The laws of the land say workers are entitled to a safe work environment. That’s good. I don’t want razor blades for handrails, slippery floors, or exposed electrical conductors. But the pendulum has, possibly, swung too far to the extreme. Is it really necessary to leave at least a modicum of basic, adult, common sense out of the equation?
Other laws of the land limit the age at which people may work in an industrial environment. So we don’t need to protect grade schoolers from rotating blades, or presses, or from things adults should know are dangerous. Can’t adults be expected to use a smidgin of common sense to protect themselves? An adolescent’s first paying job is often cutting lawns in the summer. A lawn mower can be much more dangerous than industrial machinery, with much less protection for the young operator.
I attended a conference recently in which safety concerns were covered extensively. One anecdote repeated several times described how operators raised a light curtain slightly to create an unprotected region to permit access for taking samples. When operators don’t use common sense to protect themselves, but also actively work against their own safety, why are machine builders expected to take their safety seriously?
The argument for raising the light curtain protecting the operator from the work hazard was that, otherwise, taking samples stopped the machine and impeded productivity. The operators spent so much effort bypassing the safety equipment for their own protection, instead of finding a better way to collect the samples.
This reminds me of that woman who won a rather large settlement from McDonald's for their extremely hot coffee, which she spilled into her lap. Granted, the large settlement was greatly reduced later on, but why on earth did the initial judge grant her the award in the first place? Didn’t the woman use any common sense at all?
In another incident, a cleaning crew removed guards protecting a flighted chain on a conveyor. The crew passed their air line through the chain loop. Not under, along the floor, but through the loop. The chain was started to allow cleaning of the entire length. You can predict what happened; the hose got pulled into a sprocket, someone tried to free it, and ended up losing a finger. Guards removed, hose routed in a simply idiotic manner, and the chain moving. How far are machine builders expected to go to protect people who do not protect themselves?
I used to enjoy reading the Darwin Awards Website; but the entertainment paled as more and more people found more and more ways to hurt themselves. I wonder if the drive toward perfect safety is not good for human natural selection. By eliminating the need for using just a little common sense, are we really better off?
I've often found it interesting how so much of safety, litigation and so forth comes back to the question of a reasonable effort. Did the employer make a reasonable effort? Did Mcdonalds have the coffee hotter than a reasonable customer might want? Where do we get the definition of a reasonable effort? Or a reasonable person? Spometimes I think the definition of a reasonable person or what one of these reasonable people might think is absolutely ridiculous.
I pesonally think it is more important to try and understands one's intent. Did Mcdonalds intend to make the coffee hot enough to burn. Or did they just want to provide coffee that was hot to their customers. (On a side note I did have a lengthly lecture in an Engineering Law class regarding this case. I don't recall the details, however, I do remember most of the engineers thought the judge was nuts. And the lawyer, turned teacher agreed with the judge). In the case of sume employers if they are expecting as part of the normal procedure to defeat safety guards, their intent is in question.
Timmmy49, I've got another blog on European vs. American safety that I hope will be published soon. I disagree that nationalities have a role in responsibility; The EU seems to have safety more codified than the USA.
I agree, SoCalPE. Many shops will skirt safety issues if they can get away with it. It's always a balance of pain versus gain. What do they get rewarded for? Skirting safety or upholding safety? I was 17 when I lost that corner of my thumb. If I have been just a couple years older, I would have known enough to grab legal help on a contingency basis and apply some pain.
I can certainly relate to all the points made. I, too, have worked in large and small shops that skirted safety issues for the sake of bumping the production numbers, but, as Beth points out, keeping your job is usually the overriding factor to making noise about the issue. I've often wondered if people, like forces of nature, are prone to take the path of least resistance for monetary gain, in the name of productivity, or for pleasure. As it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a concerted effort of conscientious employees to build products safely.
Americans do not want to take responsibility for their actions.If they get injured on the job by bypassing the safety system, then they can sue the company and the manufacture of the equipment.That forces designers to make sure that everything is covered.I think that it is ridiculous but that is today’s society.
Unfortunately, these kinds of stories are common. When I was young, I worked in a small stamping plant. I worked at a machine that stamped small pieces of sheet metal into form. The machine was designed with two buttons you had to push before the stamp came down -- thus making sure your hands were not under the stamp. However, a regular number of the prices of sheet metal would become scrap if the stamper hit the piece inaccurately.
The cure was to hold a corner of the piece in place (just outside the area that got stamped). So, this manufacturer asked its workers to hold one corner of the piece in place, push one button with your free hand the push the other button with your forehead. This eliminated the scrap problem. But one afternoon, I lost a quarter inch of my thumb. That was my last day.
I think Dave raises a good point. In today's days of metrics and KPIs, machine operators are likely so overly concerned with meeting production goals, that basic common sense goes out the window. Likely, management isn't actively promoting dangerous workarounds, but the pressure to perform -- and consequently, hold on to one's job in a recessionary climate -- probably trumps a little workaround that might be risky.
These are certainly sentiments which have been expressed repeatedly. One thing which often gets missed in these discussions, though, is the question of management responsibility. It's not as though the operator and the equipment manufacturer were the only people in the room. In general, most operators don't value productivity over their own safety - why should they? If operators are defeating guards in order to produce a few more pieces an hour, it's a safe bet that either they were directed to do so, or at the very least they have been inculcated with an ethic of productivity over everything else.
An analysis of what’s needed to implement Design for Disassembly and Design for Recycling results in eight strategies engineers can use to design an intentional end-of-life stage into their products.
Government regulations, coupled with growing consumer sensitivity about data and identity theft, require that data storage organizations demonstrate proper protection and due diligence in protecting sensitive information stored inside datacenter enclosures.
When a crane doesn't have a monitoring system, crane owners schedule service every six months and simply scrap the parts they replace, even if a part has had little use and doesn't need replacing. This can cost thousands.
From Dell / Intel® New Paradigms in Design Work Scott Hamilton, vertical market strategist for Dell Precision workstations, 5/2/2013 3
Early in my career, I worked as a draftsman and remember the days of drawing on vellum with numbered pencils and Mylar with plastic lead. This was a fun experience in the sense that I ...
I've been using workstations for more than 10 years and love finding ways to get more performance from my system. With demanding professional applications that require more power each ...
A lasting memory from my first job as an engineer in an auto assembly plant is standing on hard concrete at six in the morning, vending-machine coffee clutched in hand, listening to ...
A quick look into the merger of two powerhouse 3D printing OEMs and the new leader in rapid prototyping solutions, Stratasys. The industrial revolution is now led by 3D printing and engineers are given the opportunity to fully maximize their design capabilities, reduce their time-to-market and functionally test prototypes cheaper, faster and easier. Bruce Bradshaw, Director of Marketing in North America, will explore the large product offering and variety of materials that will help CAD designers articulate their product design with actual, physical prototypes. This broadcast will dive deep into technical information including application specific stories from real world customers and their experiences with 3D printing. 3D Printing is
To save this item to your list of favorite Design News content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This
9 
