2 ms·

I went back to look, and it seems you’re referring to the case in the article of WBW construction, which OSHA deemed to be willful and repeated company violatio

by dahart 2y ago

I went back to look, and it seems you’re referring to the case in the article of WBW construction, which OSHA deemed to be willful and repeated company violations, and the accident in question was triggered by the foreman (father of one of the deceased) doing a “side cut” into the main trench. They said there were trench boxes (plural) onsite that the company had chosen not to install, so root cause doesn’t seem like a case of workers thwarting the construction safety plan, or of too-small diggers. Further down the article also discussed the evidence that the company may have essentially forged a statement by the foreman. We are only getting one view here, but considering that OHSA fined them and claims willful violation, and that there is evidence of multiple wrongs in the case, it all seems to support the summary that the company is solely responsible and culpable, right?

mindslight 2y ago
> it all seems to support the summary that the company is solely responsible and culpable, right? No. You're jumping to conclusions that you seemingly think support your goal, but actually do the exact opposite. From the legal perspective, the company being "solely responsible" would mean the owners and management of the company would get to declare bankruptcy of the company and walk away (free to set up a new company). Small construction companies generally don't have very many assets, so it would also hinder the families of the dead getting compensation. And from the perspective of wanting to prevent collapses happening in the future, solely blaming "the company" is essentially concluding "nobody's fault" - companies don't actually do things, people to do. My comment was focused on trying to look at all of the contributing causes, which is generally how we improve processes so that these failures don't happen. There are many comments talking about the dynamics that lead individuals to eschew personal PPE. But with trench boxes, it's not really up to an individual whether to install their own trench box or not. So I was attempting to visit the group dynamics and incentives that affect whether trench boxes end up getting installed.
- dahart 2y ago
  Hmm, in the part you quoted I was only talking about the specific example that you brought up, of WBW construction, which was covered in the article. Your first mention of it was vague on details (and close but not quite correct), so I reviewed and found the details in the article to be explicitly making claims of company malfeasance and not really hinting at worker ‘group dynamics’ at all, which was your proposed alternative hypothesis. Go ahead and review if you like. I’m not sure why this suddenly got more sharply argumentative, but it seems to me like you’re misunderstanding my comment and making assumptions. Why is the suggestion that WBW construction is responsible for the accident doing the opposite - opposite of what? And what do you mean exactly? Companies do use bankruptcy to thwart legal actions all the time, which is crappy, but what bearing does that have on who is legally culpable for a trench collapse? And what is the alternative? You are suggesting OSHA should fine or sue individual workers? You are saying that companies are not solely responsible for installing trench boxes and providing on-site supervision? If not the company, then who is responsible? The law is declaring the company solely responsible, and I don’t see how it could be any other way, trench boxes are a company management decision. You even said “it’s not really up to an individual whether to install their own trench box”, so I’m double confused by your whole reply. I think you’re talking in generalizations about the subtleties of the reasons that bad things can happen, and not about legal responsibility, and not addressing directly what I was talking about which is who should be legally responsible for meeting OSHA guidelines. Which, to be clear, isn’t exactly up for debate, OSHA already says who’s responsible. Anyway, these are two different questions, but for the purpose of assigning responsibility, OSHA doesn’t care if there are ‘group dynamics’ that lead to structural accidents. They put the company in charge because the company has to provide the supervisor and ensure safety. It’s simply not up to the workers.

by dahart 2y ago

mindslight 2y ago

> it all seems to support the summary that the company is solely responsible and culpable, right? No. You're jumping to conclusions that you seemingly think support your goal, but actually do the exact opposite. From the legal perspective, the company being "solely responsible" would mean the owners and management of the company would get to declare bankruptcy of the company and walk away (free to set up a new company). Small construction companies generally don't have very many assets, so it would also hinder the families of the dead getting compensation. And from the perspective of wanting to prevent collapses happening in the future, solely blaming "the company" is essentially concluding "nobody's fault" - companies don't actually do things, people to do. My comment was focused on trying to look at all of the contributing causes, which is generally how we improve processes so that these failures don't happen. There are many comments talking about the dynamics that lead individuals to eschew personal PPE. But with trench boxes, it's not really up to an individual whether to install their own trench box or not. So I was attempting to visit the group dynamics and incentives that affect whether trench boxes end up getting installed.

dahart 2y ago
Hmm, in the part you quoted I was only talking about the specific example that you brought up, of WBW construction, which was covered in the article. Your first mention of it was vague on details (and close but not quite correct), so I reviewed and found the details in the article to be explicitly making claims of company malfeasance and not really hinting at worker ‘group dynamics’ at all, which was your proposed alternative hypothesis. Go ahead and review if you like. I’m not sure why this suddenly got more sharply argumentative, but it seems to me like you’re misunderstanding my comment and making assumptions. Why is the suggestion that WBW construction is responsible for the accident doing the opposite - opposite of what? And what do you mean exactly? Companies do use bankruptcy to thwart legal actions all the time, which is crappy, but what bearing does that have on who is legally culpable for a trench collapse? And what is the alternative? You are suggesting OSHA should fine or sue individual workers? You are saying that companies are not solely responsible for installing trench boxes and providing on-site supervision? If not the company, then who is responsible? The law is declaring the company solely responsible, and I don’t see how it could be any other way, trench boxes are a company management decision. You even said “it’s not really up to an individual whether to install their own trench box”, so I’m double confused by your whole reply. I think you’re talking in generalizations about the subtleties of the reasons that bad things can happen, and not about legal responsibility, and not addressing directly what I was talking about which is who should be legally responsible for meeting OSHA guidelines. Which, to be clear, isn’t exactly up for debate, OSHA already says who’s responsible. Anyway, these are two different questions, but for the purpose of assigning responsibility, OSHA doesn’t care if there are ‘group dynamics’ that lead to structural accidents. They put the company in charge because the company has to provide the supervisor and ensure safety. It’s simply not up to the workers.