Holding Corporations Responsible

places full responsibility on businesses to put in place stringent health & safety practices.

All the safety procedures can be put into place, but an individual that is careless, irresponsible that can put himself and other people in jeopardy. The company is responsible for him.

And if the company discovers this person that is careless and irresponsible that doesn't follow safety procedure, can the company not only fire him but fine and penalize him also.

Is this a case of too much governance?

Yes, and the reason why is when does the individual take his own responsibility?

phoenix911

So in the case of shoddy goods purchased from overseas, how do they enforce this? Just enforce on the importer? what if his supplier changed the spec with out notifying them? How does this reach into another country?

milo

I quite don't follow. I thought that this was internal of a country. Or did I not read it correctly.

I did'nt realize that this would be applied internationally. Human rights have been an issue for quite some time.

As far as the supplier changing the specs. read the sellers purchasing agreement/contract. They can get around that by stating the seller has the right to change or replace the product........
Enforcing another country practices is not only difficult but near impossible.

Only future orders or lack of them would make them change

I have seen " circuit breakers " that had no mechanism only wire straight through. they were obvious counterfeits. but the breaker doesn't function accident ensues, and now their is a fatality. Who to blame? purchasing? electrician who installed? importer/ or producer of counterfewit goods?

Same could happen for lifting devices, lockout swiches etc.

milo

I see what your getting at........maybe the bean counter who spec. it, looking for short term savings/profits.

If so my original post still stands. Can the company address this person along with firing him/her.

I worked for a major auto manufacturer in New York. We had lockouts and the management had the electricians bypass the lockouts with other keyed locks around the corner. They would energize systems I was trying to pipe out, activating the robots in paint booths, where we were working. Finally, out of frustration, I designed and had to build and install a device which would cover the keyed bypasses also and I threatened management that if the robots were armed again while I was in the vicinity, there would be hell to pay.

I received a suggestion award, but it was only worth $200 maximum because it had to do with worker safety. If it had to do with saving the corporation money, then the award could be more than $10,000. Shows you where safety rates wtih American corporate management.

About lifting devices I had come across simple Chain Pulley Block mfd. in China sold @$20/- for 1 Tonne capacity.Whereas locally mfd. good quality was sold @ $50/-. While working Chinese make would fail within few weeks and if you are lucky without any accident.Whereas locally made would last for years without any trouble. Yes, corporates have to avoid buying shoddy goods at cheaper prices.Otherwise pay heavy prices.

Suresh Sharma.

I hear you loud and clear, suresh.

Here's a real "gotcha" it is a winch bar made in Taiwan by "Usa products."

The web site caption is "USA PRODUCTS 05304 "PRO VALUE" STANDARD WINCH BAR"

Deliberately confusing... Purchasing agent better be on their toes...

milo

The engineer's job is to spec what is needed to get the job done right. The bean counter's job is to reduce costs. The purchasing agent's job is to get the stuff in that's needed, but he is held accountable by the accountants and upper management for lower costs. If the right stuff is spec'ed, but the accountants and management make purchasing order a low cost "equivalent", who is responsible? The engineer who wrote the request?

From the original blog topic.

It's like if everyone did the right thing. And a purchased crucial product fails due to poor quality from supplier. It sounds like the law states the business is responsible.

Sounds like it would turn out to a free for all for the attorneys till the money runs out.

"Sounds like it would turn out to a free for all for the attorneys till the money runs out."

Thats about right.

milo

In looking at this topic and considering the companies I have worked for I have to concur with the concept behind this law. During 40+ yrs on the job, I have worked for companies that made safety "job one" and others companies that gave lip-service to safety. Guess what? The mentality of mid-level and upper-level management in a company that gives safety the lip-service is the same type that runs a company into the ground and then reaps large benefits for the CEOs and other corporate managers while leaving the workers holding the bag with bankruptcy, etc. Doing things in a safe manner generally involves added safeguards costing money and "greed" says if I can skimp on doing the job right I will save money for my supervisors and receive kudos (and maybe look good to them resulting in promotions, etc. (ie: a very myopic worldview). Short-sighted management also results in poor profits longer term and the need to out-source jobs to other countries to reduce costs.

While I am fairly sure that I do not share the same views as many in this august forum, I am firmly convinced of the need for "unionization" of scientists and engineers, not because I believe it would help improve the wage situation for myself (I'm retired) or other scientists and engineers, but because I believe that if the scientific mindset is to prevail over the bean-counters and others whose only concern is to save money without consideration of the importance of practical and scientific matters (for which they are totally untrained), it is necessary to hold management accountable for their actions; an individual engineer typically cannot do this.

Safety is critical on the job and unless the government puts teeth into the law to make management responsible for poor choices we all suffer. Such a law is a good idea and has been delayed far too long; but that's just my 2 cents worth.

it's probably a waste of legislation...the guys at the top will always wriggle free and the poor guy at the sharp end will carry the can.

E.G Zeebrugge disaster... the mangement enforced a schedule so tight that the ferry had to set sail before the bow doors were fully up, this was their operating procedure.
Who carries the can for this unsafe procedure?
The guy operating the bow door....
Mangement walk off free...

Del

The new "act of 2007" is another example of shifting the responsibility for ones safety to others. As long as the hazards are fully disclosed and the truth is not hidden, I prefer to be responsible for my own safety, thank you. Exercising ones own judgement in being safe will reward those who pay attention and eliminate those who do not. That is the "natural way", and it has been like that for the majority of mankinds existance. Recently that has changed and the result is an overall dumber society.

So the solution is to make certain that companies are telling the truth and not hiding any hazards. Then individuals can make their own decisions.

#28 Engineering

This was a Nice insight and a great way to reframe the real issue: who is really responsible ( we ourselves) vs what is needed to be safe(all the facts)

Good answer,#28 engineering.

milo

survival of the fittest.

good response #28 Engineering