AbelAmusing. Because I don't have an extremist view of the agency, I must be a shill. Because I acknowledge that we do some things right, I must be a shill. Because I know how to spell shill, I must be a shill. Very amusing.
You sound like a schill for OSHA. You point out OSHA problems but you defend OSHA always in the end. You are biased and have no creditability. You can delete this post since it is to you, but you have been revealed. You are 100% bureaucrat and apparently can't help it. You probably think HR 3200 would be a great health plan since the government would run things.
I differentiate between OSHA policies and the people within OSHA, because I see OSHA as the sum of it's career professionals, not it's policies. I will freely criticize the policies, but not the career professionals. Policies and the "tone" of the agency are set by political appointees, but the career professionals are the ones who have to carry out those policies to the best of our ability. Even when we disagree with them, that's what it is to be a professional.
The career professionals in this agency have freely chosen a job that is hard, stressful, sometimes dangerous, and can involve a lot of days away from the family, because we believe in what the agency is trying to accomplish. Do you think it's easy interviewing a man who just a few hours earlier watched his best friend die? Do you think it's easy spending four consecutive weeks on the road, away from your family, your evenings dedicated to reviewing documentation in some rundown hotel? I can tell you from person experience, it isn't easy. But I'm not just talking about CSHOs, I know people in the ROs and the NO who are the same, many of them former CSHOs themselves.
If you can't see the difference between OSHA policies, and the people within OSHA, then I pity you. Am I still going to defend OSHA career professionals? Goddamn right I am, every one of them, every fuckin' time. If that makes me a shill, fine, I can live with that.
bang
ReplyDeleteUse of the "F" word is not exibiting professionalism. Sounds like somebody pulled the right string and exposed you.
ReplyDeleteI hit a nerve!
ReplyDeleteThe true character comes out with the profanity.
ReplyDeleteSorry Abel. Just like everything else in life, OSHA "The People", has 20% great people and 80% dead weight. So, you ought to think about defending 20% of career sfaff every time. In a number of cases, you could even get rid of an entire office in every directorate without missing a beat.
ReplyDelete"When angery, count four; when very angry, swear." Mark Twain. Real people swear.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't know how to spell shill (or credibility) or know what it means: a decoy who acts as an enthusiastic customer in order to stimulate the participation of others. You have been quite upfront about your association with OSHA, and have expressed criticism when you thought it appropriate. You don't meet the definition of a shill. You do qualify as a dedicated professional, supporting the mission of OSHA while not all of the policies or actions. And you take a thoughtful approach to your posts. Keep up the good work!
ReplyDeleteI agree, you do take a thoughtful approach, and I appreciate the balance you try to bring to the issues of the huge beauracracy of OSHA....I noticed at the last ACCSH meeting (I have attended at least 12) that the staff seemed subtly happier and dare I say, hopeful....it was such a switch from the former administration's dog and pony show and the defensive attitude the staff were forced to adopt due to policy that was out of their control. In any event, keep up the good work- I check your website daily. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteEvery organization needs "True Believers" whether what they believe in is valid or not!
ReplyDeleteYes, there is dead weight, but 80%? Not a chance. Less than 10%. As for getting rid of an office in each directorate, my guess is you could get rid of the NO and we wouldn't miss a beat (to my friends in the NO, just kidding).
ReplyDeleteThanks for the support, and I also sense a shift in attitude with the new administration.
And finally, I'm not as much a true believer in the agency as I am in the mission of the agency. It's just that OSHA is the only real way for me to express that belief.
IF "The commentor" is a CSHO then that person needs a reality check. They said:
ReplyDelete"to carry out those policies to the best of our ability. Even when we disagree with them, that's what it is to be a professional."
That just makes you a hypocrite with few convictions and substandard ethics and here's why: You don't get to act like you're always just following orders when 5(a)(1) citations are at an flying of the shelf. Don't act like you don't have a thought or say in the execution of policy.
Lest ye forget, the Field Inspection Reference Manual states:
"This manual is intended to provide guidance regarding some of the
internal operations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA), and is solely for the benefit of the Government. No duties,
rights, or benefits, substantive or procedural, are created or implied by
this manual. The contents of this manual are not enforceable by any
person or entity against the Department of Labor or the United States.
Guidelines which reflect current Occupational Safety and Health Review
Commission or court precedents do not necessarily indicate
acquiescence with those precedents."
A. Sounds like a lot of judgement calls being left up to you.
B. Must be tough not being held to the standard you so easily enforce
C. Your sob story doesn't make your point any more credible
D. Your sob story tells me that maybe the stress is getting to you
E. Finally, and most opinionated, you sound like one of those people that need to take a history lesson. By your assessment the founding fathers of this country would have been shills because they wouldn't let the "agency" get in the way of the "mission"
I tell my employer when I disagree with them and they respect me for it, and sometimes when I really believe in something I refuse their orders and as long as I make the right call they respect that too. But you wouldn't understand that because your too professional.
Abel, I respect you. I may not agree with everything you say but at least you have a conviction for safety instead of this all too common obsession with OSHA.
******
Finally, the idea that the current state of OSHA is the sum total of it's career professionals is laughable and probably insulting to many past and current OSHA employees. Was the NEP on Combustible Dust the sum total of OSHA career professionals? Is that what you call it when a congressional committee chews you up and then you knee-jerk to a lousy 20% compliance, an estimated completion date for all dust producer inspections in decades, and states that disregard the movement altogether?
Wake up! That's policy...bad policy.
Jesse, you said:
ReplyDelete"IF "The commentor" is a CSHO then that person needs a reality check. They said:
"to carry out those policies to the best of our ability. Even when we disagree with them, that's what it is to be a professional."
That just makes you a hypocrite with few convictions and substandard ethics and here's why: You don't get to act like you're always just following orders when 5(a)(1) citations are at an flying of the shelf. Don't act like you don't have a thought or say in the execution of policy.""
I need to say flat out, you're wrong. We live in a republic, and in that republic we elect people to represent us. Those people are the President and the Members of Congress. We have bestowed upon the President the responsibility of administering the Executive Branch of Government. To do this, the President makes appointments to various positions so that the departments and agencies can carry out the will of the President. Those appointees select our policies. Granted, we may have input into how those policies are carried out, but the politicos select the direction.
Imagine the reaction if an agency went rogue, and did what only the career people wanted, and simply ignored the office of the President. How would that go over?
As CSHOs do we have some flexibility in how we enforce a policy? Sure, but can we ignore it? No, and if we did, it would be the start of the breakdown of the US Government. Imagine a food inspector who thought it was bad policy to inspect every piece of beef. What do you think that would do to food safety in this country?
And if you think that we are automatons doing only what we're told, you obviously don't know one of us personally. CSHOs tend to be opinionated, Type A personalities, and many of us will gladly tell our supervisor where to stick it, but in the end (no pun intended), we recognize that we are not the ultimate decider.
And what do we do when we still disagree with policy? We start a blog of course!
Finally, the Combustible Dust NEP is not the sum of the career professionals, but neither is the NEP all of OSHA. To suggest that one NEP, written in response to a Congressional oversight hearing (you remember Congress, those duly elected representatives of the People who control our budget?), is representative of all of OSHA, well that's laughable.
We do what we have to do, so that we can also do what needs to be done.