I just dropped off my PC router, which had lost power after 3 years of excellent use, at my local PC dealer/repair station. They called to tell me that they had to order some parts which they did not stock. The shock was that because the power cord had a nick in the outer cover of the cord, which did not go into the colored wires sheath inside, they tell me that OSHA will not allow them to work on the power tool untill the slightly damaged power cord is replaced first. Any body heard this at your local repair shop ?
Discussion Forum
Get It All!
UNLIMITED Membership is like taking a master class in woodworking for less than $10 a month.
Start Your Free TrialCategories
Discussion Forum
Digital Plans Library
Member exclusive! – Plans for everyone – from beginners to experts – right at your fingertips.
Highlights
-
Shape Your Skills
when you sign up for our emails
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. -
Shop Talk Live Podcast -
Our favorite articles and videos -
E-Learning Courses from Fine Woodworking
-
-
Replies
They *have* to protect their backside, Z3 ....
You, me, and probably the vast majority of people participating in this forum are well mannered, thinking individuals. If we thought a power cord needed replacing, we'd replace it. If we took a tool to the repair shop, they returned it and if the cord had a pre-existing nick that through some bizzare happenstance caused some issue such as a spark igniting a fire or you/me/etc., getting a shock, we'd accept that as our responsibility for not having fixed the cord in the first place.
Not everyone takes this much personal responsibility.
People buy hot cup of coffee, clearly labeled *HOT*, put it between their legs in a moving vehicle and successfully sue the vendor when they get burned by having it spill on them.
Your repair shop is doing the only thing it can do in this litigous culture/mindset we live in here in the US. (I'm assuming you're in the US given the OSHA regs)
Dennis in Bellevue WA
[email protected]
I wouldn't doubt what they say. The water to my shop is currently shut off because of a leaking pipe from the original water system put into the city. It's all lead pipe. There's a lot of it around in the city that is grandfathered in, but if and when anything goes wrong with it, it can't be touched. Out it comes and gets replaced with copper. That's by EPA regs. My point is regs touch us in a lot of ways we generally don't come across everyday. I imagine that OSHA couldn't give a hoot if you use that cord or not, but put it into a commercial tax paying, goverment regulated business, and you have stepped over the line into that nether world of regs. They could probably put a new cord on it for fixing the router, and then replace your original, but that may cost more then just replacing it.
Don
Yep! Common practice.
Yup OSHA kicks in at 4 employees which put's Pc well over the lower limit.John O'Connell - JKO Handcrafted Woodworking
Life is tough. It's tougher if you're stupid - John Wayne
I worked for several years as a private consultant on OSHA regulations mostly with chemical, asbestos, and blood borne pathogens protection, but in the process I read through just about all of their guidelines and I've got a good sense of how they work. Without having the OSHA electrical regulations in front of me I can't be absolutely positive but this sounds like pure BS on the part of the repair center to me.
This may come as a surprise to the uninformed, but the vast majority of the OSHA guidelines are well thought out and are designed to be reasonable to enforce. Small nicks in the outer jacket of an electrical cord where the inner insulation around the wires isn't visible would never ever be a violation under OSHA regulations, there just isn't any hazard there.
The repair center is either badly misinformed or more likely has discovered a nice little profit maker that they can blame on big government.
Also, unless somebody gets killed on the job in the repair center, they will never ever see an OSHA inspector, there are way too many truly hazardous job sites around the country, like construction sites or oil refineries, for OSHA to waste its inspector's time by sending them into small shops that have no history of serious injuries or fatalities. If you want to challenge them at the repair center, ask them for some documentation proving that this is, in fact, a rule that OSHA is enforcing, I doubt if they'll have it.
John W.
Edited 7/15/2003 10:27:38 AM ET by JohnW
>>"This may come as a surprise to the uninformed, but the vast majority of the OSHA guidelines are well thought out and are designed to be reasonable to enforce."<<
John, I know you're not responsible for OSHA, so don't take this personally...But if a "guideline" is something that gets "enforced", it's not really a guideline. It's a regulation. I can understand how the government, through its boundless concern and compassion for the wellbeing of its citizens, might offer voluntary guidelines to assist private business and their workers...I can even see how a business owner's failure to follow these guidelines might strengthen an injured employee's case in a law suit, but that isn't the way it works.
The government, through OSHA, has discovered a nifty way to totally endrun common law and the judicial system...and put themselves in a position to arbitrarily search private property without a warrant, dictate what constitutes a violation and then arbitrarily assess what the penalties should be. It's nothing more than state sponsored extortion.
Although I'm now retired, I used to work for a small family owned company who had an employee get injured as a result of that employee's incredible lack of common sense. OSHA came in, thoroughly surveyed the entire operation in search of every nickel-dime "violation" (totally unrelated to the equipment involved in the accident) they could find. In fact, one of the "violations" was based on the OSHA agent's subjective evaluation of the amount of wear he noticed on lift truck forks...when I'm sure the only expertise with "forks" of any kind this arrogant young bureaucrat had he'd picked up at a diner on his way over from the OSHA home office.)
OSHA then arbitrarily established an "appropriate" fine...which, of course, came to a very punitive sum...from which they commenced to negotiate downward to what they arbitrarily felt was all they could extort out of such a small company without causing the company to lay off workers.
The bottom line is, OSHA is an absolute embarrassment of excessive governmental intrusion into the private sector. It clearly commingles the powers of the executive and judicial arms of government, which our forefathers were so careful to separate...and it places too much authority in the hands of an enforcement bureaucracy that has no legitimate reason to exist in the first place.
If what OSHA does strikes you as "reasonable", we clearly have a difference of opinion.
Edited 7/15/2003 1:58:18 PM ET by Jon Arno
Edited 7/15/2003 2:12:55 PM ET by Jon Arno
Edited 7/15/2003 4:42:58 PM ET by Jon Arno
Jon,
What's even more amazing is how much the goverment exempts itself from its own regulations. I first started noticing this when I was in the service with civilian contractors. Hasn't changed yet. Congress does the same thing. They are exempt from the same sexual harrasment laws we have to follow. DA's are exempt from the rules they enforce on others also. If they perjure themselves, you have no recourse but to complain, and hope the judicial system will enforce the rules on them. Recently saw a 60 minute or 20/20 piece on how a guy was railroaded through the courts in Chicago. Obvious and excessive abuse over and over, yet nothing happen to anyone except the guy who finally blew the whistle. He got fired.
Nope, I don't trust goverment, good intentions or not, for good reason.
Don
edit....BTW, this Chicago case is the one that led the govenor of Ill. to ban executions. The lead prosecuter of that case is also the Attorney General of Ill. now. Fricken sad. Politics is about as self serving as it gets.
Edited 7/15/2003 3:09:09 PM ET by Don C.
Don, another good example of governmental hypocracy is the substantially better retirement plan federal employees enjoy versus the social security system they've put in place for the rest of us.
...But I just get particularly vexed about OSHA, because I've personally witnessed them hose a reputable, 60 year old, small family business. A downright American version of Krystalnacht. Those SOBs ought to be required to wear brown shirts, arm bands and jack boots.At least that way you could see them coming.
Edited 7/15/2003 4:48:19 PM ET by Jon Arno
I don't think your example is an isolated case. Here's another .................. http://new.crosswalk.com/news/1190603.html If the wire wisk had been installed in the mixer, there would have been no fine. Assinine is the only word for the whole situation. If you're ever in that neck of the woods, they have the best crab cakes and oysters on the half shell around. It seems to me OSHA's approach is confrontational and unproductive. The little guy seems to get targeted and he doesn't have the means to fight it. And if he does have a real problem, the punitive fines swallow so much capital he can't fix the problem and he goes out of business, taking some good jobs with him. And where is OSHA when it really counts, such as in the chicken processing plant in North Carolina where 25 died and 54 were injured due to locked doors and other violations. There had been a fire there previously. Guess it's easier to go after a guy with the "wrong" attachment in the mixer.
A good friend of mine who works for the UAW went down to that fire to represent those workers. For union bashers, this was pro bono work by the UAW with no other investment in the tradgedy. The stories he had to tell about what those workers indured in that place, the fire aside, and the people that owned that place should have been in jail before the fire. Known violations abounded and nothing happened. OSHA is a funded regulator. What's their option? Limited resources against vast corporate resources. That means limited chances of success and recovering costs, or do you go after the little guy, suffering minor violations with little chance of presenting an appropriate violation response. OSHA is after the money, not saftey and health. Job security. Que Sera, in politics money talks, truth walks.
Don
The shame of it is that a whole host of federal, state, and even local gov't agencies operate the same way. Their first order of business is to perpetuate their existence. Better to run up the scorecard by going after the little guy than to focus their resources and go after the real bad guys.
Sorry if I am jumping in a little late, but I did want to correct something here. Social Security is a safety net, not a pension plan. Since 1986 all government employees pensions are now based on a 401k style plan and SS. And they do contribute to SS. The old Civil Service plan did not contribute to SS and those government employees may not claim SS based on their government service. If they do retire from government service, continue to work and contribute to SS, their SS check is reduced by a "windfall profit tax".Frank
You may be a little interested in Cal/OSHA history here in the grand state of confusion. We had our own aggressive (Jerry Brown era) OSHA here for years that established all kinds of standards and actually enforced them. Cal/OSHA was eliminated during Dukmejian's governorship (we would agree on nothing, but he was the last decent man to be governor here).
A number of years later, during Pete the Turd's governorship, Cal/OSHA was restored - during a business friendly republicrook governorship! It was restored because business demanded that it be restored because:
1. Cal/OSHA standards and inspections established a level of "due diligence" in worker safety and protected firms that complied from trial lawyers; and
2. Leveled the playing field costwise for firms that protected their workers out of fear of lawsuits or just plain decency by fining the bad guys (yes, there are lots of them out there) and bringing them into compliance.
The bottom line was that protecting workers pays and that surety in knowing what is expected protects firms.
None of this helps a firm against an overzealous inspector. But, think about how many workers have gotten serious shocks from bad cords! And yes, the agencies try to protect even idiots who seem to try to get killed!
Mike, I have no doubt California Industrialists would favor OSHA...But you're also right about you and I having a different slant on their motives. I'm sure you are right, at least in part, that the "certainty" of governmentally mandated regulations is comforting to big business in the litigation sense. Large corporations fear our Liberal courts and the lottery-like settlements they award...But the detail involved in complying with OSHA also serves their strategic objectives. It creates a competitive advantage (a barrier against competition) for the larger corporations. They can more easily staff to manage all of the regulatory grimble than can their smaller competitors.
Their more innovative, up-start competitors are much more burdened by massive regulatory programs like OSHA...They even have difficulty complying with IRS payroll deduction and tax documentation requirements without farming out these functions to expensive outside services. Anything that would stifle small businesses would certainly please the corporate giants. Unfortunately, it also impedes the progress of a free market.
...By the way, how's your state budget doing out there now that you've been blessed with Democratic governors for awhile? :O)
Most "lottery" awards are awarded by juires, and are later overturned on appeal.
And the McDonalds coffee case (I don't think it was you) the lady got 3rd degree burns over her legs and lower torso because the coffee was held at over 190 degress. Well above McDonalds corporate standards and above state regulations. This particular McDonalds had been cited many times for this particular violation and willfully ignored it. I think you have the right to expect to not recieve 3rd degree burns if you spill your coffee.
Personally I think it was Clairol's fault. The directions on the lip stick just aren't specific about how to put it on from the back seat while driving. How can you read the NY Times from that small screen on a Verizon phone anyway?
Don
Edited 7/16/2003 10:14:28 AM ET by Don C.
I don't know, Don...You might not have all the culprits in the docket on this one. Certainly the manufacturer of her mobile phone booth also has some culpability. After all, they should have included a cup of boiling coffee squeezed in the driver's crotch during road tests and then mounted a decal with the appropriate warning on the inside of the windshield.
I guess it's easier to make ridiculous assertions than to actually research the facts of the case. Good on you!
Derek,
My knowing much about the fire beyond what was in the news was nothing more then the fortuitous result of knowing someone who got involved. Beyond that, that bashing we do here (one way or the other) is too often the result of prejudices acquired from the extremes. Wether a bad corporate citizen who cheated employees out a general standard of respect we should all be accustomed to, or an attorney that gets a client an award that seems way beyond the boundries of what most consider normal balance of common sense, something brought us all to what we think of these anomolies. Unfortunately what gets lost in these extremes is the balance that never makes the "news."
My step daughter in kindergarden had a swing chain fail during recess in school. She was awarded $5,500 and in return has lived with a scar down the side of her face. As beautiful as she is anyway, we all, and her mostly would gladly trade the money for the scar. Understand we did not pursue this. This was the result of the school district, the insurance company, the courts and the natural process here when this sh!t happens. Unfortunately little attention is paid to the majority of cases like this one that involve chump change---one way or the other. I wonder why that is? (rhetorical--I have my opinons about why)
Don
Derek.
Sorry to go back to this.....
I agree Mc D's may be guilty of having their coffee to hot, but that is all.
She put the cup between her legs and burnt herself.
We don't need new systems, we don't need to get rid of the old systems, we simply need to point the finger in the right direction, grow up and take responsibility for our own actions.
Ben.
So you should expect that the coffee you buy will give you third degree burns (that means that the skin has been charred from your body) if you spill it?
We aren't talking a scalding, but 3rd degree burns. It was well over every recommended guideline for temperature, this store had been cited over and over again to turn it down, and yet they ignored it. I don't think that it's a reasonable assumption that coffee, If spilled, will burn the skin off of your body. EVER.
The McDonalds has a responsibility to provide reasonably safe products to it's customers. Coffee that can char the skin from the body is NOT reasonably safe, they were repeatedly warned about the temperature of the coffee, and it ended up hurting a woman.
You say people need to take responsibilty for thier actions, and I agree. In this case the McDonalds needs to take responsibility for serving coffee that was unreasonably hot.
Actually, it's physically impossible to char the body with hot water.
Requires a constant heat source.
Jeff
There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. Noone is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it isimportant to understand some points that were not reported in most ofthe stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it wasscalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, fleshand muscle. Here's the whole story.Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat ofher grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee inFebruary 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was servedin a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward andstopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to hercoffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, oftencharge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was inmotion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placedthe cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid fromthe cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilledinto her lap.The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it nextto her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered fullthickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groinareas. (Emphasis Mine) She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time sheunderwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridementtreatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonaldsrefused.During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claimsinvolved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. Thishistory documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature ofthis hazard. -Emphasis MineMcDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultantsadvice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit tomaintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated thesafety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sellcoffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home isgenerally 135 to 140 degrees.Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the companyactively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burnhazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was pouredinto styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burnthe mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burnswould occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducingthe "holding temperature" of its coffee.Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skinburns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a fullthickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimonyshowed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extentof the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid wouldhave cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work orhome, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own researchshowed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately whiledriving.McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that itscustomers want it that way. The company admitted its customers wereunaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee (emphasis Mine) andthat a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers ofthe hazard.The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amountwas reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent atfault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million inpunitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffeesales.Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at thelocal Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge calledMcDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.No one will ever know the final ending to this case.The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has neverbeen revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a publiccase, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting.Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned.
Derek
Sorry I wasn't more specific.
Third degree burns yes, charring no.
I am very familiar with the case, for reasons I won't get into.
I am also well educated in the medical field, also reasons I won't
get into.
I didn't mean to cause a flap, sorry about that.
Jeff
PS: I like all my hot liquids on the luke warm side as I always seem
to burn my mouth otherwise.
Edited 7/17/2003 5:32:07 PM ET by Jeff in Vermont
Edited 7/17/2003 5:32:53 PM ET by Jeff in Vermont
Derek, I think what troubles me most about your logic here is that it follows the Liberal axiom that when bad things happen to people, because they've misused a product, it is never their fault.
You contend that the coffee was too hot...but what is "too hot?" For example, was it too hot for the construction worker picking up some coffee to go for his construction crew at a job site five miles away? Isn't it better for take-out coffee to be as hot as possible? One can always wait until it cools down, but in an on-the-road situation few customers have a way to warm it up. To me, carry-out coffee that is a little too hot to drink at the time of purchase is actually a product benefit. Why was it McDonald's responsibility to anticipate that this ditz would be stupid enough to squeeze it between her legs?
When I think of all the perfectly well engineered products we used to have that have now been utterly destroyed by do-gooder safety regulations, it makes me sick. For example; self propelled lawnmowers. When I was a young man they actually worked...In fact, they were so good, it was difficult to imagine there could be a pattentable improvement left to be found...and you didn't even need a third hand to operate all the safety levers.
To me, it's especially difficult to understand how, of all people, a woodworker could be supportive of this regulatory, Big-Brother BS. We woodworkers get double dipped every time we have to replace our worn out power tools these days. A case in point is the new Makita planer I just bought, because I so loved the one that had served me so well for almost two decades...and guess what; now I have to keep a key tethered to it, because some bureaucrat decided that starting it up should be a little more complicated than pushing the green buttom...Every time I turn that damn thing on it makes me mad...Not just because of the inconvenience, but to think I was actually forced to pay some premium baked into the price of this planer for that idiot widget.
I'm almost afraid to replace my toothbrush for fear the next one will come with a nose-to-neck safety face mask...but then maybe I'll luck out and not live that long.
Edited 7/17/2003 2:50:38 PM ET by Jon Arno
Why was it McDonald's responsibility to anticipate that this ditz would be stupid enough to squeeze it between her legs?
I guess because you shouldn't be able to sell coffee that was so hot as to cause 3rd degree burns...and because holding coffee while trying to get the top off is pretty friggin common.
>>"I guess because you shouldn't be able to sell coffee that was so hot as to cause 3rd degree burns..."<<
Derek, thanks for the details on the McDonalds case and for sharing your above position on this issue...I can at least now see where you're coming from and it makes perfect, rational sense from a Liberal point of view...Basically, what you are saying is that, because a small minority of consumers don't have the common sense to safely handle a product, then all of the rest of us should be denied the opportunity to buy it. I guess, for the duration, I can now anticipate cold coffee on long trips, to go along with lawn mowers that don't work and planers that require a pre-takeoff check list.
... St. Peter, I'm ready.
"Basically, what you are saying is that, because a small minority of consumers don't have the common sense to safely handle a product, then all of the rest of us should be denied the opportunity to buy it"-Jon A
I guess what I am really trying to say is that a product sold shouldn't have a high likelyhood of seriously injuring someone without serious mishandling of the product.
I am actually more libertarian than anything but, i don't like quasi-political labels. And this case just bugs me because this woman was seriously injured and McDonalds knew of this very real danger and had been cited 700 times for similar injuries and refused to take any accountability. But then people talk about the woman driving who spilled hot coffee and sued and how she has no accountability.
As long as you know the facts of the case, then I am happy. Plus you know ALOT more about wood than me...so I'll have to choke on it! =)
>>"I guess what I am really trying to say is that a product sold shouldn't have a high likelyhood of seriously injuring someone without serious mishandling of the product."<<
Derek, I don't want to beat this pony to death either and. like you, I'd much rather be discussing wood...But I think your above statement embodies the very point I've tried to make. I'm sure, if you were able to gather the statistics, you'd find that the ratio between the number of cups of Mc Donalds coffee that are sold per year versus the number of individuals injured by it yields a risk factor that borders on the infinitesimal.
I'm just guessing, but I suspect even a ratio of 100,000 to 1 grossly overstates the odds. Driving a car, skiing...even slicing a bagel are all substantially more dangerous purpsuits. While it has a noble ring, "making the world a safer place" can be carrier too far. I'd much rather take a risk or two and preserve my right to buy the products I feel are best suited to my needs than to be ordered into a bubble chamber by my over protective government.
Edited 7/17/2003 11:37:38 PM ET by Jon Arno
Derek, I don't want to beat this pony to death either and. like you, I'd much rather be discussing wood...-Jon A
i think we understand each other, let's talk about funner things.
To me, it's especially difficult to understand how, of all people, a woodworker could be supportive of this regulatory, Big-Brother BS. We woodworkers get double dipped every time we have to replace our worn out power tools these days.
I see some merit in both extremes on this issue. That said... there are a LOT of woodworkers who aren't self-employed. OSHA serves a very important role for the woodworker who is simply trying to earn a living and provide for his/her family. American history over the last century is full of examples of business owners cutting corners on safety because they can make a greater profit by doing so. As long as that continues to be the case, and it is guaranteed to as long as we remain a Capitalist economy (something that I favor, BTW), the little guy needs someone to look out for our interests. OSHA, though admittedly sometimes a tyranical entity, serves that function IMHO.
As an aside, I was seriously injured on the job about 5 years ago. As a result I am legally considered to be permanently 10% disabled... for which I was ultimately given a permanent, nonnegotiable settlement of about $3500 + medical expenses and 70% of lost wages for six months... after having to retain an attorney to force the workmans comp insurance company to stop jerking me around and approve the surgery that was necessary in my case. While there were no overtly disobeyed OSHA regulations that contributed to my injury... the same task could have been performed with zero risk of injury if the company had wanted to spend the money to buy a machine to do the insanely heavy lifting instead of paying a half dozen shop guys to lift it manually. I did, however, witness deliberate, overt violations of OSHA regs at this same company. Violations which, if someone had been hurt, could have resulted in severe disability or even death.
The bottom line from where I sit is that while there are some problems with OSHA which I will readily agree need to be addressed and fixed... OSHA serves a very important function which should never be dismissed or belittled.
Regards,
Kevin
Kevin, like I opened with in my first post on this thread, I'm perfectly comfortable with our government conducting research and publishing guidelines with the purpose of making the work environment a safer place. OSHA's activities in this regard are perfectly legitimate. I also support stiff punishment for individuals who are found guilty of either willfully or negligently causing injury to others...but the operative phrase here is "found guilty."
I may be old fashioned, but I think the responsibility of finding guilt belongs to the judicial branch of government and it should be arrived at with due process and by the rule of law. OSHA's excessive authority in assigning penalties violates a very important principle of our democracy.
I also think that OSHA (and unfortunately our courts as well these days) are making a serious mistake in monetarily penalizing the company (or corporation) in settling these cases. The individuals within the business operation who are guilty of misconduct should be held personally responsible. Otherwise, the commission of these crimes are viewed by them as ordinary business decisions, based on profit and lost considerations...In other words, "am I financially better off obaying the regulation, or ignoring it and paying the fine?" The courts have taken the irrational approach of jacking up the cash settlement awards to rediculous levels in order to influence this decision and, unfortunately, that is the wrong approach. Individual fines and/or personal jail time would strip these reprobates of their corporate veil and this problem would go away in a big hurry.
Kevin, you and I probably agree that OSHA is a mixed bag. But I think you see it as mostly baby, while I see it as mostly bath water. I'd like to see it pitched out...or at the very least, see the judicial aspect of its enforcement arm amputated.
I could live with having the judicial aspect of OSHA's enforcement arm modified in some manner. I agree that there are some flaws on that end of the operation. But, I strongly support OSHA retaining the authority and capacity to fine companies in the name of preventing loss of life or limb. All the money in the world, via a Jury award, won't bring back a dead parent or replace an amputated arm, ruined eye, structurally destroyed back, etc. It is in preventing serious injuries that I see OSHA's greatest value to society and particularly for the little guy who has little choice but to take the difficult, risky blue collar jobs in order to simply surive economically.
The government can generate all the "suggestions" (AKA "guidelines") it wants and if there are no teeth to back them up nobody will take them seriously, least of all business owners and corporate executives. The point of OSHA is to create a workplace where the need to go to the judicial branch of government for a "guilty" finding becomes a moot issue. N'est pas? It's the same reasoning as that behind the screenings at passenger airports. What good would it do to wait until another psycho dives a plane into a crowded building before taking preventative measures that have real teeth? We both know that pinning up some government "guidelines" on the wall at the ticket counter wouldn't stop another 9/11. It would be absurd to expect that it would.
Regards,
Kevin
Derek.
Don't get me wrong here, I think what happened to this lady is horrible, it sounds like an extremely painful injury, I have sympathy for her.
I just think that putting a just bought cup of coffee between your legs and trying to take the top off, isn't the greatest idea ever.
I'm not standing up for Mc D's here, 190 degrees is seriously hot, probably to hot, I'm just worried were this leads to. Mc D's already has someone suing them for making them fat.
Opinions are like bottom holes.... everyone's got 'em, and that was mine.
Ben
In truth, the logjam is the fault of the republicrooks and the democrooks in the Legislature and a governor that had his ****'s cut off and isn't willing to fight for anything, including himself. The real culprit is the extreme Limburger-type polarization that has led each side to deny that the other side has any rightness on their side and that their side should get everything and the otherside nothing. This is the result of term limits - a very bad -good idea. Everyone is an amatuer and the extremists win. No one is there to just reconcile the differing interests and make the state government work.
My opinion: the biggest obstacle is the repubs who see causing a state train wreck as a way to get a republican governor. Thus, they are willing to strangle education, toss old folks out of rest homes, and pay us nothing until grey loses. Shame.
Note, as I read these posts I've never heard anyone, even you Jon, consider what the other side is saying and acknowledge that everyone's interests should be considered and balanced in a democracy (even have any value). I'll take that lesson, and I hope that some of the more rightwards folks would too, but I don't expect it.
Grey Davis? The worse overall governor we've had since Pete the turd. And my animosity towards old pety comes as much from his declaration that we who work for the state are useless and lazy - I have contempt for grey because he is useless. When we had an MTBE crisis, grey did nothing when he could have put in ethanol plants all over the state and boosted our agriculture, industry, and cut greenhouse gases. No initiative. When we had blackouts caused by texas energy thieves, he negotiated lousy contracts when he should have put solar panels on every roof. No vision. But, Issa and Arnold's visions, if they have any, will be ugly if you just an ordinary person. Oh, where is that white liberal knight when the country needs him/her? (The polically correct version).
In truth, the logjam is the fault of the republicrooks and the democrooks in the Legislature and a governor that had his ****'s cut off and isn't willing to fight for anything, including himself. The real culprit is the extreme Limburger-type polarization that has led each side to deny that the other side has any rightness on their side and that their side should get everything and the otherside nothing. This is the result of term limits - a very bad -good idea. Everyone is an amatuer and the extremists win. No one is there to just reconcile the differing interests and make the state government work.
Wahoo!! You'd get my vote! Very, very well said.
Regards,
Kevin
Mike, you have my sincere sympathy. I was born out there and my earliest childhood memories are of a Claifornia that was the nearest thing America had to a genuine paradise.
As for finding a Liberal "white knight" with workable solutions; lotsa luck...Now, if problem identification was what you really needed at the moment, you'd probably have Liberal champions coming out of the woodwork...But then, I think you've already found all the problems you need. :O)
We don’t need OSHA all we need is for state goverment to alow revenge on the superviser and the owner of the business.
Lets say you pick up a extention cord and you get a shock and you end up in the hospistal. When you get out you get to wire the supervisers nuts to extention cord for and hour and the owner/ceo of the company 2 hrs.
If the Gov. was to allow revenge the work site would become a very safe place to work. It would not take many owners/ceo getting their nuts fried until all the companies were very safety orientated. Until the government agree to that you need OSHA.
The real problem with OSHA is that they have been down sized so the only time they show us when some one has been serious hurt. OSHA and the companys now go to arbertation instade of court so the fines get cut to a joke. No one goes to jail for killing, seriouly injuring employee .
All though some states that has taken over OSHA from fed. and have put a program in that if you call OSHA and ask them to check the place for safety problems and sign a contract to fix all the problem they find immediately there will be no fine. Immediately dose not mean you get 3 bids and the cheaper one can’t start for 6 months to a year. Even with out that program there is still no good reason why company don’t do things according to OSHA. Allot of insurance company will send some one out to inspect your company "free" and give you a list of things you need to fix and do differently. With insurance co. your rates might go up if you don’t fix it. There are also paid companys that will check your compliance with OSHA and give you a report so you can fix the problems.
>>"If the Gov. was to allow revenge the work site would become a very safe place to work. It would not take many owners/ceo getting their nuts fried until all the companies were very safety orientated."<<
But Fred, The government does allow for recourse...It's called a law suit, brought in court...And this system has worked passingly well throughout the English speaking world ever since the time of king John...Although, I must admit your more Germanic approach to recourse isn't altogether without merit. I've had some bosses over the years that I would have taken great pleasure in watching them get "wired up."
---
>>"Until the government agrees to that you need OSHA."<<
I don't think so. I don't think the private sector needs any more government intrusion. The guilty need to be held accountable, but the gestapo-like tactics of OSHA aren't the answer. We need stiffer punishment for those guilty of wanton negligence, whether their collars are blue or white...but not at the expense of due process. Over the generations, we've paid too much in blood and struggle to now give up the rule of law...to anyone. And that includes the government.
cut the cord at the damage and install a replacement plug. And have done.
Nigelusa,
It's not my router, I didn't post the original message. My only contribution to this was to comment that I thought this was an extreme interpretation of the OSHA rules, which got the right wing going about "Big Brother Government", I should have known better.
In any case I agree with you, I've done exactly what you suggest on a number of tools. The added advantage, if you cut the cord down to a foot or so, is that it is easier to put the tool on a shelf or back in it's case without the cord interfering.
John W.
FWIW,
OSHA 1926.404 (b)(1)(iii)(C)
Each cord set, attachment cap, plug and receptacle of cord sets, and any equipment connected by cord and plug, except cord sets and receptacles which are fixed and not exposed to damage, shall be visually inspected before each day's use for external defects, such as deformed or missing pins or insulation damage, and for indications of possible internal damage. Equipment found damaged or defective shall not be used until repaired.
Just a little CYA on the part of the repair center.
In an electrical cord with a rubber or plastic outer sheath enclosing wires that have their own individual insulation, the outer covering is only considered to serve as protection against mechanical damage to the inner insulated wires. The outer cover is not considered to be electrical "insulation" under OSHA regs.
In other words, the outer cover is designed and expected to take some damage, that is what it is there for, as long as the inner electrical insulation isn't exposed, nicks and abrasion of the outer cord are expected and considered perfectly safe.
OSHA regulations do not require that a cord with ordinary wear and tear to the outer covering be discarded. If this were required, probably 99% of all electrical cords on work sites would be out of compliance, probably within minutes of their first being used. I have never heard of OSHA citing for electrical cords with ordinary abrasion as long as the actual insulation surrounding the wires wasn't exposed.
I still think the repair shop is intentionally misreading the regulations to fleece customers.
John W.
Edited 7/15/2003 1:56:27 PM ET by JohnW
Milwaukee Tools has detachable power cords on many of their tools expressly to avoid this problem. I have many of their tools and deal with the local repair center. If you bring in a tool with a removable cord, they will give the cord back to you and use their own "test & repair" power cord.
While John W. may have experience and insight into OSHA requirements, he is certainly niave at best about trial lawyers. The comment that,
"The repair center is either badly misinformed or more likely has discovered a nice little profit maker that they can blame on big government."
Is way out of line in my view. There is no way to determine the internal condition of the cord from the external condition of the cord's outer sheathing. For example, let's say I drop a 1/2-inch thick, 75 pound steel plate on edge across the cord. The outer insulation will show some abrasion and possibly a little damage - what's the condition of the conductors? Real good chance the insulation could be split and the conductors shorted.
That's all it would take for a product injury lawsuit. While the repair center did not cause the damage, as repair professionals they did nothing to protect the customer from potential injury - bingo $$$$$. Sure, I'll take that one on for a 30% contingency fee.
(In lawyerese that means I get 30% of the award, but you still have to pay me for all of my out-of-pocket costs unless you were smart enough to demand those costs are included in my 30%. So many people miss that small detail. In fact, the last award I saw that made my day was the lawyer that got $450K in fees awarded by the court, and his client got $50K - of which the lawyer grabbed another $30K in "costs." Copies, depositions, para-legal fees, etc. etc. Haaahhahhaahha. Lawyers, yah gotta love 'em.)
I'd say the repair center is erring on the side of being cautious - while protecting themselves against potential litigation. Is the customer paying for this "insurance"? Yes they are. However, you pay for that in all sorts of ways. At least $25 is tacked on to every ladder purchased for pre-paid insurance against product liability lawsuits.
If I was cynical I'd say "big government" should start doing something to limit lawsuits where it can be shown the "victim" caused their own injury through willful neglect, mis-use, or just plain stupidity.
CYA abounds. Michelin did a study and decided after all these years of front drive cars and radials that all of a sudden if you get two new tires they should go on the back. So you put the fresh treads on the wheels not propelling or steering the car? Counterintuitive at best. Anyway Costco will no longer put new tires just on the front.John O'Connell - JKO Handcrafted Woodworking
Life is tough. It's tougher if you're stupid - John Wayne
Get a second opinion! If they are too chicken sh*t to work on it find someone else who will. Don't be the victim of a thorough colon violation. If the concern is that they are an authorized repair shop tell PC that your going to buy Dewalt tools b/c in your opinion their cords hold up better! They might like to know what the repair shop is doing! GL
Klink
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled