Noiseless vs Jobless

There are some jobs that are inherently noisey.

Boiler Making is one trade that would be nigh on impossible to effectively hush and still be able to perform.

Boiler Making is metal working at its most base. An artform that is slowly being displaced to countries where the consideration of OH&S is minimal.

There are many trades where the impact of noise is unavoidable but the protection of the people working in and around can be effectively acheived by the right PPE (Personal Protection Equipment).

There is always a disporportional reaction by shiny bum pencil pushers to situations that those actually involved consider to be their environment and the SBPP's believe is a problem that only they can solve.

This is yet another opinion piece posing as a legitimate question.The basic generalization is biased with unsupportabel "facts": "They already have adequate protection"-- Who is they and what workers are you talking about? The choice is between protection and employment? Bull. So you don't like OSHA. We get it.

Step one, go backand read the lead article from the January 2011 newsletter.
Your reply seems aimed more at attacking the author than the question at hand. "adequate protection" is the currently issued ear plugs and muffs that OSHA now wants to use as "supplemental protection" only, even though cases of hearing loss have decreased between 2004 and 2009. Rather than my having to read back the entire article to you, I suggest you go back and read the lead article yourself to discover the "unsupportable facts". Until then, your "guest" reply is moot.

Yes.

Dumb question though. Who cannot afford 25 cents a day for disposable ear plugs, (thirty dollars a year for ear defenders!) and how would paying that piddly amount destroy jobs? Destroy jobs with more PPE? horse feathers! Actually, better PPE will allow workers to last longer in their trades, and be more skilled. More skill means more profits.

Speaking as a CEO of my own blacksmith/panel basher shop...

The OSHA proposal bypasses hearing protection calling it "supplemental measures" only. The increase in cost has nothing to do with existing PPE. It has everything to do with proposed decreases in exposure limits, requiring more shift changes (that usually won't sit well with workers) and most importantly, a large employer investment in noise reducing systems, enclosures etc around equipment where workers are already wearing "adequate" PPE. If it is "inadequate" PPE, then why are cases of noise induced hearing losses lower in 2009 than in 2004?

twenty years in the air force, and my hearing is down about 20 percent. Is it caused by the noisy jet engines, or the fact that I am getting older? I lean towards the getting older answer...my supervisors in the air force were VERY keen on making sure we all wore good ppe. When I left the airforce, I built a panel bashing shop which currently employs under five people. In my panel bashing shop, I installed sound absorbing tiles in the ceiling, and because I don't weld in there, I even have carpets on the floor. (we roll them up every year or so and toss them out....or when they get too full of metal filings to be comfortable to walk upon. The air extractor is outside, and the compressor is boxed in. There is also adequate lighting, and all safety guards are scrupulously maintained and in place on the equipment. Filter masks are provided, and maintained, and I demand that ear plugs or ear defenders are worn.

None of these things cost much money. The forum question suggested that using all these safety precautions might increase the cost of production, perhaps pushing it into uncompetitive ranges. The referenced article suggested that in lieu of good ppe that shorter shifts be considered. I really dont have a problem with that. Or of any measure which will cause managers to get off their butts and take better care of their valuable workers. Line workers can always finish out their shifts in quieter areas. (yeah, yeah...but a GOOD manager will find those areas or build them. I did.)

Now if the question was phrased differently, say...."How much PPE is enough, and how much is too much or not enough", then we would have a rousing good arguement, and all of us would be dragging up studies from all over. Fact is, noise is a fact of life, and it can be abated, blocked, or diverted by any manager with even the smallest amount of training in loss control. The world is far too noisy a place, and the workplace is a significant source of it. I can only applaud efforts to improve compliance to safety measures. OSHA would not be stiffening those requirements without statistical backup. In addition to protecting the guy on the floor, We also need to reduce the noise level of our environment. I managed to silence an anvil!!! (took twenty feet of old rope wrapped around it.) We could argue endlessly about the meaning of "adequate". Your stat that there was less hearing loss in workers since 2004 is proof positive that PPE is more widespread and that it works. Why would you argue with proven success?

Sometimes it devolves into a socialist versus non-socialist debate. I prefer to think of safety measures as loss control...a very capitalist ideal when applied at work. But those are emotion laden words, and when you strip them away, it simply means that short term scrimping on safety will result in long term losses in expertise, training costs and perhaps law suits which even if won will result in the loss of reputation.

all good points - I guess the real problem is that in these tight economic times, anything that places further pressure on employers stands to limit employment. Keep in mind the point that using affordable & proper PPE, hearing loss has decreased (according to the referenced article) between 2004 and 2009. So, is the extra protection in the form of more expensive sound mitigating structures / barriers worth the loss of jobs?

It sounds just like too much oversight in an area that is showing improved conditions in the past five years.

I've been working in paper mills, mining operations and other very noisy process areas for 20 years using ear plugs and muffs and my hearing is still very good.

Save tender ears so they can get blasted at concerts or in deep base thumpers that Tesla would be afraid of.

Blame it on industry and whine when jobs go to China or India.

Makes sense to me.

You got that right!

Next OSHA will say that an i-pod is acceptable PPE even if the volume is set to "eleven".

A (young) worker gets more hearing damage listening to their car stereo on the way to work than 8 hours next to a forging hammer wearing earplugs & muffs. LOL

This could devolve into a discussion about the value of the "nanny state". Such a discussion might be germane to this thread. But, it has been covered pretty well in the "seatbelt" thread, so please dont go there. As far as I am concerned, I don't care what you do on your own time, (unless you show up hung over or I have to stand bail) but when you come onto MY shop floor, you don't injure yourself if you can avoid it.That includes wearing ipods inside your ear defenders, or as I caught one fella doing, wearing audio headphones "instead" of my approved ear defenders You think safety is expensive....try costing out an "accident". Or a lawsuit!

Moreover, If I call your name and you can't hear me, you are not functioning as a team member. I know there is a real tendency to remove the human from the production equation, and lets face it, three employees equal three problems! However, a properly running shop should have well integrated members operating as a team. Two people working well produce the output of three. A deaf employee is harder to intigrate into the team, and may not be worth the trouble. If you let him go, you lose all those years of experience and training. If you keep him, you will have to work up a non-standard, possibly sub-optimal team solution. If he was deafened in your shop, then you have to ask your self "do you have an obligation?" Your bankers will be a lot harder of heart than you! These expensive problems are easily avoided by compliance to a third party directorate such as OSHA.

Well, enough of this. I have said my piece.
You can see that it is pretty level headed, some would say hard hearted. Gee, thats so NOT nanny state!

BeriBeri,

I live in North Carolina USA and we have a law that says you can't were head phones when driving. You can't hear sirens. But you can have 600 dbs of death metal or hip hop disseminating to the general area of the driver. That makes no sense either.

But that hour drive to work or concert has nothing to do with the evil "noise" at the job. What those ID10t s are listening to is "music". You know it can't hurt you. Geeze I thought you guys knew what you were talking about....

Dave P

I went to Taiwan a couple of years ago and visited an aluminum foundry. There was a worker dressed only in shorts pouring aluminum into a mold in a dirt floor foundry. No shoes, no shirt, no eye protection, and certainly no ear protection. Also, no sign of any EPA. I snapped a picture of it and gave it to one of our US casting suppliers. I thought he was going to be physically ill.

The government clampdown on hearing protection is a metaphor for intrusive regulation and the effect on industry. Yes it would be nice to take away all the potential bumps and falls from life and we all live to be a hundred, but then who takes care of all us old farts when there are no jobs?