Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Bad Ideas

Every day OSHA sends it's staff an e-mail with a list of S&H/OSHA related links to articles gathered from the Internet. One of the article today really got my attention: UMW, Upper Big Branch victims' relatives sue MSHA.

It's not that MSHA is being sued, that happens all the time to both MSHA and OSHA, it's just part of the job. The part that makes me uncomfortable is that UMW is asking a judge allow union and employee representatives to be included in all interviews related to the investigation. I absolutely understand the desire to be included and to want to hear the unvarnished version from both employee and employer witnesses, but I don't think UMW realizes how potentially damaging this might be to the investigation.

Interviews, especially interviews of witnesses after a fatality, can be tricky. There's always a lot of emotion involved, fear, anger, shock, depression, to name just a few. Wading through that emotion may take patience, or it may take sympathy, or it may take a certain firmness, it all depends on the situation.

The most productive interviews are usually those where the investigator can get past the emotions and establish a certain level of rapport. I'm not suggesting that the interviewee would tell us their deepest secrets, but if you can show them that you aren't after them personally, that you're just trying to put the pieces together and that they can be part of that process, you can usually get your answers.

When there is a third person in the room, however, establishing the rapport is very difficult, and when that third person is viewed as the enemy, it's impossible. That's why under the OSH Act we are allowed to interview employees away from company representation. Employees are entitled to have a representative observe the interview, but the employer can not put a representative in the room during an employee interview. This leads to some interesting interviews because the employer can refuse to allow us to interview the employees on their property. I have interviewed employees in restaurants, hotel rooms, parks and even bars. I have also had situations where the employee representative has been helpful and instances where the rep has cause problems (typically because they answer the questions instead of letting the employee answer).

Some of these same issues arise when we interview employer reps, except that they know we're investigating what they did, so they naturally tend to be very defensive. Over coming that defensiveness is difficult, especially if they have a lawyer sitting in the room with them. Trying to over come that defensiveness would be impossible if employee reps were in the room, everyone knows everything they say will be used in the lawsuit.

I'm not opposed to difficult investigations, but when I do an investigation I want to be able to gather as many of the facts as I can, and employee representative being in the room when I interview management will do nothing but hinder that.

47 comments:

  1. Abel, a friend of mine and I were having a friendly debate, will you answer one question? are you male or female?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why does it matter unless you are trying to pinpoint who exactly Abel is...? I hope Abel maintains mum on this one.

    Regarding the post itself... I agree. Unions/Reps have no business being there....

    ReplyDelete
  3. Abel is a SHILL for OSHA!. We decided that months ago!

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's true, it was decided that I'm a shill, but I'll answer the question anyway: Yes, I am male or female.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lets get this back into reality. I don't know if Abel will want to separate this out, but I ahve a question: The new Protecting Workers Act. Will it improve safety?

    Article posted yesterday: http://www.liftandaccess.com/index.php?id=4464

    May 12, 2010 – According to Finance & Commerce, if the newly introduced Protecting America's Workers Act becomes law, OSHA will be able to enforce stronger penalties for company executives, project managers, and safety directors in the event of a willful safety violation that results in injury or death—and they could face up to 20 years in prison.

    I see a lot of good safety people trying very hard to do their jobs, and due to "risk takers" accidents occur. I wouldn't want to have that type of liablity. I expect that you will see alot of good safety officers rethink their current roles.

    ReplyDelete
  6. OSHA justs keeps getting better and better! Aren't we lucky?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yes, you are.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Not saying it's a good idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone adds this (the right to participate in interviews) to the "victim's rights" part of the Protecting America's Workers Act currently pending in Congress.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Increasing penalties in MSHA did not work for 29 dead miners. The MSHA violations were just contested(appealed) and jammed up their court system. Massa Energy had lots of violations and penalties that were tied up in court before the miners died at the subject mine. For OSHA the Protecting America's Workers Act will just mostly do what MSHA has already proven what does not work. So just go all the way. When a company has a fatality, then the government(OSHA) seizes the company and the company CEO is executed by the government. That's what China does now and the logical conclusion of OSHA's current increase in enforcement. Hey, that's got to work. Fatalities should really drop!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Are we having fun yet? Vacation canceled because your office can't make the quotas? The precious quota. The pitiful quotas. All the paper degrees and they cast aside the hard look into the problem. The cabal is still there. They feed your addiction for dollars. Greed is good. You've shown your hand. The cabal is your supplier. They will make your precious supersecret 40k inspections. Just don't look. Ride the white horse and feel good. The heroin rushes through your veins. Look to the Who to understand us. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

    ReplyDelete
  11. Life goes better with drugs!(previous poster)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Just ask Barry O. He did them all the time, according to his own book(s).

    ReplyDelete
  13. What's the difference between manslaughter and a willful violation that led to the death of an employee? The obvious answer is the criminal/civil dichotomy, but that willfuls are already reviewed by criminal investigators.

    This could end up scaring alot of people. The end result will be that nobody will talk during fatality investigations, and CSHOs wouldn't be able to do them. We'd have to Mirandize everyone on the site. What a mess.

    ReplyDelete
  14. OSHA scares a lot of people-even people that work for OSHA!

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Abel,
    We are trying to figure out whether or not OSHA is effective, correct?
    Let me ask some questions...
    OSHA has a new proposed rule for "walking-working surfaces and personal protective equipment"
    Here is the proposed rule

    in it you'll find some data that supports OSHA's claim on what this new rule will do. Among the things it will do is prevent 3,706 injuries, 20 deaths and save $328.5 million.
    To find that dollar figure, OSHA "assumes" $50,000 per injury and $7.2 million per death.

    Here’s where it starts to get tricky…
    In the proposed rule, OSHA states; “Slips, trips, and falls constitute 15 percent of all accidental deaths, and are second only to motor vehicles as a cause of employee fatalities.” GET THAT, ABEL AND EVERYONE READING??? 15%!
    NOW, OSHA goes on to state in that very same proposed rule “Tables V-10 and V-11 of section V ("Preliminary Economic and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis") depict BLS data from 1992 to 2004. During this time period, BLS reported an annual average of 300 fatal falls, 213 (71%) of which resulted from falling from a higher level. Furthermore, of an annual average of 299,404 non-fatal falls resulting in lost-workday injuries, 79,593 (26%) were as a result of falling from a higher level.”
    300 FATAL FALLS!?!?!
    Still following?
    Keeping in mind that OSHA has not only stated that 15% of all workplace deaths occur because of slips, trips, and falls, and that OSHA has cited data using the firm of their choice that states that an annual average of 300 of those falls are fatal…. Is 300 15% of the number of deaths OSHA blasts on their website for everyone to see? NO! the number on their website is “5,214 workers died on the job in 2008.” 300 is actually 15% of 2,000. Less than HALF of the number of worker fatalities OSHA cited for last years death toll.

    Here are the FACTS:
    The rule uses data that they pick to best suit their agenda and desire for a “safe and healthy” work environment (otherwise they wouldn’t have cited it, correct?)
    The numbers used miss the rest of their supporting data as to why they need to be in business by more than 50%
    Using this website you will see the worker deaths from 1992 to 2008. the average annual number of worker deaths is 5,950. NOT ONCE SINCE 1992 HAS THE DATA PROVIDED EVER BEEN EVEN CLOSE TO ACCURATE.

    Is OSHA effective? The obvious answer here is no. If OSHA cannot even get the statistics and numbers right for which they based their multi million dollar proposed rule, can they be effective at properly performing risk assessment, risk analysis, and mitigating risk using numbers that are not even 50% correct?

    Come on, Abel. I need the answer to this one.

    P.S. I have only cited “.gov” websites. I’m trying to see your side of the argument, Abel but I cannot. With this many inconsistencies and blatant misrepresentation of facts, one cannot help but wonder, “if OSHA can’t get a simple statistic right, what else are they NOT doing right? Who are they really helping?”

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Abel is up on the mountain at this time. When he returns, he will answer the feeble questions of the great unwashed and unknowing masses.

    ReplyDelete
  22. What exactly are you against? Do you appose the standards set by Congress or how the enforcement is administered or managed (or how the standards are interpreted) by the Administration (DoL/OSHA)? I would imagine that most would like to see changes in both the standards and enforcement, but the keys are what changes specifically and how would we transition. I would also expect a conversation or debate on the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of the current system (standards and enforcement).

    ReplyDelete
  23. I'm against the whole thing.
    Why do they need to put false numbers/ statistics in the standards? why can't they (OSHA) give it to congress straight? If the need for an "OSHA" was so obvious, then why would there be any shape-shifting at all? if it was so obvious, then only an idiot wouldn't understand, so put the facts out there plainly, right? No, they don't.
    In the very standards OSHA is releasing there are LIES. And anything that needs to be passed or presented with lies, cannot be a good thing. It means there is something the administration DOES NOT want you to know. It means they are HIDING something. Even if it were to come to light that, somehow these numbers are in some obscure way, correct, it still raises serious red flags. Why? Because again, going back to my original point, why present what you're calling unavoidable and unarguable in some obscure beneath-the-streets way? BECAUSE THEY ARE LYING TO US!
    "Enforcement" is garbage too. If OSHA/ DOL's main concern was safety and health, then why do they shut down the use of the safety and health consultation program when they are citing you for violations of their standards??? One would think that, if their main concern was safety and health, and they walked into a building, found violations that were a risk to employees, wouldn't they want to open all doors to correct that violation? APPARENTLY NOT. they don't want us to be safe, they want to shut private business down. they want control. they'll fine private industry into oblivion in the name of safety while simply sitting back and saying "look at how bad your are" without lifting a finger to correct and educate. that's why the consultation programs are in place right? but they shut them down to you and say, "figure it out on your own, we're not helping you".

    SO, with all of that being said, i would say that OSHA's efforts in keeping American men and woman safe and healthy are "ineffective", anonymous.

    P.S. is anyone going to address specifically the issue i raised in my previous post? or is it going to continue to be side skirted and circumvented like i predicted in my earlier post as well?

    ReplyDelete
  24. To address the issue you raised in your previous post. Are you really suprised that the current (or past) administration would mis-use statistics to support a specific agenda? That is the nature of mixing enforcement with politics. It is the same for the FBI or DEA or other government enforcement agency. What laws would we like to see changed to help us achieve our goals and who do we want to go after to have the biggest (or smallest) impact (political or safety impact)? What makes us look good and what makes us look bad?

    We rely on the two (or more) party system and various lobby or interest groups to provide opposing information. It is up to our politicians and us to sort out the information and vote on laws and who we want to represent us in Congress and the White House.

    I am still not sure what you would like to see happen in terms of labor laws and enforcement. Get rid of OSHA and transition enforcement of the laws and standards to who? Get rid of labor laws and standards and rely on industry standards, best practices, and markets to demonstrate that good standards equals good business? Something in the middle?

    ReplyDelete
  25. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  26. OSHA is a failure from A to Z. Nothing can be said to change that reality. There are clearly proven solutions to accomplish OSHA's goals but they cannot be posted here because Abel does not allow it and disagrees.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The question is where do we go from here? Not just get rid of OSHA, but what system will take its place?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Take its place? Why would you want another entity to lie to us and weigh down the economy?

    I still don't understand why the courts can't handle it. If your employer endangers you or hurts you sue them. If they are wrong you will win and the company will pay for their mistakes which will encourage them to "think safer".

    For those of you who say "we don't need more lawyers": live with it. The judicial system is a vested, fundamental part of our government. OSHA is not. Period. Besides, if you want to meet some REALLY creepy scummy lawyers meet the OSHA lawyers. They have nicknames like "The Flame-Thrower".

    OSHA is not natural. They remind me of that movie Minority Report
    ...where "Precrime", a specialized police department, apprehends criminals based on foreknowledge...
    Because we've allowed (if you can call it that - they've really bullied) them into the realm of "potential" they are fining people for something that has not happened yet. They can't prove it's going to happen, but hey? They don't have to prove anything. In the world of "potential" the sky is the limit. They could fine you for just about anything they want to. Can somebody day: "General Duty Clause".

    OSHA is a scary movie. Don't replace them. Remove them. It will be OK.

    Safety will not disappear. It is a concept that we all know independent of OSHA.

    ReplyDelete
  29. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Would you also recommend the removal of the other Federal safety enforcement agencies and organizations, as well as the Federal environmental enforcement agencies, and handle all legal issues through civil cases post incident? Would you remove all State, County, and City safety or environmental enforcement as well?

    If this was implemented, what would stop courts and judges from doing exactly what OSHA is doing? What would stop judges from going beyond what OSHA is doing? Could a judge order a company to shut down? Could a judge order periodic inspections with citations and fines for each violation? I am not sure you solved anything. Only transferred the power to a different different branch of government.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Abel is still up on the mountain at this time. Due to the extra difficulties of our times, Abel is receiving additional instructions up on the mount on this trip. When he returns, he will solve all your problems of lack of faith in OSHA and give us divine guidance and show us the path of light that OSHA will use to carry us into the promised future of workplace safety.

    ReplyDelete
  32. First of all, you mean to say transfered to "a" branch of government. OSHA is not a branch. OSHA is a weed that grows on capitol hill.

    Second, that different branch of government is well defined both in its foundation and a couple hundred years of precedence.
    OSHA can hardly provide proof of effectiveness since it was bestowed upon us 40 years ago. They can hardly report legitimate statistics. They can hardly add those magical numbers.

    The courts (although not perfect) have a stronger sense of the constitution and its limitations. OSHA knows no constitution or law.
    OSHA asks companies for warrant-less searches as leverage for lower fines. They ask companies to open their financial records to decide how much they will fine them for. They are violators. And it's not the exception; it's systemic.

    Comparing the two is laughable.
    Passing the ball back to the legal system would be like a grade-schooler passing the ball back to Michael Jordan. But I'm sure OSHA appreciates your outlandish sense idolatry.

    ReplyDelete
  33. The question still has not been addressed. It's funny, that everyone fighting FOR OSHA here continues to argue the wrong point. I am asking a very direct and specific question. "Why did they lie in the proposed standard?" Instead of answering the question, you run around it completely, and ask "well, what are you going to do without OSHA?" The question almost you pose almost is an admission of guilt. As if to say, "okay, they lied, but what would we do without them? they have immunity because they are so helpful to us." Thomas Jefferson warns of despotism. and that's precisely what this is. Counting on the government to keep you safe. Counting on the government to help you live a quiet and safe life. Counting on the government to take all of your worries and fears away. You assume that without some kind of legislation looking over everyones shoulder, that no one would be safe from someone else trying to take advantage of everything they could. Were you abused as a child? did something or someone hurt you and scare you into thinking that people in the U.S.A. are just terrible crooks and would kill you without thinking about it if there wasn't a law saying murder is illegal? please answer my question, anyone! why is there a LIE in the proposed standard??? Why couldn't they give us straight, unadulterated data? why distort the facts if in their raw form are so relevant and necessary?
    Please, anyone...

    ReplyDelete
  34. I think you are misinterpreting my questions a bit; which is understandable considering the nature of this blog. I would like to see considerable changes in how the Department of Labor and OSHA handle enforcement and would not be disappointed if OSHA was shut down. I would be shocked. But, my fear would be that something much worse would come along. I am not sure I like the idea about letting the courts handle it.

    My thinking would be to move enforcement over to a more traditional law enforcement agency like the FBI. I believe they are less political, but some might argue that point. I believe they better understand their roll and scope and don't try as much to overreach their authority, again some may argue that point.

    I think if we simply shifted the responsibility to the courts, they would set up "labor courts" and begin to function similiar to how OSHA functions today. Activist judges would overreach and impose creative solutions that might be worse than what we see today.

    I know this is all speculation, but I think creative thinking and challenges are needed.

    ReplyDelete
  35. To try and answer the question, "Why did they lie in the proposed standard?" Because they could...

    And it supported their political agenda. Very few people would be able to figure out that they lied and even if they get caught they will argue that it is all in how you look at it; and that the exact numbers are not as important as keeping everyone safe.

    There is no good reason to lie or distort. It kills any trust or credibility you may have.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Trolls are rampant this year.

    I got a question. What's wrong with the safety and health standards? How are they a bad thing? You would rather wait until someone dies or becomes disabled before you attempt to fix any problems? Now you are saying you want the Judicial branch handle everything? (OSHA falls under the executive branch).

    I'll give you a real world scenario...

    Company gets inspected 7 years ago. Is cited for over exposure to noise and such. OSHA goes back 7 years later and finds the same violation. No HCP (hearing conservation program) no noise monitoring, no audiometric testing, no anything.

    When asked why the Manager states it fell through the cracks. The next up manager says the plant was about to shut down 7 years ago does it matter, no it doesn't. The next higher up says I haven't been to that facility ever, and I don't know what goes on there.

    So the entire time 7 years the employees were exposed to the noise hazard. All the employees will more than likely have some form of hearing loss from it. The plant didn't shut down. It went on chugging for 7 years. Those people didn't have to lose their hearing.

    Another scenario. An employee doing some hard coating on a lathe wears a supplied air line. The employer puts the controls in behind the lathe. The employee leans forward the bottom of the hood gets caught and he's decapitated.

    The union submitted reports long before this that it was a safety issue to the employer. The employer's maintenance department had it on an order for 4 years. That man didn't have to die.
    He would still be with his wife and children, and grandchildren.

    So think about that before you start attacking the agency as a whole. There are parts of the agency that need to be worked on and fixed. The people who do the leg work and see these type of fatalities and catastrophies aren't the enemy. We truly do believe in what we do and that we do save lives. I have many many many many more stories I could share with you.

    I don't think it will make a difference. Barking like a rabid animal only makes it so you can't hear how rediculas you sound.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Headline:"OSHA CAUSES EMPLOYEES TO DIE IN WORKPLACES"

    I can prove the above headline as easily as someone else proves the following headline.

    Headline:"OSHA SAVES LIVES IN THE WORKPLACE"

    Just use lies, statistics and politics(and your personal bias) to prove either headline.

    There is a drop dead, sure fire, almost never fails, proven by history solution to this dilemma but Abel's personal bias that ignores actual factual evidence contrary to his opinion and he will not allow the solution to be posted here.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Lobbyist and politicians work against us not with us. Look at the fall protection. Ever wonder why there are so many different height requirements? 4 foot general industry, 6 foot construction, 10 foot on a scaffold (still don't need the guard rails), 15 feet for steel erection unless your are a connector (up to 30 feet just need capability.

    Politicians and lobbyist. Sometimes it's best to work with the devil and get something done than to work against him and get nothing done.

    I'm not even going to bother going into detail as to why the statement "OSHA CAUSES EMPLOYEES TO DIE IN WORKPLACES" is asinine.

    Here I go feeding the damn trolls again.

    ReplyDelete
  39. 2nd generation executive branch at best

    as much as john edwards mistress was a member of the legislative branch

    labor courts? might work
    traffic courts are pretty expedient and to the point...you boo-boo'd this is the price tag we have put on that pay or defend your opposition.

    OSHA is more like you may or may not have boo-boo'd but at the very least there is some potential and if not there is the 5-a1 clause. Now, we are going to take 6 months to dig through your house with a fine tooth comb and build a case. Then we are going to give you 15 days to make a defense against the 20 pages of citations based on hundreds of pages of regulations based on thousands of pages cross-referenced standards (which may or may not have been adopted in part or in whole) and then we are going fine you based on our discretion even though the person next to you may have broken the exact same rule with different consequences. If you can't afford to pay the fines we will settle for less. Less still being everything you have as we will look through your financial records and see how much you have to give. Now, in many situations the amount that we have fined you will put you under economic stress to the point that you can't afford to fix the things we have cited you for. If that is the case go call your mother because we don't care. See you in a year to cite you now "willfully" (and hopefully soon criminally) for the items we have financially impaired you from fixing. We save people.

    Is that funny?
    It should be.
    OSHA is is bureaucratic joke.

    ReplyDelete
  40. There is nothing wrong with well written standards and laws. They should be clear and consice. Some are and some not so much. The big issue with OSHA is the arbitrary nature of their enforcement. Some of this is due to bad standards and laws (unclear and not concise), and some of this is due to the politics of the administration.

    To the issue of "labor courts" compared to "traffic courts", remember that traffic courts have enforcement (traffic police) feeding cases and issues into the system (keeping people honest and safe). The suggestion that OSHA go away and have no federal, state, or local enforcement, I believe would leave a gap for some enforcement agency to fill.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I agree.
    "Arbitrary Enforcement" (and I would add judgement/settlement process) is THE issue.
    Most of the standards are will intended and somewhat digestible, and I do not have any issues with safety, safety regulation, or safety enforcement. I do have a HUGE problem with the absolute, unchecked, arbitrary enforcement, fines, and OSHA's request for warrant-less searches.
    The police enforce with tazers for Pete's sake.
    OSHA enforces with assault rifles, submarines, aircraft carriers, and Stealth Bombers.

    ReplyDelete
  42. You know I would love to have had a taser and been allowed to use it on employers or employees who yell at me or curse me and threaten me..... i'd be soooo happy.

    Maybe they'll loan me a stealth bomber... I mean they let me use 30 year old dosimeters surely they will let me use a stealth bomber.

    The reason why the standards are not clear and concise is due to lobbyist and politicians trying to satisty their donators, you know corporations, unions etc...

    As far as the the poor employer who can't pay their penalties... there's always a payment plan... and you know for small employers you do have the option of using State consultation. It's free they do the same thing we do all the IH work for ya. No penalties... we can't come into a place if they are there, unless of course there's a fatality or catastrophy or a complaint...

    It's interesting that you are whining about our fines... if our fines are making you close up shop... then you were gonna close up soon anyway because you can't compete and compete effectively. Before you start saying OSHA doesn't allow the small employer to compete... please... OSHA makes the playing field even.. Everyone has the same laws to follow.. state consultation allows the small guys to compete with the big guys.

    So stop whining and complaining about things you know nothing about. Go get a job and thank your stars that OSHA is out there to make your employer provide you with a safe and healthful working environment.

    We do not arbitrarily enforce anything. If it is a safety hazard we will address it. If it isn't we will not. 5A1 is only used when there is an industry concensus or such to back it up. So if you are working in said industry why haven't you keep up with the industry???? We do not arbitrarily give fines... alot of work and thought goes into probablity and severity... which the fines are based off of. We have a hard enough time getting a warrent... if we tried to go into a place was rejected us and the judge refused to give us a warrent why would you think we would try to go back???? You are just going to send us away again. If you let us in... hey that's your problem for being a dumbass and I dont't think there isn't anyone in the world who (including yourself) woudln't agree with me.

    Now if we have a warrent and you refuse... guess who comes back with a couple of rangers and SEALS... not us... we ask the local enforement officers to help.

    So again, you are ignorant... I'm not saying you are a moron... just ignorant of OSHA and the federal regulations that not only an employer has to follow but we as CSHO's and IH's have to follow.

    ReplyDelete
  43. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  44. “Come on, Abel. I need the answer to this one.”

    The answer is easy Tim, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

    Before I answer, think about this, some of the biggest law firms in Washington, DC are paid millions of dollars every year by groups like the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers to watch and scrutinize every single word OSHA writes, and they don't seem to have issues with the statistics, do you really think you found something they missed?

    Here's what you said:

    “Here’s where it starts to get tricky…
    In the proposed rule, OSHA states; “Slips, trips, and falls constitute 15 percent of all accidental deaths, and are second only to motor vehicles as a cause of employee fatalities.” GET THAT, ABEL AND EVERYONE READING??? 15%!
    NOW, OSHA goes on to state in that very same proposed rule “Tables V-10 and V-11 of section V ("Preliminary Economic and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis") depict BLS data from 1992 to 2004. During this time period, BLS reported an annual average of 300 fatal falls, 213 (71%) of which resulted from falling from a higher level. Furthermore, of an annual average of 299,404 non-fatal falls resulting in lost-workday injuries, 79,593 (26%) were as a result of falling from a higher level.”
    300 FATAL FALLS!?!?!
    Still following?
    Keeping in mind that OSHA has not only stated that 15% of all workplace deaths occur because of slips, trips, and falls, and that OSHA has cited data using the firm of their choice that states that an annual average of 300 of those falls are fatal…. Is 300 15% of the number of deaths OSHA blasts on their website for everyone to see? NO! the number on their website is “5,214 workers died on the job in 2008.” 300 is actually 15% of 2,000. Less than HALF of the number of worker fatalities OSHA cited for last years death toll.

    Here are the FACTS:
    The rule uses data that they pick to best suit their agenda and desire for a “safe and healthy” work environment (otherwise they wouldn’t have cited it, correct?)
    The numbers used miss the rest of their supporting data as to why they need to be in business by more than 50%
    Using this website you will see the worker deaths from 1992 to 2008. the average annual number of worker deaths is 5,950. NOT ONCE SINCE 1992 HAS THE DATA PROVIDED EVER BEEN EVEN CLOSE TO ACCURATE.”

    Now, here are the real facts:

    The figure 5,214 deaths in 2008 applies to all industry sectors, but the fall protection standard only applies to general industry. Not included under the proposed rule are: construction, agriculture, long shoring, marine terminals, shipyards, or Federal Agencies (it won't apply to 29 CFR 1960, but it will apply to federal agencies, it's a legal distinction, but it means the federal fatality numbers aren't included in the stats). The other government website you referenced was the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), this link will take you to the fatality data for 2008: http://bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0232.pdf

    BLS happens to be where OSHA gets all of its statistics, by the way, but notice on the BLS site that the number of fatalities in the “goods producing” sector is 2,234. The “good producing” sector is general industry, give or take a few SICs, and 15% of 2,234 is, wait for it... 335. Keep that the standard was averaging 13 years of data, so it appears pretty close to 15% to me.

    Tim, it's not that the statistics aren't accurate, it's just that you didn't know how to interpret them. It's not uncommon that people have trouble with those statistics, we have so many and they all seem to have their own set of parameters and uses.

    ReplyDelete
  45. There are clearly proven solutions to accomplish OSHA's goals but they cannot be posted here because Abel does not allow it and disagrees.”

    Are you serious? You've had weeks to post your manifesto while I was away, yet you didn't. Don't blame me for you inability to pull the trigger.

    I tell you what, set up a blog of your own, post your little manifesto, let me know where it is and I promise I'll post the link for others to see and comment. If you can't or won't do that, your ideas probably aren't worth reading anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Which of the 15 definitions is Abel using when he refers to a "troll"?

    troll    /troʊl/ Show Spelled[trohl] Show IPA
    –verb (used with object)
    1. to sing or utter in a full, rolling voice.
    2. to sing in the manner of a round or catch.
    3. to fish for or in with a moving line, working the line up or down with a rod, as in fishing for pike, or trailing the line behind a slow-moving boat.
    4. to move (the line or bait) in doing this.
    5. to cause to turn round and round; roll.
    6. Obsolete . to hand around, as a bowl of liquor at table.
    –verb (used without object)
    7. to sing with a full, rolling voice; give forth full, rolling tones.
    8. to be uttered or sounded in such tones.
    9. to fish by trolling.
    10. to roll; turn round and round.
    11. to move nimbly, as the tongue in speaking.
    –noun
    12. a song whose parts are sung in succession; a round.
    13. the act of trolling.
    14. a lure used in trolling for fish.
    15. the fishing line containing the lure and hook for use in trolling.

    ReplyDelete
  47. None of the above. Try this definition:

    "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

    ReplyDelete