6 ms·
This is an article about installing trench boxes, which is a decision made by the company, not individual workers, and has a long list of company execs admittin
by dahart 2y ago
This is an article about installing trench boxes, which is a decision made by the company, not individual workers, and has a long list of company execs admitting they didn’t follow the law because it cost them money. This isn’t that complicated and doesn’t really compare to individuals foregoing personal safety equipment.
- newsclues 2y agoIndividual workers at job sites decide what they do, from how to build to what safety gear they use. Project managers and engineers give instructions but workers can and do ignore them and do whatever they want.
- Jgrubb 2y agoYeah ok buddy, every job site everywhere is just anarchy. We have no idea how bridges and skyscrapers get built, really.
- dahart 2y agoIt seems like you didn’t understand the distinction between PPE and the project plan for trench boxes. In the case of PPE, the company is providing the safety equipment and asking workers to use it. Yes it’s true that some workers choose not to use ear plugs, glasses, harnesses, etc. (often because the PPE is uncomfortable.) In the case of trench boxes, companies have to keep the information away from workers in order to prevent their use, and the article cites multiple examples of that occurring. Trench boxes require company action and expenditure in advance of construction that is not up to individual workers. When the contractor rents or orders a trench box, delivers it to the site, arranges for the excavator, or even a crane for larger operations, and lays out the construction plan, there is no such thing as ignoring it. Just in case you missed it in the article, not only are trench boxes required by law in the US, a safety supervisor on site overseeing the operation is also required. The laws were written to prevent individual workers from being able to ignore the construction safety plan, and require company oversight. The only way it gets ignored is from the top.
- newsclues 2y agoAnd yet the evidence of worker deaths due to lack of safety measures seems to imply that I am right. Maybe you haven’t much experience working on job sites. Maybe you’d know about subcontractors who don’t gaf or workers who are told to do something and they don’t listen. Maybe you’re just unaware of the facts of reality? Utopian fantasy is not real life.
- snozolli 2y agoMaybe you’d know about subcontractors who don’t gaf or workers who are told to do something and they don’t listen. As GP said: a safety supervisor on site overseeing the operation is also required You don't want to listen? No more job. You don't need cooperation, you need authority with incentives to act (i.e. stiff penalties).
- dahart 2y agoYou are right about what? And why? The article clearly explained the worker deaths, and it was because company CEOs had chosen to avoid the mandated safety precautions (trench boxes) over cost concerns, and had chosen to not tell the workers about the safety requirements. They admitted it in many cases, and in some cases went to jail. The authors’ survey of trench fatalities found that company execs overwhelmingly had never planned to install trench boxes in the first place. There were no cases mentioned of trench boxes and heavy equipment being arranged and delivered, and of having individual workers instead decide not to install them. Are you aware of any, and are you accusing the article of some kind of bias? I already agreed with you and I’m aware that workers can make bad individual decisions, but that is not relevant here. We’re not talking about any and all construction safety, we’re talking about trenches and trench boxes. A few simple facts of reality that you might be ignoring that I’ve already mentioned are: 1- trench boxes require heavy equipment and advance planning; 2- the law requires a safety supervisor to ensure workers follow the plan. Neither of those is up to individual workers and cannot be undermined by individual workers. To your broader point (that doesn’t apply to trench boxes), workers only get away with stuff when the company doesn’t care enough. The company is paying, and has all authority to monitor and enforce any and all safety concerns, should they be sufficiently motivated.
- jcims 2y agoMy brother has been in repair for a telco for almost 30 years. It’s a union shop and the company takes safety very seriously. They constantly send safety out to repair sites because the guys out in the field still jump in the hole so they can get their work done and get out of there.
- dahart 2y ago“Trench work can be so precarious that OSHA also requires companies to have an experienced supervisor on-site with authority to stop work in a trench if they consider it unsafe” Isn’t safety supposed to be on-site at all times? The point of the law is to prevent people who don’t know the risks from jumping in the hole, right?
- s1artibartfast 2y ago>The point of the law is to prevent people who don’t know the risks from jumping in the hole, right? I think this is too simple of a view. I think the interesting point is many workers dont want to use the safety features, and it isnt a simple matter of education. This is why a simple training class dont work. Instead it is a matter of incentives, so you need to have someone onsite whos sole job is to make sure workers do it the way the company wants, not they way the the worker want.
- jcims 2y agoHonestly the ‘we care about your safety’ doesn’t work. It should be ‘nobody cares if you die on the job, but we’re going to send everyone else home with no pay’.
- dahart 2y agoI’m confused by your reply. The law says you need someone on-site, not that a training class is sufficient. The part of my comment that you quoted was based on the idea of having someone on-site monitoring the workers.
- 2y ago
- kurthr 2y agoHere's a video of trench collapse with a trench box (0/10 made of bamboo- thanks for playing). https://youtube.com/shorts/T4jfbUqMwAk https://youtube.com/shorts/T4jfbUqMwAk