[HN Gopher] Trench collapses have killed hundreds of workers in ...
___________________________________________________________________
Trench collapses have killed hundreds of workers in the US over the
last decade
Author : rntn
Score : 122 points
Date : 2024-07-21 12:17 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (text.npr.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (text.npr.org)
| Aurornis wrote:
| > In every instance, the deaths were preventable, experts say.
| All but one of the victims were male; the youngest was 16. In
| many cases, the companies failed to follow basic government rules
| for making trenches safe.
|
| Having known someone in the construction industry, I don't think
| this is as simple as blaming "the companies".
|
| One of his frequent frustrations is getting workers to actually
| use the safety gear and follow the company safety policies. This
| includes properly securing trenches with the equipment they
| provide and mandate.
|
| I've heard stories about new guys who refused to wear _safety
| glasses_ or hearing protection while working machinery. Some of
| them so defiant that they had to be fired within weeks.
|
| Obviously we need to harshly fine the companies that fail to
| provide safety gear or pressure employees to do unsafe things.
| However, having had a peek behind the curtain I think this issue
| is more complex than a simple failure of companies to follow
| guidelines for providing gear and procedures to employees. You
| really have to be on top of work crews all the time to make sure
| they're actually following procedures rather than cutting
| corners.
| freitzkriesler2 wrote:
| It's a combination of many things up and down the chain. The
| work is dirty and grueling but even proper safety fails at
| times. Speed shoring trenches works but sometimes it doesn't
| for reasons that we don't know. Same for scaffolding and
| others. Construction is dangerous and those guys really do
| deserve the money paid to them.
| mattficke wrote:
| If the existing procedures aren't ensuring a safe workplace,
| the procedures aren't adequate. Job site safety can add time,
| and it's the company's responsibility to ensure that there is
| no incentive for a worker to be able to speed up the job by
| skipping a step.
|
| I've worked in places where the safety procedures were clearly
| perfunctory (drove a forklift in a warehouse for several years,
| among other jobs) and if I had insisted on following the actual
| safety procedures I would've gotten endless grief from other
| employees for slowing them down. This is a management failure.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| In my experience it's the workers, and it's machoism amongst
| the workers that creates an intentionally anti-safe culture
| where such cultures are permitted. Where I live they remove the
| angle grinder guards off and use 'safety squints' when welding.
| A friend had people working on his house, when I visited I made
| them stop their work and put the recently removed angle grinder
| guards form their new tools back on. I also and got them a
| chepo welding helmet. Not long after I left that day they took
| the guards back off and a young worker cut off a 1/4 of his
| hand and had to be rushed to hospital. My friend had a 'let
| them do what they want to do' attitude to the workers which
| thankfully has now been replaced with a 'safety first'
| attitude. Unfortunately too late for the kids hand.
|
| This sort of stuff can't be done bottom up as there is huge
| social pressure to demonstrate manliness to peers through risky
| activity. Only strict top-down edicts where such digressions
| are severely punished can take away that pressure; i.e. instead
| of using safety equipment it's because they're a sissy it's
| because their mean old boss is a sissy and they're forcing them
| to use it.
|
| While OSHA can be a bit onerous it really does help to have an
| organization with teeth pushing safety culture. Instead of the
| conflict between the workers and their bosses 'stupid rules'
| it's the 'stupid rules' of some 3rd party.
| crhulls wrote:
| I second this. My day job is tech but I redid a rental
| property. I told the workers to wear a harness on the roof. I
| didn't cheap out and bought nice comfortable equipment.
|
| They told me they were wearing it, but I came by unannounced
| and there they were on the roof with no harness.
|
| I asked the supervisor what was up and they were doing the
| same thing to him. They would put it on then take it off as
| soon as no one was looking.
|
| It was Latin machismo - the social pressure was so strong to
| not look goofy in a harness. The second time I saw this
| happen I wrote a firm zero tolerance letter which I
| translated to Spanish and hand delivered.
|
| One of the crew still didn't listen. I fired him.
|
| (Not saying that reckless bosses aren't an issue, especially
| in these trenching incidents where the safety equipment
| didn't exist)
| jeromegv wrote:
| You are proving this is a management issue. You took steps
| to address the issue. Fired people who didn't listen. The
| fact they thought they could do it without consequences
| means they never got into trouble by management at other
| job sites. If your industry has a culture of not following
| safety procedures it's only because bosses don't enforce
| it.
| ryandrake wrote:
| There were still no real consequences. At least today,
| that crew has a several month long waiting list and will
| just shrug and walk over to the next job. You really need
| to get OSHA involved and for it to start costing
| companies money.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| What does OSHA do in this situation? The roofing worker
| was fired for safety violation but can find work
| elsewhere.
|
| In this example it isnt about the company.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Unless I read it wrong, OP fired the whole company/crew,
| not individual workers.
|
| The company is responsible for workers that are
| improperly trained or out of control. If the supervisor
| can't enforce workplace safety rules, then the supervisor
| isn't doing his job, and if the company does not have
| process in place ensuring the supervisor is doing his
| job, then the company needs to be fined, too.
|
| I can't believe we have this attitude of throwing up our
| hands and saying "Aww shucks, ya just can't convince
| those darn individual machismo men to do their job right.
| What can ya do?"
| garciansmith wrote:
| OP wrote "One of the crew still didn't listen. I fired
| him." He fired the offending worker, not the whole
| company. Though in general I agree regarding supervisors.
| crhulls wrote:
| Yes I fired the specific worker. It was my own crew, not
| a 3rd party company.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| That depends on what level of the RCA you are looking at
| it. It can be simultaneously true that workers dont want
| to wear them and bosses dont enforce it. Understanding
| both facts is important for risk reduction.
| crhulls wrote:
| Sure, in theory you are correct, but it misses the
| nuances of human reality.
|
| Flipping back to my day job, a counter example is
| security people covering any edge case so that everything
| grinds to a halt or lawyers over processing everything
| and stifling creativity.
|
| The same people that might grumble about something being
| a management issue sometimes also complain about
| bureaucracy and process when things go the other way.
|
| There aren't simple trade off free answers to this stuff.
| istjohn wrote:
| Yes, a top-down safety culture entails some level of
| bureaucracy and process overhead. That is the price that
| must be paid for jobsite safety. No one is saying there's
| a free lunch.
| solveit wrote:
| If safety is cheap but overcoming culture is expensive,
| at some point it becomes misleading (wrt ethics of
| participants, not correct course of action) to say the
| problem is that management doesn't care enough to spend
| money on safety, even if management is the only lever we
| have to fix the issue.
| newaccount74 wrote:
| Telling people to wear a harness is not "covering every
| edge case so that everything grinds to a halt". It's just
| ensuring that the bare minimum is being done to prevent
| workplace deaths.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I think the interesting part of the comparison was the
| following two sentences.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I'm curious how liability works in this situation and when
| it ends? It sounds like you were operating as a general
| contractor. Were you paying the roofers salary or did you
| have a business to business relationship?
|
| Relatedly, someone was telling me what workers insurance is
| 1% of construction costs for large infrastructure like
| building hospitals.
| crhulls wrote:
| I'm technically an owner builder. I have a workman's comp
| policy that ranges from 10-40% of payroll depending on
| the task. For a residential project I can definitively
| say insurance is way more than 1% of total cost. Eg for
| the sake of round numbers, let's say labor is 50% of the
| total. If I take the absolute lowest percent of what I
| pay for insurance, we already are up to 5%.
|
| This is separate from liability insurance for say
| negligence if I got sued. I hope my umbrella policy would
| cover me here but I found in my situation it is a bit
| confusing. An insurance broker struggled to give me clear
| answers
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| That doesn't surprise me. I imagine that construction
| labor is a lower fraction of expenses for very large
| projects, as well as real risk, and overhead.
|
| In the conversation, they told me that their #bigco was
| able to save X hundred million a year by creating their
| own insurance company and requiring all of their contract
| builders to use it.
| dboreham wrote:
| The people with money become liable.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Thats not a very useful heuristic. There are numerous
| relationships that effectively shield liability, and many
| of these make perfect sense.
| pandaman wrote:
| Is this "Latin machismo"? Look at the cyclists on the
| streets, I don't know where you live but everywhere I've
| been in the US at least half of them are without a helmet.
| It just appears that most people don't believe that things
| that have not happened to them are real. They don't grab a
| hot skillet only because they have done that and found that
| it's quite painful. They don't wear a helmet or any PPE
| because they have not experienced the things it's supposed
| to protect them form.
| delichon wrote:
| I don't think the angle grinder guard issue is cut and dry. I
| sometimes operate mine without a guard in conditions where
| the guard prevents me from seeing the point of contact, which
| for me is a more severe safety problem. When I can't simply
| rearrange the work I remove the guard and take extra care.
| Such complex work environments should not be regulated
| inflexibly.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| They never put the guard back on, you'll never see a guard
| in use here. That's why they consider it ridiculous to use
| one because no one else does. Never-mind the constant
| stream of people going to the hospital. Plus they use
| oversized grinders where smaller ones would be fine and
| safer even if slightly slower. And they take the guard off
| from the start so there is no guard while they're still
| leaning.
|
| I had a 'see me' for an exemption policy while I was there
| and they didn't need one. They really were not doing the
| kind of work that needed it.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Seems like a decent use case for an endoscope. I've never
| used one with and angle grinder, but seeing into places
| where other tools are cutting/drilling when the tool is
| blocking the view has been great.
| istjohn wrote:
| Or a mirror
| convolvatron wrote:
| its not just seeing what you're doing, the guard really
| does limit your ability to control the contact with the
| work. i'm all for PPE, including full face shields when
| working with cutting disks, but the guard is actually a
| real hindrance.
|
| the most common injuries I have with grinder are:
| a) using a sanding disk and buffing off some skin
| b) running a cutting disk into my hand c)
| getting the grinder caught into my clothing and pulling it
| into my torso d) getting grit in my eyes
|
| (c) is pretty nasty and isn't helped by the guard. (d) is
| trivially preventable by using fitting safety glasses. (a)
| and (b) result in cuts that are potentially bad, but not
| permanent.
|
| for me the real issue here is using grinder that are in
| excess of 5". sometimes thats necessary, but the idea of
| throwing around an 8" cutting disk with a > 1hp motor
| without a guard just makes me frightened thinking of it. i
| had a job where they insisted i use one and i just walked
| off. and cutting tools with blades, i.e for masonry. thats
| asking for real hurt. or those insane little chiansaws.
| just no.
| istjohn wrote:
| Most PPE has very real tradeoffs. Respirators are
| uncomfortable, especially in hot weather. Safety glasses
| get dusty and smudged. Gloves limit dexterity. Mortar
| mixer grates make it difficult to clean unmixed sand and
| mortar from the sides. Safety harnesses take time to donn
| and doff and limit mobility. It's rare that the safest
| procedure is the quickest and cheapest.
|
| As a society, we've decided that we are willing to pay
| the price to keep our workers safe on the job. But it
| only works if our regulators are effective and make the
| costs of noncompliance greater than the costs of
| compliance.
| chgs wrote:
| Safety equipment can introduce new dangers too, both from
| correct use, and from refusal to use it
|
| For example a hard hat might be fine, people generally
| are happy with that - they see the benefit, they see
| things falling, job done.
|
| but then you add a ton more stuff which has decreasing
| benefit and increasing cost to use (in terms of comfort
| as well as time and dollars) and eventually the worker
| says "fuck it" and doesn't even wear the hat.
|
| there is always a balance to be had. We do the same in
| domestic life - we make motor cyclists wear helmets, but
| not car passengers. If we made all car occupants wear a
| helmet we would reduce head injuries for occupants in car
| crashes. But that would be ridiculous.
| briankelly wrote:
| Had the pleasure of cutting concrete pipe with a 16" saw
| at my first job. That thing was scary as hell. Needless
| to say no one pulled the guard off it though.
| christkv wrote:
| This is not only a us problem for sure. Made two workers who
| where cutting pavement stones at our house wear safety
| glasses after i saw them cutting the stones with no
| protection. I don't want it on my conscience if one of them
| goes blind due to a flying stone split.
| SubjectToChange wrote:
| _While OSHA can be a bit onerous it really does help to have
| an organization with teeth pushing safety culture. Instead of
| the conflict between the workers and their bosses 'stupid
| rules' it's the 'stupid rules' of some 3rd party._
|
| OSHA standards are quite a low bar in general. An
| organization that is simply "OSHA compliant" is definitely
| not taking safety seriously. Moreover, OSHA is often far down
| the list of regulatory agencies that companies are worried
| about. For example, killing a protected bird species is far
| more likely to incur 6-7 figure fines and/or land management
| in prison than a workplace fatality.
|
| That said, the situation with OSHA isn't particularly
| concerning. Most major companies are aggressively safety
| oriented. Even ignoring the legal liabilities of injured
| workers the fact is that, in the long term, unsafe working
| conditions are often less productive and potentially
| extremely damaging to capital investments. To illustrate, an
| accident at an oil refinery could easily run into the
| hundreds of millions in damage, in addition to an equal if
| not greater amount in lost production. The costs of settling
| lawsuits and/or fines for safety violations are _trivial_ by
| comparison.
|
| Nowadays, the greatest risks to U.S. labor is not from the
| likes of Kiewit, Union Pacific, Rio Tinto, etc. It is the
| small and under capitalized businesses. So, what can be done?
| Such businesses are already walking on a financial tightrope.
| If OSHA were to properly scrutinize such businesses even
| their limited fines would present a significant stress. Some
| people might retort that if a business can't operate safely
| than it shouldn't be operating at all, which is a fine. The
| downside is that all of those services will become
| substantially less competitive and more expensive.
| dahart wrote:
| There's a huge difference between avoiding PPE because you're
| macho, and the company avoiding structural reinforcements in
| a trench. This whole thread is sidetracked on PPE. When
| someone chooses to do angle grinding without a guard, or
| chooses not to wear a helmet or goggles, they're putting
| their own safety in danger. It's dumb, but very different
| from the company making that decision for you. Companies
| should perhaps be partly liable when they don't require and
| monitor PPE use, but they should be _fully_ liable when the
| construction plan puts everyone at risk. That's the company
| making bad /illegal safety choices for the workers, not the
| workers making their own bad decisions. Not installing trench
| boxes is like the company disallowing PPE on the job.
|
| I'm sure there's gray area in between personal bad decisions
| and company bad decisions, but if a mining company were to
| operate a mine without reinforcing the walls, a mine collapse
| is 100% on the company, whereas if workers stop wearing masks
| while working and they get black lung after being provided
| masks and being told they're mandatory, then it's a bit more
| reasonable to say the workers made bad personal decisions,
| _and_ the company didn't do enough to enforce personal safety
| practices.
|
| Trench boxes are the same as mine cable reinforcement -
| something the company is fully responsible for. Pointing at
| workers and/or talking about PPE safety culture just isn't
| very relevant.
| dahart wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Individual 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 wrote:
| Yeah ok buddy, every job site everywhere is just anarchy.
| We have no idea how bridges and skyscrapers get built,
| really.
| dahart wrote:
| It 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 wrote:
| And 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 wrote:
| _Maybe 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 wrote:
| You 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.
| mindslight wrote:
| I think one of the examples from the article did say
| there was a trench box on site sitting next to the
| trench, but it had not been installed. I would be very
| interested in the root cause analysis of why that didn't
| happen. I agree with you that "individual workers" aren't
| deciding whether to install trench boxes or not - it's
| definitely a multi person task, and therefore should
| under the direction of whomever is managing the
| operation. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the ultimate
| causes is something like one to several ton mini/small
| excavators are good at digging 8-10ft deep trenches, but
| nowhere near big enough to lift the appropriately sized
| trench boxes. (This obviously doesn't excuse it, rather
| just pointing out a possible terrible dynamic for a
| smaller operation).
| dahart wrote:
| 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?
| jcims wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| "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 wrote:
| >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 wrote:
| Honestly 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 wrote:
| I'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.
| kurthr wrote:
| Here's a video of trench collapse with a trench box (0/10
| made of bamboo- thanks for playing).
|
| https://youtube.com/shorts/T4jfbUqMwAk
| shrx wrote:
| Regular video format:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4jfbUqMwAk
| RobotToaster wrote:
| Often the safety equipment provided is the cheapest, most
| uncomfortable, version possible. Cheap safety glasses can fog
| up quickly or chafe, for example. The company does this fully
| expecting that it won't be used, but they can then blame the
| workers for not using it when something does go wrong.
| bloopernova wrote:
| Yeah, utilities have a constant battle to keep safety measures
| effective.
|
| Even when folks had recently been killed in the field due to
| basic safety equipment not being used, there would be people
| who would roll their eyes and bemoan the "red tape and
| bureaucracy".
| matwood wrote:
| > I've heard stories about new guys who refused to wear safety
| glasses or hearing protection while working machinery.
|
| This is just crazy. It's low effort to protect the most exposed
| body functions while using machinery. I always cringe when I
| see someone doing any kind of that type of work w/o eye
| protection. Even something simple like hammering nails can
| cause a chip to fly off and into your eye.
| dboreham wrote:
| Humans are on average very dumb. They'll say things like
| "I've done this 100 times and never taken my eye out".
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I work in a lab full of masters and Phd engineers and it is
| extremely difficult to get safety glass compliance above 50%.
| The company has mandatory yearly training, and leadership
| will discipline workers, but at the end of the day glasses
| are annoying and come off whenever supervisors arent looking
| KineticLensman wrote:
| I've been gardening for 30 years, never any issues. Last year
| I pulled a broken branch out of a hedge and a bit I hadn't
| seen wacked me in the eye. Couple of hours later I was seeing
| flashes and a massive floater-like object appeared, a bit
| like a wobbling HUD graticule around my central vision.
| Turned out to be a posterior vitreous detachment which
| luckily settled down (mostly). Thank Christ.
|
| I bought some airsoft goggles which are reasonably
| comfortable and non-misting, and wear them when doing any
| significant work, even just gardening.
| vondur wrote:
| My dad used to manage a heat treating shop. He came in one
| night to check on something and found one of the late shift
| workers had attached himself to the gantry crane and was flying
| around the shop on it. He was promptly fired.
| Aeolun wrote:
| To be fair, this sounds awesome to be doing yourself.
| deegles wrote:
| I've read that workers are now refusing to wear masks for
| things like painting or sanding because of the peer pressure
| against wearing masks for Covid.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| > All but one of the victims were male
|
| I assume this is simply a reflection of the construction
| industry and not specific to trenches? Most jobs that are
| dangerous are done almost entirely by men in virtually every
| country.
| cjalmeida wrote:
| This is no excuse. At least in larger companies, you have
| safety inspectors that routinely visit shops unannounced and
| will give you and your manager trouble if you're not following
| procedures. They answer directly to higher up and can't be
| pressured into letting it pass.
| njarboe wrote:
| An alternative perspective to making tools less functional for
| safety.[1]
|
| Handy when drilling a 5/8" hole through 10" of wood.[2]
|
| [1]http://www.team.net/mjb/hawg.html
| [2]https://njarboe.com/chal/barn/barn4.html
| zymhan wrote:
| Your anecdotes are far less valuable than the actual reporting
| in the article.
| aaron695 wrote:
| I do love the way un-shored trenches have become a meme on TikTok
| using the sound bite from the "Who's in charge today?" meme video
| - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLs1_8yohb8
|
| Example using the sound bite -
| https://www.tiktok.com/@seancallahan187/video/70942927842066...
|
| It's a high level of education, knowing about shoring a trench
| and making jokes about it.
|
| Compared to pre-internet society or the can't cope with change
| part of society who doesn't use TikTok or know how to shore a
| trench.
|
| And yes, I'll jump in a deep un-shored trench to save time for a
| quick fix, but like all things it's a massively reduced risk
| compared to working in it all day that some places still do. As
| this article implies, men are expendable and it's mostly blue
| collar men who bear that brunt at work. If it was nurses being
| killed on the job it would be a different story. (The dangers of
| nursing are around shift work which kills but not at work)
| xnx wrote:
| Vouching for this since TikTok was also the way I was exposed
| to and educated about this safety risk (as well as many
| others).
| throwaway_2494 wrote:
| > Compared to pre-internet society or the can't cope with
| change part of society who doesn't use TikTok or know how to
| shore a trench.
|
| I know that it's cool to think that the 'olds' who aren't on
| tiktok don't know anything.
|
| Troo fact: OSHA rules were invented before tiktok even existed.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > Compared to pre-internet society or the can't cope with
| change part of society who doesn't use TikTok or know how to
| shore a trench.
|
| "Word of mouth" has existed for as long as language has. TikTok
| is just the newest medium to convey this absolutely ancient
| human process.
|
| > And yes, I'll jump in a deep un-shored trench to save time
| for a quick fix
|
| So.. you know how to use TikTok, you've seen the danger, yet
| you remain intentionally oblivious to it? Your pride is
| worthless. Your life is priceless. Please be smarter.
| BadHumans wrote:
| > Companies fined by OSHA, whose role is to ensure workplace
| safety, sometimes ignored the penalties and faced no
| consequences, including one that still owes more than $1.4
| million imposed after the deaths of two employees eight years
| ago.
|
| > While those who violate OSHA standards can be criminally
| charged, authorities rarely brought charges. When they did, most
| offenders got off with a fine, probation or little time in jail.
|
| OSHA regulations are written in blood and there should be steep
| consequences for those who violate them including criminal
| charges. Based on recent happenings[0], the Supreme Court is
| looking to target OSHA next. They may have denied to hear this
| case but the opinions speak for themselves. It is on the radar.
|
| [0]: https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-rejects-
| chall...
| renewiltord wrote:
| Punishment doesn't affect recidivism. We need to address the
| root causes of these violations. Perhaps we could give the
| businesses who violate the law zero interest loans so they
| don't feel pressured to do work at bad margins like this and
| cut corners.
|
| We have to understand that business owners are people too.
| Applying state violence against people who make mistakes is
| fascism.
| hirsin wrote:
| /s? The violations in question almost all happened during
| ZIRP. Capitalism is the culprit here, zero interest loans
| just meant they had more juice to squeeze from their workers.
| fny wrote:
| Stalin and Mao enter the chat...
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Business owners are not entitled to labor, especially if it
| puts labor in harm's way. State "violence" exists to protect
| citizens from business owners and the broader capitalistic
| system.
| andrepd wrote:
| This has to be satire.
| rqtwteye wrote:
| You have no idea what fascism is. You also don't seem to
| understand the mindset of capitalism.
| LargeWu wrote:
| "mistakes"
|
| It is often very, very charitable, even disingenuous, to call
| a lot of accidents the results of mistakes. "Willful
| negligence" is often a more apt description. Intentionally
| disgregarding safety in order to boost margins.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > Perhaps we could give the businesses who violate the law
| zero interest loans so they don't feel pressured to do work
| at bad margins like this and cut corners.
|
| Why do only businesses get kid glove treatment?
|
| I also want zero interest loans for breaking the law.
|
| Let's give people arrested for being homeless zero interest
| loans to buy a house. Let's give people who are arrested for
| stealing food zero interest loans to put their life back on
| track?
| istjohn wrote:
| I read your comment to be a sarcastic critique of those who
| are opposed to our carceral state. But it's clear there is a
| huge disparity between the way we treat white-collar crime
| and blue-collar crime as the article makes crystal clear.
| Your critique falls flat.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| If you are killed or injured on the job then isn't the employer
| liable? Maybe I'm naive but why is OSHA necessary at that
| point? Are they not liable enough (is the payout for wrongful
| death too low)?
| oivey wrote:
| Before OSHA, that didn't work, so why do you think it will
| work now?
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I don't know if it will work now, I'm wondering out loud
| why our court system isn't enough.
| dboreham wrote:
| Because latency.
| cjalmeida wrote:
| If a 787 crashes and kill all passengers due to improper
| maintenance, the airline is liable. Does that make FAA
| regulations on maintenance unnecessary? Would you put your
| family in such aircraft?
| Buttons840 wrote:
| Doesn't this assume courts are honest and neutral brokers of
| justice, and cannot be influenced by power imbalances, and
| that everyone has quick and equal access to the courts for
| redress?
|
| Sometimes it takes a powerful organization to get redress
| from another powerful organization.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I'd imagine that wrongful death pays out so much money that
| lawyers will throw themselves at you.
| hedora wrote:
| If it is a sufficiently clear-cut case, they might.
| However, no-win no-pay lawyers (the only ones accessible
| to most construction workers' families) rarely act in
| their clients' financial interest.
|
| Typical tactics involve settling for whatever maximizes
| the $/hour the lawyer earns (e.g., they might take a low-
| ball settlement the first week instead of spending months
| on discovery to get to trial), and having fine print in
| the contract saying you have to pay for expenses
| regardless of the case outcome (and then racking up all
| sorts of expenses on your behalf, and perhaps settling
| for a value so low your cut doesn't cover the bills).
| andrepd wrote:
| Poe's law
| rqtwteye wrote:
| You will have trouble proving that the employer did something
| that caused the death. And they have usually deeper pockets
| so they can drag out court proceedings for a very long time.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I didn't think they'd have to do something to cause it-
| only allow it to happen under their watch.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Without some standard of what is "safe" each case would be an
| argument over the relative safety and risks in the particular
| situation, the knowledge and expertise of the people
| involved, etc.
|
| With OSHA regulations there is much less wiggle room. "They
| weren't using trench boxes, as required..." leaves much less
| room for debate.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Does this shield from liability in some instances? Say they
| were using trench boxes and were still killed- is the
| company still liable?
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Well you'd have to ask a lawyer but I think that if they
| were following regulations and otherwise using
| "reasonable and customary" safety precautions then yes.
| Or at least changes who is liable. E.g. if the trench box
| was properly maintained, properly placed, and failed,
| then you'd be looking at the trench box manufacturer, not
| so much the contractor who was using it.
| dboreham wrote:
| You get to make that argument in court.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Before fire safety laws, fire escape ladders were made out of
| wood. If you lost a loved one in the fire, the company would
| say this was standard industry practice, and normal.
|
| You would get no compensation.
| recursivecaveat wrote:
| Small players can avoid a lot of the downside risk associated
| with legal liability. They just go bankrupt or near enough
| and refuse to pay until they die. There's an example in the
| article. Much easier to extract a smaller fine from an
| operating business than millions from someone whose only
| asset is a social security card.
|
| This is probably part of the reason bigger firms are often
| more compliant, also that executives are more exposed to
| personal liability as the number of workers grows, all else
| equal.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| I agree wholeheartedly. I work in construction and my company
| has a top-down safety culture which is the only way it really
| works. Management (including myself) repeatedly tells field
| workers that their safety is more important than making a bit
| more money, we have safety training once a month, PPE is
| readily available, our safety dept visits job sites and helps
| prepare site safety plans, fall protection equipment is
| enforced and so on. We also have a 'stop work' policy where
| anyone, even a lowly apprentice, can stop the work in progress
| if they don't feel safe.
|
| Those of us who sell work are also told not to be afraid to
| decline work isn't safe (working on live electrical equipment
| that could be shut down to work safely, for example). We have a
| 'no live work' policy, but will do live work in certain
| circumstances where there is no other option (mostly
| hospitals), and the head of safety and the COO are both
| involved in pre-task planning and execution to ensure the
| safest possible methods.
|
| We also have some certified rope access techs, those guys take
| their safety _very seriously_ , to the point where they're
| probably safer working off a rope than on a ladder.
|
| My workers tell me they feel safer working here when the
| company explicitly says 'your life is more important than our
| profit' and provides the PPE, tools, and know-how needed to
| work safely.
|
| FWIW, the bigger than construction firm, the more they care
| about safety. Big contracts can require a TRIR (recordable
| injury rate) below a certain amount. The big general
| contractors push new PPE into use, the most recent thing is
| hard hats with a chin strap to reduce TBI from ladder/lift
| falls. The strap does a better job of keeping the hard hat
| protecting the head by keeping it attached.
|
| You see the real cowboy shit on residential job sites,
| commercial contractors live and die by their reputation, and
| unsafe job sites are a quick way to lose your reputation.
| adolph wrote:
| > Those of us who sell work are also told not to be afraid to
| decline work that isn't safe
|
| Truely an absent Andon cannot be pulled. Likewise the first
| safety is psychological safety. [0]
|
| 0. https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=54851
| eitland wrote:
| > Management (including myself) repeatedly tells field
| workers that their safety is more important than making a bit
| more money
|
| You made me remember the spring of 2000, the first time when
| I worked for a company that actually thought that way.
|
| (edit: worked for some good companies before that as well,
| but what I mean is before that, security was always either up
| to the individual.)
|
| I got scolded for working without proper gear, and after a
| couple of issues (tiny rebar splinter in the eye, later a
| speck of concrete in the eye, both happening despite wearing
| mandatory eye protection) I suddenly realized I had my
| manager hanging over me to try to figure out if there was
| something that could be improved in the work flow.
|
| I loved working there, they paid very well, and here is the
| thing that looked crazy at the time but is obvious now: they
| had one of the best bottom lines in the city.
| DavidPeiffer wrote:
| I used to work for Alcoa, a very large aluminum manufacturer.
| Their policies were right in line with everything you
| described, and it was a really good working environment.
| Every single first aid event was investigated so we could
| figure out how to do better in the future. The Swiss Cheese
| model was used to explain why "I've done it 1,000 times this
| way and never had an issue" isn't acceptable, and you must
| work according to the prescribed method.
|
| It all started with their new CEO in the 80's who didn't want
| to talk about profits at Investor Day, and instead circled
| back to safety and the employees who weren't able to go home
| the same way they went to work.
|
| https://davidburkus.com/2020/04/how-paul-oneill-fought-
| for-s...
|
| Even now safety gets mentioned in their earnings calls.
| https://investors.alcoa.com/financials/quarterly-
| earnings/de...
| hedora wrote:
| Do they even need to target OSHA specifically now that they
| eliminated Chevron deference?
|
| Presumably, as with all other federal agencies, all OSHA
| regulations not specifically encoded into the law by congress
| are moot, and can only be re-established via lengthy and
| expensive litigation, where judges (instead of domain experts)
| will set the technical standards.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| > OSHA requires some type of protective system, such as a box,
| for any trench deeper than 5 feet.
|
| The house next to me had a gas leak, and PG&E dug about six feet
| down to fix it (judging by the workers standing in the bottom). I
| didn't see any protective walls in there.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| Despite what the article says, a trench box is not strictly
| required. You can slope the sides of a trench at a ratio of 1.5
| ft per 1 ft of depth. Sloping the sides of a trench prevents
| cave-ins, which is what makes a trench dangerous. It isn't
| always possible to slope the sides of a trench, that's when the
| trench boxes/shoring come into play.
|
| In your case, the trench would be 30' wide with a gradual slope
| down to 6' depth from either side.
|
| Here's an OSHA guide to working safely in trenches and
| excavations, page 12 of the pdf shows how to safely slope a
| trench:
| https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/osha22...
| AlbertCory wrote:
| This wasn't sloped, either.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| That sounds extremely dangerous to me, call OSHA if you see
| anything like that again. That's a death waiting to happen.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| I prefer having a _good_ relationship with my local
| utilities, thanks very much.
| zamadatix wrote:
| When you call in you can do so as to remain anonymous.
| Sometimes that can still be a problem, for obvious
| situations, but like you say it wasn't even your house
| you noticed it at. Of course the only obligation here is
| a moral one but I mostly don't want people scared off
| from calling just for being identified in situations they
| don't have to worry.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| noted, but it was next door, so I think I'd be a prime
| suspect.
| dboreham wrote:
| In my experience utility trenches are never sloped.
| zymhan wrote:
| Ok
| Mistletoe wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trench_shield
|
| You've seen these on the side of the road and now you know what
| they are for.
| ec109685 wrote:
| > "It would take around 186 years for OSHA to inspect every
| workplace in the country just once," Barab said. "That means that
| unless a worker is killed, there's a major incident or a worker
| files a complaint, an employer is unlikely to ever see an OSHA
| inspector."
|
| While it wouldn't be perfect, it seems like submitting video
| evidence that the trench is properly secured would encourage more
| safety.
| Clent wrote:
| Simple uses of technology can be used to avoid a lot of work
| place troubles.
|
| No video sent, no one gets paid. This would ensure everyone on
| the job site complies with safety rules. Each worker would be
| incentivized to send their own video proof reducing claims of
| technology failure.
| bagful wrote:
| 186 years with the current level of funding and procedures, I
| assume. And random, unannounced visits of even 1% of those
| sites should make a significant difference.
| pnathan wrote:
| Some regulations are written in blood.
|
| I wish that there was a much stronger enforcement culture in the
| US around dangerous work.
| anonymousDan wrote:
| Having done a little bit of construction and associated safety
| training as summer jobs, it always surprised me how shallow a
| trench can be while still being lethal if it collapses. I
| remember a metre being deadly, but this story mentions a foot!
| snozolli wrote:
| I immediately thought of this video:
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uLs1_8yohb8
|
| The trench collapses _right after_ the OSHA inspector tells them
| they can 't be in there without shoring. Nobody was hurt, but it
| was a great lesson.
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| God fucking dammit, that first story. A _12 foot deep_ trench
| with no shoring?!?! I hope anyone related to that decision is in
| jail. Unbelievable.
| hedora wrote:
| This seems egregious to me too, since there were people in it.
| I can imagine laying a pipe 12ft down without ever having
| anyone in the trench. I wonder if that's common practice?
|
| (The obvious issue with doing it that way is that someone will
| a tool or the pipe will get snagged or whatever, and then
| someone will go down to fix it without bothering to order +
| install the shoring.)
| onewheeltom wrote:
| Not installing a trench box is on the company. Full stop.
| ProllyInfamous wrote:
| I have been a witness in an OSHA investigation, and it is
| absolutely dispicable what companies will do/say in order to
| _pass the blame onto an innocent employee_ (e.g. "he was
| always such a go-getter, and that day he voluntarily placed
| himself into harm's way").
|
| Elsewhere in this discussion/thread, some speculate that
| "masculinity" is the main culprit (i.e. not company's fault);
| certainly ego factors in, but few employees ignore safety rules
| when companies properly penalize non-compliance.
|
| "Safety third" still allows for working environments which
| don't kill/fire employees over time-saving stupidity.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-07-21 23:15 UTC)