6 ms·
On a somewhat related note, I once worked on a vessel which had 'SAFETY FIRST' stencilled onto the superstructure (quite common). Underneath, someone had stenc
by lb1lf 2y ago
On a somewhat related note, I once worked on a vessel which had 'SAFETY FIRST' stencilled onto the superstructure (quite common).
Underneath, someone had stencilled in slightly smaller script 'second only to profit'
(Somewhat less common, but refreshingly honest. Or cynical. Or both)
- Dalewyn 2y agoReminds me of this insightful article: https://mikerowe.com/2020/03/walk-me-through-this-safety-third-thing/ https://mikerowe.com/2020/03/walk-me-through-this-safety-thi...
- WalterBright 2y agoSafety is a luxury that profit enables. Increased productivity => increased profits => more safety Nothing comes for free.
- worble 2y agoOr, more likely Increased productivity => increased profits => shareholders see number goes up => number must go more up year on year => everything (including safety) falls to the wayside in the pursuit of more profit
- WalterBright 2y agoWith the size of liability judgments, that is not a profitable strategy.
- doctor_eval 2y agoSafety is not a “luxury enabled by profit”. It’s one of many necessary dimensions for efficiently creating value over time. If you are a sole trader and you fall off a ladder and hurt yourself because you took some stupid shortcut, the cost is extremely high. If you work for someone and they make you do something stupid that hurts you, the cost to them has traditionally been relatively low, so they are motivated to push you because that’s better for them. Fortunately, in most modern countries this is no longer the case. Safety only becomes a “luxury” when capital becomes concentrated into the hands of people for whom other people are disposable.
- WalterBright 2y agoI bought a chainsaw recently for $10. I then bought about $100 of kevlar armor to wear while I use the saw. No money => no safety Take a look at history as far back as it will go. Safety expenses only happen when the money is there. Next time you see someone using a chainsaw, take a look at their protective equipment. If they work for a company, they're likely wearing: 1. ear protection 2. face shield 3. helmet 4. kevlar gloves 5. kevlar chaps 6. kevlar boots If they're some rando with a saw, odds are pretty good they have none of that on. They won't spend their own money on their own safety. It's only deemed essential if someone else is paying for it.
- doctor_eval 2y agoThis is just rubbish. Safety arises from multiple dimensions - Kevlar-threaded armour is a single, last line of defence that helps only when everything else has failed. Actual safety comes from training, practice and operations - such as understanding how the tool works, what unexpected dangers exist, what techniques to avoid, the state of the immediate environment, prioritising safety (eg by not creating time pressure) and the design of the tool itself (eg chain guards and anti whip mechanisms) By the time your Kevlar armour comes into play you are well outside the safety zone and deep into the shit your pants zone.
- WalterBright 2y agoAll the things you describe also require money. You're right that the kevlar is the last line of defense. Nevertheless, one would be a fool not to wear it, as machinery fails and people make mistakes. There are photos on the intertoobs of shredded kevlar and no injury to the "thank god I put on my armor!" sawyer.
- JohnFen 2y agoSecurity is not a luxury. It's essential. Even if all you care about is profits, the lack of security puts those profits at risk.
- WalterBright 2y agoThere is no such thing as "safe" and "unsafe". There's a continuum between them. At some point, making things more safe becomes so costly it is unworkable.
- JohnFen 2y agoAbsolutely true. This is a thing I talk about quite a bit. However, it doesn't speak to the idea that "security is a luxury", it speaks to the idea that security, like all things, is subject to a cost/benefit analysis.