5 ms·

I completely understand that there are certain jobs which are going to be inherently dangerous no matter how much people try to advocate for safety. On the othe

• ceejayoz 11y ago
  > Besides donating to this person, I wonder what we can do to stop things like this from happening. Would having things manufactured in the US help prevent something like this with labor laws? I mean with all the technology we have now, I can't believe things like this are still happening. The US has labor laws and unions that exist in part to prevent stuff like this. They're not perfect - people still get hurt here in industrial accidents - but they're pretty important.
• Pyxl101 11y ago
  Heavy machines are typically triggered by the operator. In the old days, it might have been with a foot switch. The latest safety protocol would require dual hand switches: that is the operator has to press two different buttons far apart enough to require the use of different hands. However, operators have been found to intentionally set heavy objects on one switch to keep it permanently activated, or bypass safety in other ways. Other solutions include requiring a key to insert and turn the key is physically attached to their body by a cord, such that they can't even reach the danger area with the key inserted. Modern machines also have several redundant safety mechanisms. One of them is the "light gate": beams of light cross the open space between the worker and the machine, and the machine will only activate when the beams are unimpeded. There was a recent comment thread on HN where folks were discussing the "safety relays" that make it possible. Modern heavy machines are designed to safely stop under power loss or the violation of safety protocol. I don't know what safety standards a factory in Mexico would operate under, and we don't know what caused the accident here. For all we know it could be something horrid like a machine on a timer with no safety at all, or a foot pedal with no light gate. I am not up to speed on labor law but my impression was that these precautions are required in the US, and that the typical factory machine, with its dangerous parts wrapped in a cage, with a hole for the operator protected by light gate, or requiring a dual button, that in standard operating mode is relatively safe. Before calling for more safety, we should know more about this situation. Were safety protocols followed? Was the machine properly maintained and working correctly? What caused the machine to activate? (The article says the machine "fell on" her hands which I take to mean that it activated and its movement motion was downward, not fell as in fell over) Why did the safety mechanisms fail? We need an NTSB for accidents like this (if there isn't). Without this information it's hard to say who or whether anyone is at fault, or what we should do to improve factory safety. Nevertheless, some jobs are intrinsically unsafe, like mining. These jobs should offer fair disability or death insurance to the employees for sure, paid for mostly or fully by the employer. Insurance is one good way to solve the problem because insurance adjusters will require the safest factory possible or else hike the company's premiums; so the pursuit of lower premiums will lead businesses to be safer (and if they're not super, then at least the business has fully covered the disability for the worker). The first step to safety should be requiring the factory to paid the costs of the injured worker.
  • Frondo 11y ago
    One comment on something you said-- Where you said "lazy operators have been found..." I'd change it to "scared and underpaid operators under constant pressure to work faster have been found..."
    • Pyxl101 11y ago
      You're right. People might do that for a variety of reasons. Removed "lazy".