Safety....

[Snowdin]

Very true. But this is another way in looking at it I'm paid a set wage with my dad and another guy it's a real company not a fly by night deal like many are but my dad and the other guy just split what they make on the job so the faster they can get it down the more they get payed and well as do I cuz they give me a bonus lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is what it all boils down to: If I'm supervising you, your dad and the other guy and one of you or all of you get hurt because your cutting corners and trying to get the job done faster, then we are all going to be out of work tomorrow. Bogger is 100% correct when he said running a company safely is more productive and profitable.

 

[benclaluna450r]

This is what it all boils down to: If I'm supervising you, your dad and the other guy and one of you or all of you get hurt because your cutting corners and trying to get the job done faster, then we are all going to be out of work tomorrow. Bogger is 100% correct when he said running a company safely is more productive and profitable.

This is 100% true


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bogger]

I guess it depends on the company and who is managing the program. Always seems that the larger companies are always eager to go "over and above" prescribed regulation which really makes no sense unless there is a certain area where the prescribed legislation is not effective. Large corporations much like a government have one group of big talking heads that make decisions which effect a process they have no direct knowlege in.

Most of the industrial sites have manditory tie off over 6ft.... legally it's 10ft, when asked why they set it at 6 you will be told that because most serious fall injuries occour in a fall <6ft and "the legislation does not account for that"... I call BS, Legislation is written to be be broad scope and puts responsibility on the employer to complete a proper hazard assessment to identify risks such as hazards below the fall zone. your harness and lanyard (PPE) is supposed to be the last line of defence, it is not an engineering control like many places seem to treat it as. At a height of 6' with a 6' lanyard a guy is gonna hit the ground anyway, the only benifit to being tied off is that it protects the head contact with the ground but only if the anchor point is above the workers shoulder height....

I do agree that "over safety" is on the rise and any good (competent) safety proffessional will try to sway an employer to not impliment blanket policies in the hopes of reducing incidents, it will not work. controls need to be specific to the hazard and in most if not all cases the person doing the work is the best person to develop adequate controls (often just need a little coaching).

I've reduced the size of our safety manual by over 1/3 since I started with my current employer and our system is much more effective now, workers like straight forward and simplistic, no need for a safety person to overcomplicate chit to make themselves feel smart or develop ploicies & proceedures without the input of the people it affects.... happens WAY to often...

Fawk me... I sound like "one of them"....

On the few mines i've worked at i've seen a common theme

Companies will eventually go overboard of the safety policies, the workers get more and more discouraged because they feel the policies disable their ability to just do the work they are paid to do, moral goes down and complacency goes up, resulting in more and more incidents.

from what i've experienced, there is a fine line of how much and how ridiculous your safety policies can go.

Just remember the OH&S books and acts are written in blood.

 

[benclaluna450r]

I guess it depends on the company and who is managing the program. Always seems that the larger companies are always eager to go "over and above" prescribed regulation which really makes no sense unless there is a certain area where the prescribed legislation is not effective. Large corporations much like a government have one group of big talking heads that make decisions which effect a process they have no direct knowlege in.

Most of the industrial sites have manditory tie off over 6ft.... legally it's 10ft, when asked why they set it at 6 you will be told that because most serious fall injuries occour in a fall <6ft and "the legislation does not account for that"... I call BS, Legislation is written to be be broad scope and puts responsibility on the employer to complete a proper hazard assessment to identify risks such as hazards below the fall zone. your harness and lanyard (PPE) is supposed to be the last line of defence, it is not an engineering control like many places seem to treat it as. At a height of 6' with a 6' lanyard a guy is gonna hit the ground anyway, the only benifit to being tied off is that it protects the head contact with the ground but only if the anchor point is above the workers shoulder height....

I do agree that "over safety" is on the rise and any good (competent) safety proffessional will try to sway an employer to not impliment blanket policies in the hopes of reducing incidents, it will not work. controls need to be specific to the hazard and in most if not all cases the person doing the work is the best person to develop adequate controls (often just need a little coaching).

I've reduced the size of our safety manual by over 1/3 since I started with my current employer and our system is much more effective now, workers like straight forward and simplistic, no need for a safety person to overcomplicate chit to make themselves feel smart or develop ploicies & proceedures without the input of the people it affects.... happens WAY to often...

Fawk me... I sound like "one of them"....

It's understandable to save there ass but tie off on a on the lift when I'm only going up a foot it's a pain in the ass then


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[what_next]

I guess it depends on the company and who is managing the program. Always seems that the larger companies are always eager to go "over and above" prescribed regulation which really makes no sense unless there is a certain area where the prescribed legislation is not effective. Large corporations much like a government have one group of big talking heads that make decisions which effect a process they have no direct knowlege in.

Most of the industrial sites have manditory tie off over 6ft.... legally it's 10ft, when asked why they set it at 6 you will be told that because most serious fall injuries occour in a fall <6ft and "the legislation does not account for that"... I call BS, Legislation is written to be be broad scope and puts responsibility on the employer to complete a proper hazard assessment to identify risks such as hazards below the fall zone. your harness and lanyard (PPE) is supposed to be the last line of defence, it is not an engineering control like many places seem to treat it as. At a height of 6' with a 6' lanyard a guy is gonna hit the ground anyway, the only benifit to being tied off is that it protects the head contact with the ground but only if the anchor point is above the workers shoulder height....

I do agree that "over safety" is on the rise and any good (competent) safety proffessional will try to sway an employer to not impliment blanket policies in the hopes of reducing incidents, it will not work. controls need to be specific to the hazard and in most if not all cases the person doing the work is the best person to develop adequate controls (often just need a little coaching).

I've reduced the size of our safety manual by over 1/3 since I started with my current employer and our system is much more effective now, workers like straight forward and simplistic, no need for a safety person to overcomplicate chit to make themselves feel smart or develop ploicies & proceedures without the input of the people it affects.... happens WAY to often...

Fawk me... I sound like "one of them"....

I agree with you 100% there Bogs, and said examples i gave were from huge companies, (Rio Tinto, Kiewit, etc..)

Let's take the example you gave, a lot of companies go with the 6ft rule in their internal policies because it is the strictest legislation that they can possibly meet somewhere in their regular business.
Alberta 10ft, Ontario 6 ft, = company wide policy on 6 ft
Ontario is actually 9.8 feet (3 meters)

To what i've seen, workers tend to work more safely when they have to think about it, give them some slack let them think and they'll be much better.
when you turn every profession into a dumb no thinking profession, everyone becomes like cattle and get complacent, and they dont look if they are safe or not.

Again i agree with you about engineering hazard out of the equation instead of relying on PPE. i find the older supervisors push and rely too much on PPE rather than thinking about it and engineering a solution

like the project manager said at a mass safety meeting by accident
"Never compromise production for safety" *stupid look on his face*