I have a suggestion for a new blog thread. Why has OSHA adopted new technology for insulated links for use with cranes without doing sufficient research and testing. Look what happened when NIOSH tested proximity warning devices, they failed miserably. Now even though they are still mandated in subpart CC, OSHA admits they are flawed and does not require their use. OSHA should do the same for Links and ask NIOSH to study and test their performance, use, maintenance, and the reliance issues that may occur with thier use.
Also, OSHA should look at how UL went about writing a standard, and how one provider is now marketing that his product meets Subpart CC, even though OSHA stated in the preamble that there are no NTRL's approved by OSHA to certify links.
OSHA Aboveground
A (hopefully thoughtful and thought provoking) view of OSHA from the inside.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Cranes
I got a request to start a new thread on the Crane standard, but since I'm an IH and don't have much crane experience (and no experience yet with the new standard) I'm posting the request here in the hopes that others can bring about a discussion:
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
OSHA PELs
So this morning I had a radical idea on how to deal with our PELs. Everyone on the planet knows our PELS are horribly out of date, they're from 1968 or 1970 (general industry vs construction) and many don't take into account health effects that may occur at lower exposures. So here's the idea:
It would take a little more work, but it would also allow us to enforce based on current science, not 40 year old science. Business probably wouldn't like it very much, they would be afraid that enforcement would be too inconsistent and they wouldn't know to what level they would need to protect their employees. And they would probably be right, at least partially. This would very likely lead to the call for a return of the PEL tables, which might be enough for Congress to give us a special dispensation to adopt new PELs, which would then allow us to update the PELs to appropriate levels. Even the threat of doing this might be enough to bring about the changes that are needed.
It's a radically insane idea that might or might not work, but it doesn't really matter since no one has the stones to try it.
Withdraw the standards, both 1910.1000 and 1926.55.Totally insane isn't it? When it first occurred to me I actually laughed out loud, you can imagine the looks. But why not? We already cite 5(a)(1) for chemicals that don't have exposure limits and we can cite 5(a)(1) when there is a PEL, if people exhibit health effects not covered by the original TLV documentation and we can show the employer knew. Even though we can do this, we almost never do because we're either too busy or too lazy. So why not go 5(a)(1) for everything?
It would take a little more work, but it would also allow us to enforce based on current science, not 40 year old science. Business probably wouldn't like it very much, they would be afraid that enforcement would be too inconsistent and they wouldn't know to what level they would need to protect their employees. And they would probably be right, at least partially. This would very likely lead to the call for a return of the PEL tables, which might be enough for Congress to give us a special dispensation to adopt new PELs, which would then allow us to update the PELs to appropriate levels. Even the threat of doing this might be enough to bring about the changes that are needed.
It's a radically insane idea that might or might not work, but it doesn't really matter since no one has the stones to try it.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
New Poll
The last poll is closed and a new one has been opened: Should OSHA Exist?
The last poll was close, 68 to shut 'er down, 67 to keep trudging on. Since the poll was really about finding out if people are still reading, I'm keeping the blog. Keep the comments coming, even those that disagree with me, just be respectful of me and others reading and commenting (you'll notice that 4 of the 5 I allowed through were dissents, but they weren't disrespectful).
No one has offered an article of their own so far, please consider doing so.
The last poll was close, 68 to shut 'er down, 67 to keep trudging on. Since the poll was really about finding out if people are still reading, I'm keeping the blog. Keep the comments coming, even those that disagree with me, just be respectful of me and others reading and commenting (you'll notice that 4 of the 5 I allowed through were dissents, but they weren't disrespectful).
No one has offered an article of their own so far, please consider doing so.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Top 10 Things Young CSHOs Need to Know
Below are my Top 10 Things Every Young CSHO Needs to Know Before They are Let Loose on the World.
- Never Lie. Beyond the moral and ethical aspects of honesty is a practical one, if you get caught lying during deposition or as a witness, you are done professionally. You probably won’t be fired, but every opposing attorney in the area will know what you’ve done and your contest rate will skyrocket. Every DOL attorney will know what you’ve done and they will never take one of your cases to court again, you will have every contested case tossed out.
- Follow the Evidence. Just because you’ve seen something 20 times, doesn’t mean you know what happened the 21st time. Investigate! Use your powers of observation and deductive reasoning to figure out what’s happening every single time as if you’ve never seen the situation before. Very few things are as professionally embarrassing as admitting to a judge that you assumed something.
- Actively listen. When you interview employees don’t go into the interview determined to get yes or no answers to all of your questions. Even if all of the physical evidence gives a clear picture, ask open ended questions and listen not for the words you want to hear, but for words you didn’t expect. Not only will this give you a fuller picture, but you may discover bigger issues.
- Always Keep Your Head on a Swivel. It’s scary how often the forklift operator “didn’t see you” standing there with you hardhat, reflective vest and 9 company reps (all of whom happened to make eye contact with the driver), and suspended loads have a mysterious habit of dropping to shoulder height just as they get close to you.
- Never give advanced notice. This is one of the things that can actually send us to jail, and although I’ve never heard of people actually going to jail, I have heard of people being “reassigned” to other duties, for the rest of their career.
- Never Argue with a Team Member in Public. It’s OK to disagree with fellow CSHOs, it can actually be good for the inspection even, but don’t do it where the company can hear you. If you publicly disagree and the company hears you, they then have an avenue for contesting any citations and you’ll hear “they couldn’t even agree that it was a violation,” in front of the judge.
- Never Equivocate on the Stand or During Deposition. When you’re under oath be firm, “This IS what I saw,” not “I’m pretty sure I saw this.” It’s OK to say “I don’t know,” or “I don’t remember, I would need to check my notes or the video.” If you equivocate, you have just introduced doubt, and if the compliance officer is in doubt, what way do you think the judge will rule? Just remember Rule #1 – Never Lie.
- Never Get Angry. No matter how passionate you are, no matter how abusive the employer is, never get angry. If you’re in a situation that is escalating, find a way out of the room, you can not win that argument but you can make it worse.
- Understand Their Anger. A lot of anger directed at you is fake, especially that from opposing attorneys, they’re either testing you or trying to intimidate you so you won’t be as effective. Sometimes people are angry at getting caught doing something they weren’t supposed to (remember fight or flight?). Some people are angry for reasons that have nothing to do with you. There are other possibilities as well, but if you understand the anger you have a chance to diffuse it. Just don’t forget rule #8 - Never Get Angry.
- You Can Never Have Too Many Charged Batteries. This is especially true for equipment junkies, as most IHs seem to be. It’s almost a rite of passage that every new CSHO will, at some point, forget the extra batteries in the middle of the inspection. With any luck the batteries will be in the car instead of back at the office or hotel. When this happens, expect much ridicule, especially from us old timers who have never done anything like that ourselves (I write hoping a bolt of lightening doesn’t strike).
Monday, July 12, 2010
Your Chance to Contribute
This is one of the comments from my previous post:
The commenter makes a fair point, the problem is I'm not willing to deregulate the comments, and I can't take time to write two or three times per week, so how about this, if you or someone you know wants to write an article on S&H or OSHA or something related, send it to me at oshaabove@gmail.com and if it meets my high editorial standards (everyone should be laughing right now), I'll post it so we can have a discussion. Even if it's an article about why OSHA shouldn't exist, as long as you can bring a rational argument with evidence to back your position, I'll post it.
Any takers?
"The problem with the slow exchange of thoughts and ideas is just that, it's slow. I think most people would like a larger volume of subject matter at a faster pace with some bad ideas (and even some disrespectful material) versus a limited volume at a slower pace."
The commenter makes a fair point, the problem is I'm not willing to deregulate the comments, and I can't take time to write two or three times per week, so how about this, if you or someone you know wants to write an article on S&H or OSHA or something related, send it to me at oshaabove@gmail.com and if it meets my high editorial standards (everyone should be laughing right now), I'll post it so we can have a discussion. Even if it's an article about why OSHA shouldn't exist, as long as you can bring a rational argument with evidence to back your position, I'll post it.
Any takers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)