2 ms·
My 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
by jcims 2y ago
My 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.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoI was highlighting the fact that it isn't simply about knowing the risks.
- dahart 2y agoRight, so was I. ;) The point of the law (that requires on-site supervision) is to prevent workers from jumping into the hole without safeguards, regardless of what they know or think about the risks.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoTwo opposite statements >The point of the law is to prevent people who don’t know the risks from jumping in the hole, right? >prevent workers from jumping into the hole without safeguards, regardless of what they know or think about the risks.
- dahart 2y agoNo they’re not, you ignored the rest of my comment and the context and (perhaps accidentally) cherry picked something to disagree with. The statement about not knowing the risks was made immediately after saying OSHA requires an on-site supervisor, which is what prevents people who don’t know the risks from jumping in the hole, and also what provides a worker safeguard regardless of whether or not they know the risks. Same point said two ways, same reason in both cases, and you agreed and repeated the same point I was making. Cheers!
- s1artibartfast 2y agoI read your full statement, agreed with most of it, and cherry picked the part I disagreed with to comment on. That is typical when someone disagrees with something.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]