4 ms·

> Pale dust rose around them as they worked. Many went without masks. Some had water spurting from their machines, but others had nothing to tamp down the powde

> Pale dust rose around them as they worked. Many went without masks. Some had water spurting from their machines, but others had nothing to tamp down the powder rising in the air. Safety regulations need to be put in place with the cheapest being a good quality respirator.

nickff 3y ago
Many workers resist using safety equipment, even when it is provided to them, and they are shown how to use it. This is common for fall protection too. Safety regulations requiring provision of equipment may not get the job done. For all we know, safety equipment was available.
- marcinzm 3y ago
  I tell a worker that I expect them to do N amount of work per hour or be fired. They need the money to pay their families for basic life necessities. N is the amount they can do if working at peak efficiency for that hour. I picked that number by design. Wearing a mask is uncomfortable and causes excess sweating which makes them 5% less efficient. If they weak a mask they output 0.95*N and I will thus fire them. They are free to weak a mask and I am not firing them for wearing a mask. Then when they die I blame them for not wearing a mask.
  - parineum 3y ago
    In reality, the cost of hiring/firing an employee would offset any gain one might hope for in hiring an unsafe worker. Plus, this isn't the type of industry that's measuring productivity by percentage points.
  - nickff 3y ago
    Have you ever worked or managed in a situation like this? It's usually not as easy as you seem to think. I have worked in these situations and know managers who have this kind of issue. The managers worry, and try to get people to comply, but it's tough when only a minority comply, especially because one has to enforce so many different requirements.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  Employers must provide PPE. Workers must wear it or be let go. This is not hard.
  - alex_lav 3y ago
    > Employers must provide PPE. Firing skilled laborers harms both the employer and the employee. > Workers must wear it or be let go. Firing skilled laborers harms both the employer and the employee. > This is not hard. It seems very hard.
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      Regulators and liability lawsuits it is then I suppose. Those will be harmful to businesses and workers as well, but powered by media reporting and the public sphere.
      - alex_lav 3y ago
        Where they'll continue to come up with half measures and platitudes, yes. Because it's a very hard problem to solve and enforce. Glad we agree!
    - sterlind 3y ago
      Firing them wouldn't harm them more than letting them destroy their lungs. And PPE requirements are commonly mandatory: you can't set foot in a construction area without a hardhat, no matter who you are.
      - alex_lav 3y ago
        > And PPE requirements are commonly mandatory Yes, and it's mandatory to drive the speed limit. And yet, here we are.
        withinboredom 3y ago
        Depends on the fines. Where I am, simply doing 11+ gets an automatic suspension of your license. When I was in the US, it was a joke in that you had to "get pulled over" to get a fine. Here it is automated all over the place.
- drowsspa 3y ago
  That is true, but companies do know their workers aren't using them.
- alex_lav 3y ago
  Yeah, it's really wild how many tradespeople prefer "safety squints" to legitimate eye protection. Nobody that ever lost an eye on a jobsite thought they were going to lose an eye that day, so I'm not sure why "I know that this will be fine" continues to beat out "I'll take 15 seconds to put on eye protection". And yet, jobsites all over the place skip this and many other very basic, extremely obvious safety precaution. The next time you're driving around and you see someone getting work done on their roof, take note if the roofers are using anchors/ropes/harnesses. IME it's about 50-50.
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    > so I'm not sure why "I know that this will be fine" continues to beat out "I'll take 15 seconds to put on eye protection" Complacency. When you have done something a hundred times and nothing has hit you in the eye (some things might have gotten close) then the statistics go to favor 'I won't get hit in the eye this time'. What is usually not factored in 'if I continue to do this constantly I will get hit in the eye eventually'. This is the nature of complacency and is kind of a flip of the gambler's fallacy.
- Timshel 3y ago
  I don't know, if you employ peoples to do a job with a such a risk to their lives, IMO it's your responsibility to ensure that protection is used not just provided.
  - nickff 3y ago
    It’s often not that easy. Would you fire someone who you knew was on the verge of being evicted, or a single parent trying to support their children? What about when the employees are unionized, and the union takes the side of the non-compliant laborers?
    - Timshel 3y ago
      ? Yes it's not easy and so what ? If it's too hard don't employ people ... But in this case I believe things should be easier since IMO a violation of this level of safety standard should risk bankrupting your company. So your choice become to keep employing someone who can't follow basic regulation to save his life and risk the job of everyone else or just fire him (not as hard no ?). And I might be a bit optimistic but in this scenario I would expect that the union might not support him as much. And I made only a quick search but the scenario where union would protect safety violation appear to be less probable. Since at least regarding OSHA violations : https://blog.dol.gov/2022/05/11/the-connection-between-unions-and-worker-safety https://blog.dol.gov/2022/05/11/the-connection-between-union... > based on publicly reported OSHA data found that union worksites are 19% less likely to have an OSHA violation and had 34% fewer violations per OSHA inspection than non-union worksites.
    - orangepurple 3y ago
      > Would you fire someone who you knew was on the verge of being evicted, or a single parent trying to support their children? People make their own decisions how to behave and need to own them. Allowing important things to slide like health and safety matters is unacceptable. > What about when the employees are unionized, and the union takes the side of the non-compliant laborers? Start a new company and wind down the old one, transferring over existing customers.
  - 3y ago
- raverbashing 3y ago
  Correct. I don't even know why are we having this conversation Use a mask and cut it using water for dust management If people were getting shocked while working with electricity we'd be calling the ridiculousness of it. This is basically the same thing, over a longer timeframe
  - mindslight 3y ago
    The same dynamic exists in electric land with working hot and arc flash protection. But at least it's not a chronic exposure risk.
WkndTriathlete 3y ago
Seriously disappointing that someone posting to HN can't be bothered to actually at least read the relevant Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicosis#Regulation_in_the_US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicosis#Regulation_in_the_US TL;DR: it's already regulated (by OSHA). Total number of deaths annually by silicosis in the US is low (~15/year). The workers need to file an OSHA complaint if they haven't already.
- Timshel 3y ago
  I don´t know the wikipedia page mention "must provide" which in my opinion is not enough and should be must enforce. the OSHA page (https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1926/1926.1153 https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/19...) mention "the employer shall fully and properly implement the engineering controls, work practices, and respiratory protection specified for the task on Table 1" which one could read as more than just need to provide but I have idea if it's true. As for the death tool which seem low it's not so good when take into account the number of worker (from the article): > In California, workplace safety regulators have estimated that out of roughly 4,000 workers in the industry across the state, silicosis will afflict between 485 and 848 — and that as many as 161 could ultimately die
  - coryrc 3y ago
    I can guarantee all of them will ultimately die.
pseudosavant 3y ago
A scenario I have encountered many times is having someone doing work for me, they don't bring some basic safety gear like earplugs or masks. I have plenty of earplugs and masks though. Buy I can never get them to actually use them. They'd rather hear that jackhammer at full volume apparently? As a musician, it especially kills me to watch people destroy their ears. These workers are often too young to appreciate good health.
- asdefghyk 3y ago
  Why does music volume, not just get reduced to safe level?
  - amanaplanacanal 3y ago
    The volume you are exposed to depends on how close to the speakers you are. In a large venue the people closest are getting a lot more sound than the people in the back
    - smeyer 3y ago
      And yet, I've been to plenty of venues that were uncomfortably loud in back while not going to any (indoors, professionally set-up) venues that were uncomfortably quiet in back. I think it's more than what you've described. I think it's that a lot of folks actually prefer dangerously loud volumes, and this contributes to a positive feedback loop of expectations for loud concerts. I wish most concerts were quieter, but I may be in a minority.
    - user_7832 3y ago
      What you're saying sounds great in theory but unfortunately it often isn't the case. I've been in small(er) rooms in clubs where the sound was still "blow your eardrums out" even in the back. Anyway, the solution for "it's quiet at the back" isn't "turn it up at the front". It's line arrays, distributed speakers etc.
  - TheRealPomax 3y ago
    Jackhammer and the Pneumatics ft. Tiler McDiamondSaw can only be played with the volume set to 11. If you turn it down, the music stops.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

nickff 3y ago

Many workers resist using safety equipment, even when it is provided to them, and they are shown how to use it. This is common for fall protection too. Safety regulations requiring provision of equipment may not get the job done. For all we know, safety equipment was available.

marcinzm 3y ago
I tell a worker that I expect them to do N amount of work per hour or be fired. They need the money to pay their families for basic life necessities. N is the amount they can do if working at peak efficiency for that hour. I picked that number by design. Wearing a mask is uncomfortable and causes excess sweating which makes them 5% less efficient. If they weak a mask they output 0.95*N and I will thus fire them. They are free to weak a mask and I am not firing them for wearing a mask. Then when they die I blame them for not wearing a mask.
- parineum 3y ago
  In reality, the cost of hiring/firing an employee would offset any gain one might hope for in hiring an unsafe worker. Plus, this isn't the type of industry that's measuring productivity by percentage points.
- nickff 3y ago
  Have you ever worked or managed in a situation like this? It's usually not as easy as you seem to think. I have worked in these situations and know managers who have this kind of issue. The managers worry, and try to get people to comply, but it's tough when only a minority comply, especially because one has to enforce so many different requirements.
toomuchtodo 3y ago
Employers must provide PPE. Workers must wear it or be let go. This is not hard.
- alex_lav 3y ago
  > Employers must provide PPE. Firing skilled laborers harms both the employer and the employee. > Workers must wear it or be let go. Firing skilled laborers harms both the employer and the employee. > This is not hard. It seems very hard.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Regulators and liability lawsuits it is then I suppose. Those will be harmful to businesses and workers as well, but powered by media reporting and the public sphere.
    - alex_lav 3y ago
      Where they'll continue to come up with half measures and platitudes, yes. Because it's a very hard problem to solve and enforce. Glad we agree!
  - sterlind 3y ago
    Firing them wouldn't harm them more than letting them destroy their lungs. And PPE requirements are commonly mandatory: you can't set foot in a construction area without a hardhat, no matter who you are.
    - alex_lav 3y ago
      > And PPE requirements are commonly mandatory Yes, and it's mandatory to drive the speed limit. And yet, here we are.
      - withinboredom 3y ago
        Depends on the fines. Where I am, simply doing 11+ gets an automatic suspension of your license. When I was in the US, it was a joke in that you had to "get pulled over" to get a fine. Here it is automated all over the place.
drowsspa 3y ago
That is true, but companies do know their workers aren't using them.
alex_lav 3y ago
Yeah, it's really wild how many tradespeople prefer "safety squints" to legitimate eye protection. Nobody that ever lost an eye on a jobsite thought they were going to lose an eye that day, so I'm not sure why "I know that this will be fine" continues to beat out "I'll take 15 seconds to put on eye protection". And yet, jobsites all over the place skip this and many other very basic, extremely obvious safety precaution. The next time you're driving around and you see someone getting work done on their roof, take note if the roofers are using anchors/ropes/harnesses. IME it's about 50-50.
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  > so I'm not sure why "I know that this will be fine" continues to beat out "I'll take 15 seconds to put on eye protection" Complacency. When you have done something a hundred times and nothing has hit you in the eye (some things might have gotten close) then the statistics go to favor 'I won't get hit in the eye this time'. What is usually not factored in 'if I continue to do this constantly I will get hit in the eye eventually'. This is the nature of complacency and is kind of a flip of the gambler's fallacy.
Timshel 3y ago
I don't know, if you employ peoples to do a job with a such a risk to their lives, IMO it's your responsibility to ensure that protection is used not just provided.
- nickff 3y ago
  It’s often not that easy. Would you fire someone who you knew was on the verge of being evicted, or a single parent trying to support their children? What about when the employees are unionized, and the union takes the side of the non-compliant laborers?
  - Timshel 3y ago
    ? Yes it's not easy and so what ? If it's too hard don't employ people ... But in this case I believe things should be easier since IMO a violation of this level of safety standard should risk bankrupting your company. So your choice become to keep employing someone who can't follow basic regulation to save his life and risk the job of everyone else or just fire him (not as hard no ?). And I might be a bit optimistic but in this scenario I would expect that the union might not support him as much. And I made only a quick search but the scenario where union would protect safety violation appear to be less probable. Since at least regarding OSHA violations : https://blog.dol.gov/2022/05/11/the-connection-between-unions-and-worker-safety https://blog.dol.gov/2022/05/11/the-connection-between-union... > based on publicly reported OSHA data found that union worksites are 19% less likely to have an OSHA violation and had 34% fewer violations per OSHA inspection than non-union worksites.
  - orangepurple 3y ago
    > Would you fire someone who you knew was on the verge of being evicted, or a single parent trying to support their children? People make their own decisions how to behave and need to own them. Allowing important things to slide like health and safety matters is unacceptable. > What about when the employees are unionized, and the union takes the side of the non-compliant laborers? Start a new company and wind down the old one, transferring over existing customers.
- 3y ago
raverbashing 3y ago
Correct. I don't even know why are we having this conversation Use a mask and cut it using water for dust management If people were getting shocked while working with electricity we'd be calling the ridiculousness of it. This is basically the same thing, over a longer timeframe
- mindslight 3y ago
  The same dynamic exists in electric land with working hot and arc flash protection. But at least it's not a chronic exposure risk.

WkndTriathlete 3y ago

Seriously disappointing that someone posting to HN can't be bothered to actually at least read the relevant Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicosis#Regulation_in_the_US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicosis#Regulation_in_the_US TL;DR: it's already regulated (by OSHA). Total number of deaths annually by silicosis in the US is low (~15/year). The workers need to file an OSHA complaint if they haven't already.

Timshel 3y ago
I don´t know the wikipedia page mention "must provide" which in my opinion is not enough and should be must enforce. the OSHA page (https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1926/1926.1153 https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/19...) mention "the employer shall fully and properly implement the engineering controls, work practices, and respiratory protection specified for the task on Table 1" which one could read as more than just need to provide but I have idea if it's true. As for the death tool which seem low it's not so good when take into account the number of worker (from the article): > In California, workplace safety regulators have estimated that out of roughly 4,000 workers in the industry across the state, silicosis will afflict between 485 and 848 — and that as many as 161 could ultimately die
- coryrc 3y ago
  I can guarantee all of them will ultimately die.

pseudosavant 3y ago

A scenario I have encountered many times is having someone doing work for me, they don't bring some basic safety gear like earplugs or masks. I have plenty of earplugs and masks though. Buy I can never get them to actually use them. They'd rather hear that jackhammer at full volume apparently? As a musician, it especially kills me to watch people destroy their ears. These workers are often too young to appreciate good health.

asdefghyk 3y ago
Why does music volume, not just get reduced to safe level?
- amanaplanacanal 3y ago
  The volume you are exposed to depends on how close to the speakers you are. In a large venue the people closest are getting a lot more sound than the people in the back
  - smeyer 3y ago
    And yet, I've been to plenty of venues that were uncomfortably loud in back while not going to any (indoors, professionally set-up) venues that were uncomfortably quiet in back. I think it's more than what you've described. I think it's that a lot of folks actually prefer dangerously loud volumes, and this contributes to a positive feedback loop of expectations for loud concerts. I wish most concerts were quieter, but I may be in a minority.
  - user_7832 3y ago
    What you're saying sounds great in theory but unfortunately it often isn't the case. I've been in small(er) rooms in clubs where the sound was still "blow your eardrums out" even in the back. Anyway, the solution for "it's quiet at the back" isn't "turn it up at the front". It's line arrays, distributed speakers etc.
- TheRealPomax 3y ago
  Jackhammer and the Pneumatics ft. Tiler McDiamondSaw can only be played with the volume set to 11. If you turn it down, the music stops.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]