140
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2023
140 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37728 readers
623 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Important context autotldr missed:
Yikes, that should be checked multiple times before someone gets close to the clawed aluminum cutting robot. Failure of process, I suspect.
Lock out procedure wasn't followed properly. You're supposed to check that equipment is in a safe state before you go into a dangerous area like that.
Yes but if for example management is pressuring employees to make repairs in X amount of time that causes them to have to rush, its the company's fault. Similar to Norfolk Southern giving train engineers 45 seconds per train car to do safety inspections.
the latter will necessarily follow from the former in almost every situation, because "inefficient workers" often get fired or are led to believe they will be fired and they have to make up the difference in that perception somewhere. this is still the company's fault
"over-stressing workers and pressing them to be as efficient as possible, causing them to cut corners with safety" is such a universal point of failure that it's frequent in every modern industry and a contributing factor in a huge number of workplace incidents and industrial disasters. respectfully, you would have to actively ignore reality to hold the position you currently do, and if you think that's the worker's fault and not the company incentivizing them to do unsafe things to keep their jobs, i can really only describe you as a corporate apologist or bootlicker
FWIW I've been a mechanical engineer for decades and they are right about this. Trust me instead. They're probably reacting with hostility because you're way out of line here; what you're arguing is anti-labor.
There is a profitable balance between productivity and safety, and they'll say one thing while firing people who are too unproductive.
Oh so your experience matters, but mine doesn't? I've presented the same quality of evidence that you have. There isn't a worse "look" than tirelessly arguing that labor is at fault for what we're de facto forced to do.
Yes but sometimes an employer's idea of efficiency and the real world do not line up. They won't tell employees to disregard safety protocols or urinate in bottles explicitly. It becomes the only way for the employee to meet their quota and keep their job.