in 1968 through the purchase of BaldwinEhret-Hill Inc., had sales of $4 million in asbestos-related insulation products or 1percent of Johns-Manvilie's asbes tos-related revenues of an estimated $400 million. Moreover, Keene's former subsidi ary --which was disposed of in 1972-- was a processor, not a miner, of asbes tos. We believe that the mining compa nies, including Johns-Manville, were much better positioned to recognize .. .Against Current Law Profcssor MacAvoy provides fur ther proof that economics Is a voodoo science. The professor conjures up the spirits cf the long dead victims of the asbestos industry which placed profits ahead of people. Instead of shedding crocodile tears for the asbestos manu facturers who knowingly suppressed repeats of the dangerous nature of their product the professor should have tamed his attention to abolition of the harsh statutes of limitations. These laws provide that an injured worker loses his right to compensation within three years of inhaling asbestos fibers, even though the illness may not manifest itself until 20years later. Harvey Weitz NewYork State Trial Lawyers Association Inc. New York, N.Y., Feb. 19,1982 .. .For Legislation Mr. Sweeney objects to the fact that the Asbestos Compensation Coalition, union leaders and others are working with concerned members of Congress to develop a more efficient and more just alternative to litigation. But he in vites the reader to believe three things whichwe knoware not true. First, he argues that either the as bestos manufacturers were fraudulent in concealing the asbestos risk from employees, or the insurance industry was incompetent in agreeing to insure the risk. Hindsight is wonderful, but asbestos-related diseases have a la tency period of 10 to 40 years, and the plaintiffs intoday's lawsuits base their claims an exposure to asbestos that occuned longbefore the mid-1360's when major scientific research became available. (No Federal health stand ards for asbestos were set until 1971.) Second, Mr. Sweeney implies that the adversarial system works well In dealing with asbestos-related disease. It does -- for him. There are now over 15,000 claimants In more than 10,000 suits, and that figure is rising, along with legal fees. In short, the present system is an outrageous mess and Federal legislation should be enacted which would provide a better way to get prompt and adequate compensa tion into the hands of victims. Finally, Mr. Sweeney warns against the Government engaging in "corpo rate welfare." In all phases of asbes tos use, from stockpiling, to standard setting, to providing the workplace in which substantia! exposure occurred, Government involvement can be clearly identified. Is it corporate wel fare for Government to contribute to the solution of a problem which it ployed a large role in creating? w illiam C. McLaughlin President, The Asbestos Compensation Coalition Washington, Feb. 27,1982 . . .For Alternate Materials Tothe Business Editor: Professor MacAvoy contends that in many industrial applications "such as automobile brake linings" there is no substitute material for asbestos. But leading producers of brake liningsplan to go asbestos-free as soon as pos' f IbJe. G d c ril Motors, whose current output of cars is mostly asbestosrt-e, has stated that " The objective of Gen eral Motors is to deliver, by 1964, all ears withasbestos-free brake linings. " The substitute materials are safer, longer lasting, and give improved per formance -- at somewhat higher ini tial cost. Similarly, every major mar ket for asbestos in the Un-ted States showed p!ummetiny consumption and a turn toward substitutes. FAi.i.Y CASTLEMAN Environmental Consultant Baltimore, MU., Feb. 25,1582 the dangers of asbestos long before their customers, the fabricators. Third, the United States Govern ment's involvement in the asbestos problem started in the World War H shipbuilding program when the Gov ernment specified the inclusion of as bestos lor fixe protection and thermal insulation in ship construction, and sold asbestos tn fabricators, including Baldwin-Ehret-Hi Ti lt has been established that the Gov ernment was fully aware that certain concentrations of asbestos fibers per cubic foot of air were hazardous to workers. Accordingly, the Govern ment established safety standards for its own and ether shipyards -- but failed to enforce the standards. Then, In a Public Health Service study in 1S45, the Government found little or no health risk to shipyard workers as a result of asbestos exposure. Assuredly, the United States Gov ernment is responsible for the actions that have resulted in so many law suits. Fourth, The record to date appears to be that 75 cents of every dollar paid out by Keene and others to settle claims has gtme to lawyers (defense lawyers included); 15 cents has gone to insurance companies while only 10 cents has gene to the actual person bring suit or making a claim. A plain tiff lawyer might represent as many as 2,000 such claimants. Using the $1,000per claim average settlement as has often been our experience, each claimant would receive $509--but the lawyer stands to gain $1 million (2,000 claims tim es$500per claim). Certainly, the lawyers have an in centive to compound the number of claims. Hut this type of litigation does not answer the injured worker's needs. The role of the insurance industry in this m atter borders on the incredu lous. O ver the y e ars, Keene purchased and paid premiums on more than $350 million in comprehensive liability in surance. It was a good faith purchase to provide against an unforeseen risk -- no different than the purpose of other insurance-coverage in our busi ness and professional lives. But, alas,, we now witness the spectacle of insur ance companies denying that mean ingful coverage ever existed. As an aside, 1 cannot resist com menting cmProfessor MacAvoy's good fortune in having had parents who "warned me against going to work in an asbestos insulation factory." If my parents had possessed such wisdom, 1 would have been smart enough not to! spend $7 million to buy Baidwin-Ehret-. Hill and the unforeseen pack of trou bles that eventually resulted. In conclusion, Keene believes that, legislation should establish a fund into which all responsible parties -- miners, manufacturers, insurance companies, employers and the Fed eral Government -- would pay equita bleshares of the costof compensation. The fund should be the sole recourse for injured individuals, precluding suits against third parties. It should assure rapid and adequate payment to truly injured individuals. Compensa tion would be supplemental to and not* a substitute for existing workers'com pensation. It is time ior ail sides, in cluding the lawyers who have earned so much from asbestos litigation, to join in seeking an equitable solution that favors the injured partners. Glenn W. Bailey Chairman The Keene Corporation NewYork, N.Y., Feb. 23,1982 .. .Against Employers Professor MacAvoy confuses asbe stosis, a debilitating chronic lung dis ease, with mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the lung. He correctly notes that the standard for workplace asbestos exposure was _ reduced in the mid-1970's. However, because of industry pressure, the cur rent standard is still two times that recommended by the National Insti tute for Occupational Safety and Health. Furthermore, the current standard does not protect workers from mesothelioma, which can result (mm exposure to as little as one parti cle of asbestos. The costs of asbestesis and mesothe lioma will be born by the afflicted indi- vlduals and the public in many ways other than by higher insurance rates. According tc government studies, 95 percent of all workers who contract oc cupational diseases are unable to col lect workers' compensation, instead, they are icreed to apply tor Social Se curity disability and various forms of welfare. These support programs are funfed by payroll deductions and other forms ci generai taxation cost ing tbs taxpayers more than $2.2 bil lions year. By shifting the burden of paying for the effects of occupational diseases from the corporations whose workers are exposed to these deadly sub stances to the general public, we are subsidizing those erailoyers. In the case of asbestos, whose dangers have been well known for decades, corpora tions should be made financially re sponsible for the havoc they have wreaked on the lives and health of their employees and others exposed to theirproduct. J oelShuero Executive Director New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health Feb. 17,1982 The Times welcomes letters from readers. Letters for publication should include the writer's norm, address and telephone number. Letters should be addressed to The tditor, Sunday Business Section, The New York Times, 229 West -Td Street, New York, N.Y. IK 35. We re,-ret T.nl because of the large volume of mod received, we are unable to achnow ledge or to return unpublished letters. N Y T MauJ. 7,m t i March 8, 1982 General Motors 1660 L Street, NW Washington, D.C. Dsar Sir or Madam, In the Business section of yesterday's i'iew York Times, A letter of mine quoted another published source as saying, "The objective of General *-k>tors is to deliver, by 198^, *11 cars with asbestos-free brake linings, both on front and rear brakes." I am writing to get the most current and comprehensive view possible of GH*s program to eliminate asbestos from autor.otivs friction products. 1. Is GM aiming to completely eliminate asbestos from disc brakes in all 1983 model cars, as proposed several years age? 2. Will light trucks as well as cars with drum brakes be asbestos- free in 1 9 8 b ? What about buses and larger trucks? 3* What fraction o f vehicles above are now made with asbestos-free disc and drum brakes? t. Are the asbestos-free brakes all semi-metallic compositions? If other compositions are used, please describe then (and send patents or patent numbers that apply t.o the new formulations, if possible). 5. Whet date do you have on the comparative performance and service life of your asbestos-fVee brakes? 6. What is the expected differential (increase or decrease) in overall production cost of the asbestos-free brakes, comparsd with asbestos brakes? 7. What success have you had in developing asbestos-free clutches? 8. What is your impression of your competitors* success in replacing asbestos in their automotive friction products? Thanks in advance for your trouble in referring these questions to the appropriate authority in the company. W ILLIAM H. N O A C K RCOIONAU MANAGER PUBLIC RELATIONS ST A FF general M otors Corporation 1660 L STREET, N. W. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036 April 14, 1982 Mr. Barry Castleman 1722 Linden Avenue Baltimore, Maryland 21217 Dear Mr. Castleman: This letter is in response to your letter of March 8 which posed eight questions regarding General Motors' automotive friction products. We have been advised by our legal counsel that you have been hired to assist persons with respect to lawsuits currently pending against General Motors. It is contrary to General Motors' policy to provide information with respect to pending litigation outside of normal legal channels. We therefore decline to respond to your request. Sincerely April 17, 1982 Hono Janes J. Florio, Chairman U0 So House of Representatives Subcommittee on Commerce, Transportation, and Tourism Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Mr# Florioi Upon receiving a telephoned invitation to testify at your Subcbmmittee oversight hearings on E?A regulation of asbestos, I wrote to General Motors for some up-to-date information# I had read that G,M. had a promising effort to completely eliminate asbestos use in brake shoes and linings. In fact, I had referred to several-year-old sources in complimenting this activity in a letter printed in the Sunday New York Times. As you can see, ray letter (enclosed) asked about the commercial success of the company's asbestos elimination program. Initially, it was met with a warm response and a full reply was promised. Today, I received this very disappoint ing reply to the effect that I "have been hired to assist persons with respect to lawsuits currently pending against General Motors." While I do not know of a specific attorney who may have thus hired me, it is possible that I have been listed in litigation over disease developed by workers exposed to the duet from asbestos-containing brakes in the past. If so, ray testimony would deal with the history of knowledge of asbestos disease and as such would have nothing to do with the current technical developments that were the subject of my March 8th inquiry. Therefore, as I am unable to provide your Subcommittee with valuable infor mation on the st(i`s of the art in this most vital product line where asbestos is being replaces I cam only offer this correspondence for your consideration in the event that you choose to request this information from G.M# yourself. Once again, I am sorry that I am not able to provide more helpful infor mation for the record of your March l6th hearings at this time. BIC/rac 1722 lir%<Jat\_av'e-- ka!llmor'e_, mdu. 21217 fJ. 30I-462-SI3S