but what about those guys? OHS| OSH issues

treevet

We got the safety guys or shiny asses (Ekka quote) all up our asses all the time but......what about those guys.

Watched these 2 guys maybe couple hundred feet up in the air with no safety attachments whatsoever climbing around the scaffolding.

Last week I watched 4 guys walking around four stories up and above a sunken concrete drive climbing around on a roof with plywood under an arm on a very sharp angle roof with no safety line at all. Chimney sweeps, third story painters also on high roofs with no safety restraints every day.

Any of you guys notice this? Anyone think we are being beat to death by desk jockies and retired types spewing legislation to make our job more tedious and uncomfortable because they never did it or do not do it anymore if they ever did it with any competence anyway? Why they zoned in on us?

Attached Thumbnails

       

Sean Freeman

Its really not like that here anymore...back in 88' when I came out here, was amazed at the lack of OH&S control over what was done at work...all jobs all professions..in Nth Queensland anyway.....even in the mid to late 90's AFTER the WH&S Act was passed (94), still saw plumbers and builders, riggers and scaffolders up without fall protection, edge protection, hard hats etc... Not any more....sure there are still crap businesses with scum that don't care about their workers..like the mob K&M in the other thread running...but they are very few and far between and they are very quickly shut down and heavily fined or jailed..(thats what made me laugh about their high and mighty attitude....not wasting any more of my time on the trolls..I know whats waiting for them if they enter court)

It makes me very sad inside when I see guys working on the job (no matter what the job is) unsafely, its not necessary, its wrong and its illegal. (In Oz) Ignorance of the letter of the law is no defence in this situation...the persons envolved and the owner will be prosecuted. There are a number of very good companies running "mock trials" to make it perfectly clear what would face you if you break this particular bit of Statute Law (in Oz).

Therrin

Probably because alot of those guys are still only making low wages at what they do, and OH&S knows if they come after the tree people that they'll get more money out of it to line their pockets with.

treevet

OSHA is famous for locking onto an individual or entity and not letting go until the death is nearly wrung out of it.

Pictures are the other end of the spectrum. I ve been watching this crew all week as it is around the corner from my house. Guy on the side of the tower got there by going hand over hand to get to that spot unsecured. Neither of the other 2 on top are secured. Last week a guy fell off a similar water tower and died. They all look Mexican and likely are working for peanuts.

blair duncanson

Back in Scotland, health and safety attempt to have their fingers on every business. Think main reason for them focusing on our line of work was that statistically there had been too many injuries, mainly involving untrained personel. Think its good, although sometimes annoying but if people are trained from the start with safety being paramount, well it just becomes part of the job and you charge accordingly. Its the folks that have never had any training that find it most difficult to change their ways. I am sure many of them are competent at what they do and are probably far superior than many of us at aspects of the job but i think we must strive to educate them, we do not want them becoming another statistic!

newguy18

I agree,its because we're in the second most dangerous job on the planet.I don't see any osha people going after crab fisherman though.

__________________
Have your say join us today.


old schooler

Eric Frei

OK, here's a scoop, I got this anonymously and once again the people affected dont want to speak up about it.

Why?

Because of fear of losing their contracts.

Typical bullshit from typical shiny asses.

Months ago a Victorian tree worker fell coz it appears he didn't tie his termination knot correctly.

So, in come the new rules as shown here.

An extra long tail with back biner so if your knot comes undone you'll be OK.

Please note, the line in this instance had a spliced eye, so in this example we have EXTREME DUMBING it down as climbers with eye spliced terminations now have to tie a knot and the spliced eye becomes the "back up".

This is the sort of BULLSHIT that the industry brings onto itself. Not by OHS govt reg!!!!

So, what I find absolutely insulting is that I trained, tie knots correctly (and what sort of idiot cant tie a figure 8 knot) and for the better part do things safely and correctly yet when an isolated incident occurs that all means tough luck and do this procedure.

So the industry self inflicts a LOT OF IT'S OWN BULLSHIT.

The people that do this, make these adjustments to their own codes (such as power line trimming) do it to show OHS some brownie points system that they did something and re-evaluated their safety procedures. Why? Oh because some-one didn't clip in right, didn't tie in right and you cant just say ... 100% human error and not get fined and interrogated IMHO.

So what next, two biners with opposing gates, dont laugh, it wont be that far off the way things are going.

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________

treevet

I agree it is sometimes the industry initiating these things. Recently I observed an employee hydraulic root fertilizing trees in 82 degree weather wearing chaps, long sleeves with colored vest, heavy gloves, hard hat, with ear muffs down and face shield down and safety glasses. He had to break every 10 injections because of pouring swear into glasses.

Company must have policy that these ppe items be worn every minute of standing on job site no matter what is being done. Maybe this is the only way they can assure compliance if they aren't being baby sat.

Eric Frei

1/ Why chaps, he's not running a saw?

2/ Why a vest when there's fluro moisture control shirts

3/ With all gloves your hands sweat in that heat, that's a tough one to fix.

4/ Why a helmet, if there's nothing over head, however mandatory on building sites even when there's nothing there! Could have a face shield without the helmet and switch muffs to plugs.

Could be argued he should have a chem suit on, even disposable overalls with respirator etc.

They say dont leave pets and kids in cars when the heat is on. Temperature rises rapidly. I wonder if any tests have been made what the temperature rises to in that little place between your scalp and the helmet. It's hot here most of the time, this years summer was the coolest I can remember ever. But I know before I even get near a tree with all the gear on sweat is pissing out of you, then comes other problems like dehydration, headaches and cramp. It's an art working in the heat and knocks people around big time.

__________________

treevet

I agree. You know any instances of "selective indignation" always suck.

If you look again at those pictures you can see that they have set up giant tarps that they are to drop down the framework of those ropes. They will spray within those tarps so the public is not at risk of fume inhalation. Does not this subject the workers that were solicited by the city to more risk of exposure no matter what they are wearing. Also I am guessing the job is a lot more dangerous painting on moving supports while in a space suit (if they wear anything).

treevet

Let me put this another way. Does anyone else think that a green man (new to business) should be wrapped in bulletproof chainsaw chain anti penetrating duct tape with a full helmet, neck protector, kevlar/chainlink protective arm covers and gloves and chaps and boots and vest, and then.........

Over time and job capable tested increments be allowed to remove more and more of this gear/covering (to a point) as they pass and are able to function as a top level arborist? The same goes for climbing gear and technique restrictions/permissions.

Why do safety laws have to be one size fits all?

Does anyone (like me) feel that a top of the food chain arborist that is self employed and fully insured and experienced beyond comparison, should be able to stand on one foot on a chair that is balanced on one leg on a 70 foot spar and juggle chainsaws that the throttle is taped open ......if they so choose?

Why is the safety gestapo so zeroed into us and is all this gear that is being legislated mandatory really safe or does it become unsafe as mentioned in heat or awkwardness of movement? When/how does it stop. Welfare/foodstamps were a good idea, but the momentum just takes it beyond a good state to a negative one by nature.

treevet

One last thought and I'll let this thread sink into oblivion.

I'll draw an analogy: You've got 2 guys standing side by side ready to take a long motorcycle ride. One guy is heavy and old and has no helmet, no armored jacket, no gloves, no face mask, no boots. The other guy is thin and sleek looking, has a full, under the chin helmet, full armor jacket, armor pants attached, heavy gloves, kevlar boots, the whole works.

The heavy guy gets on his Harley, hits the highway and cruises up to the 60 mph speed limit. The full gear guy gets on his GSX R1000 kicks it in the ass and goes into a wide sweeper at about 130 mph with his inside knee scraping the pavement.

Who is in the "best practices" gear. Who is the safest?

Eric Frei

I think you need to watch the video in this thread.

Shiny ass hits the pavement - Tree World

__________________

treevet

Looked like, going down the hill, shiny ass needed to learn a lesson. Sounded like he learned that lesson.

Man, I couldn't avoid watching this shiny ass yuppy tree company all week on my street because I have to go by there all the time. I want to

I'm over it now. I promise.

Therrin

Hey Ekka, who's the old guy with the gut in the photo you posted??



And TreeVet, yeah I agree. Ya know, in Illinois, ya don't even gotta wear a helmet when you ride. I never got used to seeing guys go zipping by on their GSXR's without one. <shudders> I think anyone who's been down know's better, and anyone who's going down will change their habits afterwards.

So you can ride a motorcycle in IL with no helmet, but gotta wear one when working with trees or construction. Hmmm.....

Eric Frei

I dont know who that is, I just got the pic. Some dude down Victoria way I suppose.

__________________

treevet

Kind of a charming looking dude. Looks like he's got a bad temper tho.

Therrin

Behind a kind/bashfull looking grin like that? I doubt it.
He appears to be some nice gent showing off his sporty climbing setup.

Maybe there are nice, decent people in the world afterall.

treevet

Nice yes, and not a bad temper in general, just in regards to trolls such as Dunlap/Haygood. That sort of thing.

Therrin

newguy18

I'm not bragging but i've never wore a helmet in my life[that i'm aware of,mind gets fuzzy after 12].Then again maybe it won't be such a bad idea,i like the looks of the skull buckets.

__________________
Have your say join us today.


old schooler

Therrin

NG, thats why we have a pool going on how much longer you're going to live




I've got the slot for 1 year, but some think that's an overly liberal estimate.

newguy18

Thats okay most guys don't let thier bodies catch hell when working either.lets say i just like to push things to thier limits.

__________________
Have your say join us today.


old schooler

wulkowicz

The New York Times had a column yesterday on OSHA written by a former prosecutor. Seemed to me, that this perspective was important and should be shared:



The New York Times
May 27, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor
The Working Wounded
By DAVID M. UHLMANN

Ann Arbor, Mich.

ON a hot August morning in 1996, Scott Dominguez reported to work at Evergreen Resources, a small fertilizer manufacturing plant in his hometown, Soda Springs, Idaho. The workday began like any other, with gruff commands barked out by the owner of the company, Allan Elias, who was a Wharton graduate, a lawyer and one of the most notorious violators of environmental and worker-safety laws in the state.

Mr. Elias wanted his workers to clean out a 25,000-gallon tank that contained cyanide waste. He refused to test the air or the waste inside the tank. He ignored the pleas of his workers for safety equipment. When the workers complained of sore throats and difficulty breathing, Mr. Elias told them to finish the job or find work somewhere else.

Mr. Dominguez, a 20-year-old high school graduate, wanted to keep his job. Wearing just jeans and a T-shirt, he used a ladder to descend into the tank. Two hours later, covered in sludge and barely breathing, he was removed from the tank, a victim of cyanide poisoning at the hands of a ruthless employer who would blame his “stupid and lazy” employees for the incident.

Mr. Dominguez suffered severe and permanent brain damage. He now has the rigid body movement and stammering speech found in patients with Parkinson’s disease.

The Justice Department opened a criminal investigation of Evergreen Resources. I was one of the lead prosecutors on the case. We quickly discovered that we had a major problem.

Mr. Elias did not commit a crime under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which is the primary federal worker-safety law in the United States. Why not? Because Mr. Dominguez did not die.

My colleagues and I were shocked to learn that an employer who breaks the nation’s worker-safety laws can be charged with a crime only if a worker dies. Even then, the crime is a lowly Class B misdemeanor, with a maximum sentence of six months in prison. (About 6,000 workers are killed on the job each year, many in cases where the deaths could have been prevented if their employers followed the law.) Employers who maim their workers face, at worst, a maximum civil penalty of $70,000 for each violation.

We ended up prosecuting Mr. Elias for environmental crimes, and he was sentenced to 17 years in prison. I later became chief of the Justice Department’s environmental crimes section, and we started an initiative — based on this case and others like it — to seek justice when workers were seriously injured or killed during environmental crimes. We prosecuted some of the largest companies in America. But in cases where no environmental crimes were committed, we often could not prosecute.

Employers rarely face criminal prosecution under the worker-safety laws. In the 38 years since Congress enacted the Occupational Safety and Health Act, only 68 criminal cases have been prosecuted, or less than two per year, with defendants serving a total of just 42 months in jail. During that same time, approximately 341,000 people have died at work, according to data compiled from the National Safety Council and the Bureau of Labor Statistics by the A.F.L.-C.I.O.

It is long past time for Congress to change the law. First, Congress should amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act to make it a crime for an employer to commit violations that cause serious injury to workers or that knowingly place workers at risk of death or serious injury. Whether good fortune intervenes and prevents harm to workers should not determine whether an employer commits a crime.

Congress should make it a felony to commit a criminal violation of the worker-safety laws, and the penalties for lawbreakers should be stiffened. The maximum sentence ought to be measured in years, not months.

Congress also should change the worker-safety laws so that ignorance of the law is no longer a defense. Employers have a duty to know their responsibilities under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

Finally, Congress should make clear who can be prosecuted. Some courts have held that prosecution is limited to companies and their owners. Supervisors who order workers to break the law, as well as responsible corporate officers who fail to stop violations that they know are occurring, should also be held criminally responsible, just as they are under most other federal laws.

Most companies care about protecting their workers. But without a serious threat of criminal enforcement, more workers will be put at risk by companies that put profits before safety.

David M. Uhlmann is a law professor at the University of Michigan.


--------------------

It didn't take me long as a working stiff to realize that someone will be happy to kill me for a buck. As a young father, I realized that someone would swap my family, their health, and their safety for a few bucks. This wasn't me being paranoid; it's still true today with adulterated heparin and anti-freeze in toothpastes.

I had the good fortune to read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" when I was just a kid and it left an eternal impression in that part of my noggin that I use to judge the difficult issues of morality and ethics-- and, yes, my responsibilities to other creatures.

I was working on Sears Tower when OSHA was created and because there were no federal representatives available to cover jobs, I became one of the first field representatives charged with keeping my site safe. I got a button for my hardhat and attended a few meetings, and later discovered the largest part of my job was to keep people from being stupid. It was a very primitive time in those days for any safety equipment, and the belts and lanyards we were issued, and the style that we wore them, pretty much guaranteed a broken back from using a long tail.

Diesel Construction, the general contractor, fought every day with Mayfair, the concrete contractor. Diesel will put up barricades at the holes in the floor in the perimeter of the building, paint them yellow and continue on to the next new area. Mayfair would tear them down and use the wood for shoring the concrete, and then throw them in the garbage. Long trucks would bring in brand-new 2 by 4's everyday, and long trucks would carry yellow painted scrap out everyday.

So much for OSHA and indeed, for any kind of common sense.

----------------------------

My training as a father included understanding that I'd better watch out for myself if I wanted to keep my family supported and successful. It was a logical extension of that awareness that I try to keep other people safe as well, and it ended up with me being a public safety designer at the conclusions of my career. It's difficult for me to separate the macho from the stupid and I won't apologize to some knuckle draggers who believes thinking ahead about themselves and others is a waste of their valuable time.

I once spent three hours talking with a clear-cutter in Nova Scotia while his children hid behind a curtain in his trailer. They weren't frightened; they just weren't supposed to disturb us. Our discussion included not being able to use his hands anymore after a few dozen years with a chainsaw. He was shifted to running a tractor, but was frightened that it wouldn't last very long. The man across the table from me was about to become the debris of his trade; the same forgotten scrap that he left in many forests.

I don't demand that he has insights into his life and I don't begrudge him the clear-cutting that savaged Nova Scotia. He was the victim that I read about in The Jungle as a creature of a different time, but the same exploitation and discard. He would be replaced by someone younger and probably macho, and probably insistent and easily convinced that he would never get hurt.

OSHA, as inefficient and irritating as it is, still has the probabilities of keeping people safe and relatively unharmed. Our ignorance, and a lack of compassion that recognizes us all being in the same boat, are the biggest impediments to the goals that set OSHA in place.

I'm not sure if I have a way to wind this up: I knew what OSHA meant to do, and as a recovering bureaucrat myself in later life, I understood the clumsy, difficult implementations that meant well, but irritate everyone. I watched any number of contradictions and ironies, but it seemed that keeping the people around me safe was a valuable use of my long-term time and energies.

I'll think about it for a while and try to have a more coherent presentation on the foibles of OSHA. I guess I can conclude that I don't much care for those who mock the legislation rather than figure out how to make it work on the site or in the larger picture. Then again, what do I know?



Bob Wulkowicz