Comment on YSK: Regulations don't exist because governments like them...

• ameancow@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Then there are landscapers working in a garden pulling weeds even if there are no trees for miles. What’s going to happen?

  As someone who used to be an operations manager for several work-crews, I fully understand why you would just make a fucking blanket-rule. Because the more people you put on a work crew, the more obvious and stupid risks they will take. It was a daily struggle to get people to wear glove and eye protection using hammers, and the times that I didn’t enforce it as a “do it or get sent home” rule, can you guess what happened?

  No really, we were on first-name basis with people at the urgent-care center my company worked out a deal with.

  Sure the day that they’re raking the yard there’s no chance of someone suffering a head-injury. Until one of them is loading the wheelbarrow back on the truck and didn’t bother lowering the lift-gate because they chose to load their buckets and tools first and didn’t want shit to fall out of the back of the truck, then the goddamn wheelbarrow falls and lands on Martinez’s head and now we have another worker’s comp claim and everyone’s paycheck suffers for it.

  We wouldn’t need PPE rules and a thousand other safety regulations if people were always smart, alert and watching for hazards. They’re not. They’re incredibly dumb. Everyone is. So we need blanket-rules.

  source

  • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    And you just know the second someone got hurt they’d turn around and sue you because you didn’t tell them not to do that. Even people who know better will cut corners “Ehhhh, I don’t need to find my safety glasses. I’m just grinding this part for a second…”

    source

    • ameancow@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      100%, all of that.

      I once owned and raised exotic reptiles, I remember being told “Take precautions in your terrariums, if there’s a way they can harm themselves, no matter how remote, they WILL find a way to maim or kill themselves with anything you put in there.”

      I realized over time that this rule applies to all of us.

      I am just astonished the concept of blanket safety rules is getting pushback on the same website where people routinely show gifs and clips of people suffering freak accidents at worksites.

      source
• jecxjo@midwest.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  That is a great example.

  What happens when that crew is called to work next week where there are trees? Without that rule some businesses would skip buying PPE all together and say “screw it, it’s just one day what could happen?” Or they might have PPE that no one takes care of. Someone forgets theirs and no one stops them from working. If you have ever watched an OSHA safety video you know most work place deaths are due to being lazy or stupid.

  Most businesses only cares about how much money you make and how much money you cost. That is why we need regulations even when you think they are a pointless waste.

  source

  • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    You still need a rule, but just don’t be lazy and have a blanket rule. Instead of always have a hard hat, just say hard hats required if there are any objects on site withing 30 feet that are above 6’ or something.

    If a business doesn’t buy hard hats because it only applies some of the time, then fine then when people aren’t wearing hard hats when there are objects within 30 feet of working that’s are higher than 6’.

    My business works In one area for 30 minutes every 2 weeks that requires a hard hat. The rest of the time it isn’t required. We still provide the hard hats. But expecting employees to wear them everywhere else is ridiculous.

    source

    • jecxjo@midwest.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Your response is exactly why blanket rules are needed. You’re objecting about wearing safety equipment because you don’t feel like you need it. Maybe sometimes you don’t but allowing it to be a choice means that some moron is going to say they never need it. What is worse is that the one moron not being safe puts the rest of the team in danger. I used to work in the Oil and Gas industry and there were so many situations where someone getting injured meant someone else would have to extract them from the dangerous situation which then put the rescue team in danger. Personal choice isn’t cool when you’re then making everyone else’s lives worse.

      For 30 minutes every 2 weeks, how often do you inspect your hard hats? Do you know how long they are supposed to be in circulation before being removed? Do they have the appropriate documentation for inspection and replacement? I’m willing to bet that with such a small amount of use none of that is a thing for you and your team. Hard hats wear out due to sun and temperature exposure long before they actually “look worn out”. I’d see all of the guys on the pipelines and wells have hard hats and flame retardant clothes replaced on a regular bases and then we’d have the guys who came in the service the water tanks that were run by a 3rd party contractor who had all old equipment because we were their only client for the type of situation that actually needed PPE.

      source
    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      The more judgement based exceptions you put in the regulations, the less compliance you have, and the more “rules lawyers” on your crew wasting time and energy trying to talk their way around some edge case loophole.

      And the more often people will take the lazy option, rather then the safe one.

      If you actually believe you can get everyone to do the appropriately safe thing in all varying conditions, I doubt that you’ve ever been in charge of a labour crew.

      source
• jjjalljs@ttrpg.network ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Also the more exceptions you have to rules, the more confusing it is and the more likely people are going to fuck it up.

  “Always wear a hardhat on site” - easy. simple. minimal room for interpretation.

  “Always wear a hardhat on site when any of the following conditions are true: [a, b, c, d] unless [e, f]” is going to lead to errors, and then people will get hurt.

  People aren’t that smart. Especially when they’re not motivated, or distracted.

  source
• SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  They also need to be reviewed on a regular basis. If the reason for the regulation is gone it should be dropped. I think every law and regulation should have a nonbinding statement describing the motivation behind it.

  source

  • InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    I would agree with this. Regulations need to keep up with the times. I’ve often challenged my libertarian/“small” government friends to point out which regulation they want to see removed. Book, chapter, and verse; bonus if they can elaborate on why the context under which it was approved no longer applies. Perhaps I do agree that a regulation needs to be updated or removed. None ever take me up on it. I just let them know that “because I want to” is not a valid starting point for deregulation.

    Like the joke goes, *Libertarians are like house cats. Completely dependent on a system they neither understand nor appreciate and fiercely confident of their own independence. *

    source