Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Worker safety appeals board rulings raise question

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
ccharles000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 02:52 AM
Original message
Worker safety appeals board rulings raise question
Rosa Frias was working the evening shift at Bimbo Bakeries in South San Francisco when she reached into her bread-making machine to remove a hunk of dried dough.

She screamed as her left hand, and then her lower arm, were sucked into the gears of the Winkler stringline proofer. That night, the limb had to be amputated above the elbow.

The incident drew a $21,750 fine from the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health. But Bimbo paid nothing. It appealed to the Cal-OSHA Appeals Board, which dismissed the case on a technicality: The inspector had retired and Cal-OSHA could not prove that he had had permission to enter the factory.

Since that 2003 accident, five more employees in Bimbo's California plants have lost fingers or parts of fingers in accidents in which inspectors found similar safety violations. In two of those accidents, the appeals board reduced the fines by thousands of dollars.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-worker-safety21-2009oct21,0,3595409.story
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 02:58 AM
Response to Original message
1. Apparently the Cal-OSHA Appeals Board cleared its entire backlog by simply punting on all cases.
Not a very effective way of doing things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheMadMonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 04:30 AM
Response to Original message
2. The first safety violation was introducing body parts into moving parts.
There may well be serious issues with the appeals process, but in several of the cases cited, the primary error was on the part of the machine opperators doing things they bloody well shouldn't have.

One of the major problems with fitting safety equipment/shields which makes it "impossible" for operators to do things like this, is that they often hinder proper operation or maintenance of the machine and as a result operators (and owners) deliberately remove or bypass them. Guarding against accidental entaglement as a result of things like slips/falls is one thing, but to try to prevent deliberate unsafe actions on the part of operators this way is ridiculous. Proper education and a one way ticket to the dole queue for violators is the correct way to prevent incidents such as several of those cited.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC