The Illusion of Safety: Safe vs. Safer vs. Safer-er

[treehumper]

Not a well thought out plan? Huh?
Does the military, Coast Guard, police, border security, firefighters, doctors without borders, etc. have any choice not to expose themselves to injury...(regardless) "if the money is good enough"?
Certain jobs carry inherent risk.

But this is not a war, or emergency service as these are. On top of that, these are not jobs that are profit oriented or motivated. So let's not make comparisons between the oranges and apples.

Why do we rationalize a safe enough attitude with all kinds of platitudes about the inherent dangers of the work? That we're here to make money, that our clients don't care about giving us a paycheck, etc.... Essentially what is being said, is the client doesn't care if anyone gets injured or dies. To that I call BS. Do you really think clients aren't affected by a professional hired by them dying or being injured on their property? That's not how my clients think.

maybe your clients pay you 'so you can get a paycheck', but mine do not.

Mine don't either, but that doesn't mean I'm not there to collect a paycheck. I qualify my clients to fit my business model, one which begins with safety. That's the cost of hiring us, we get the work done, safely. If the client doesn't value that then, they aren't our client.

Not in my world. I charge exactly the same hourly rate, per man hour for anything I do.

Treework that involves greater risk is priced higher than pruning semi-dwarf apple trees in Bob's orchard.

In my world, the client who ignores a hazard tree (in some cases for literally years) is gonna pay more for my services because I'm going to be exposed to greater personal risk as well as the greater chance of a potential insurance claim for damage to that client's home / property.

Is it the risk or the steps necessary to mitigate the risk that leads to the cost? Are we putting a value on our lives that will be enough for us to take a greater risk, put our crew at a greater risk, our client's, families, etc...?

If the client's tree is hazardous then it's price should reflect the extra precautions needed to mitigate that risk. Whether it's elaborate rigging, specialized equipment or techniques but it shouldn't be for the potential of injury or lost life.

Mike Rowe is a nice, down to earth guy but in this he's wrongheaded and exasperates the problem by buying into the notion that money trumps safety. Done right, money is lead by safety. We stop accepting that uninformed buyers making life and death decisions. No, it will not happen every time but it happens enough due to foreseeable and preventable risks. There is danger and then there is risk. We have control over one not the other. Do we understand that difference and which one?

"When we start to believe that someone else is more concerned about our own safety than we are, we become complacent, and then, we get careless"

This is absolute tripe! It's when we don't believe that anyone else cares about our safety more than us. Sure we care about our safety but that complacency is ours and ours alone. When we believe others care as much or more then it gives us pause and a reason to be more vigilant. When our employer and supervisors demonstrate there concern by supporting our decisions that are driven by risk mitigation and make it safety a "precondition" to work, supply us with the tools to do the job in the safest manner then it elevates our practices in much more than just "being safe".

 

[Pelorus]

There are a myriad of jobs (roofing, ironworking, logging, underwater welding, et cetera that are inherently dangerous (and risky) which are profit motivated. Getting injured is not a question of "if" but "when".

I agree with Mike Rowe that money trumps safety. It absolutely does. Which is one reason a lot of 1st world companies outsource jobs to 3rd world countries with lax labour and safety standards. Ever see a documentary on ship breakers in India? Or electronic recycling in Ghana?

 

[Pelorus]

I qualify my clients to fit my business model, one which begins with safety. That's the cost of hiring us, we get the work done, safely. If the client doesn't value that then, they aren't our client.

If the client's tree is hazardous then it's price should reflect the extra precautions needed to mitigate that risk. Whether it's elaborate rigging, specialized equipment or techniques but it shouldn't be for the potential of injury or lost life.

Do you ask your clients if they value your safety? (am trying to wrap my head around that)
I ask them when they would like the work scheduled and give 'em a quotation. They usually ask me how much it's gonna cost, and if I'm insured. Rarely does Worker's Comp get mentioned. Rarely does the client ask to see certificates of the above.

As to the other paragraph re. price re. risk mitigation vs. potential for lost life, I would say that this is pretty academic. Money doesn't have a soul or conscience.

 

[treehumper]

Do you ask your clients if they value your safety?

That would make a pretty good Monty Python skit....
Salesman (think John Cleese) : "Now then how many of our employees are you willing to see killed or maimed on your job?"
Client (Eric Idle in drag) : "OH Dear! Why would I want that!?"
Sales : "Well it would change the price, wouldn't it."
Client : "Really? How does that work?"
Sales : "The more you're willing to be killed or maimed, the cheaper the job will be!"
Client: "Ohhhhh..... how many will there be?"
Sales : "On a job this size, I'd say 3."
Client : "How much for all 3?"
Sales : "Well that's a bit much, isn't it? How'd we finish the job?"
Client : "Oh, yes... Didn't think about that."
Sales: "Right then, 2 is the maximum."

We're a bit more subtle than that, but it can be phrased in a way that reveals their level of interest in not having someone die or be maimed on their property. Sort of like determining whether that lovely bed of petunias is important to them or that garden gnome at the foot of the dead ash tree.

We talk about our safe work practices and commitment to our employees wellbeing. I've yet to hear a client say, well I don't give a fuck about that, just get the tree down will ya!

I ask them when they would like the work scheduled and give 'em a quotation. They usually ask me how much it's gonna cost, and if I'm insured

That may be the problem. If all you do is then give them a date, price and an affirmative to the insured question, then you're not selling to their value, your quoting. Here in the US of Litigation, WC often is mentioned. Actually when a client asks about insurance its a segue into the types and amount of insurance we carry and how it will protect them. That ranges from our general liability, bonding and, WC. We are demonstrating our level of professionalism.
Comes across much better than saying, "Well as little as possible to cover my equipment because I get pulled over too often to avoid it, I'll have you sign a waiver clause that indemnifies me against claims for damages and well, I just hire independent contractors and pay day laborers under the table to avoid the cost of WC and thus allow me to bid this job cheap! Just for you!"

 

[Pelorus]

Demonstrating level of professionalism via display of paperwork is something alien to me.
(I do have all requisite documentation on hand if asked)
Two tree companies in my immediate geographical area have each had a worker killed doing treework. One other one has a former worker paralyzed in a wheelchair. Pretty sure all three of them can wave certs of insurance and WSIB coverage around...
Even the ISA cert. arb credential is something I'll likely renew one more time. Anyone (literally anyone) can call themself an Arborist.

 

[treehumper]

There are a myriad of jobs (roofing, ironworking, logging, underwater welding, et cetera that are inherently dangerous (and risky) which are profit motivated. Getting injured is not a question of "if" but "when"

And all of these industries have taken steps to reduce that risk because of the inherent dangers. Did you watch the video? Mining and smelting is a dangerous industry, yet ALCOA reduced the number to .13/100 worker accident rate overall and made record profits. This is a shareholder owned company. Can't be more profit, read money, oriented than that. Yet because the CEO without exception took a stance that safety comes first or as he said, is a PRECONDITION of work, made a safe work culture highly profitable. Called it a keystone habit that leads to other habits that in turn create higher net revenues, NOTE, NET, as in after expenses, and record profits.

Money doesn't have a soul or conscience.

no it doesn't but those who are rewarded by it do, or at least should have. Again, that is a cultural issue, as in corporate culture. Companies that actually demonstrate just such a soul and conscience do well. The more we as an industry stop accepting "safe enough" and act as a whole the more clients will accept and come to expect nothing less from the companies that perform work at their properties.

Speaking of "safe enough", what is that? Why is now or the recent past the standard of safe enough? Why not 30, 50, 100 yrs ago? If we can all go gaga over the latest piece of big iron that'll chip that whole tree into sawdust in 30 seconds or that big ass crane that'll pick up a 100 tons and plunk it down wherever you want it, then why not go gaga over something that'll save some more lives and reduce the rate of incidents to .12/100?
WTF?

 

[SomethingWitty]

This thread is good.
I like all of the debate, have had some strong opinions on and knee-jerk reactions to both sides, and realize how my position on these topics have changed over the years.

BUT extra billing because "this tree is sketchy and I perceive an appreciable chance of being maimed or killed while performing my work" is nonsense.
I have explained it to my crew before that an 'A' doesn't cut it, and if I'm only 90% sure that a tree won't murder me, I'm changing the plan, budget be damned. If it's a deck or fence.... Eh. That's more of a grey area.
Nobody checks to make sure we follow the "rules" but I generally appear to be doing work by ANSI standards because I know what I'm doing, which is getting my job done as safely as I can while not getting bogged down by nonsense (an independent suspension line for saws over fifteen pounds? Psh).

I don't much care if people that I don't know who don't have the sense to not die trying to do tree work die. I just like seeing the pros and cons of all of these ideas being presented.
It is a strange feeling when people tell you that your job is dangerous... And after explaining how you can manage risks so that it really isn't so bad, they tell you of some friend or uncle or grandfather who died felling a tree.
I would like very much to not be someone's evidence that my job is dangerous. Maybe even enough to work for 10 extra minutes a day from a few added steps.

 

[treehumper]

Demonstrating level of professionalism via display of paperwork is something alien to me.
(I do have all requisite documentation on hand if asked)
Two tree companies in my immediate geographical area have each had a worker killed doing treework. One other one has a former worker paralyzed in a wheelchair. Pretty sure all three of them can wave certs of insurance and WSIB coverage around...
Even the ISA cert. arb credential is something I'll likely renew one more time. Anyone (literally anyone) can call themself an Arborist.

You do understand that you're showing evidence of a level of professionalism. Whether it's alien to you or not is inconsequential unless you're the client. The client however, will see that piece of paper, signed and delivered by a reputable third party, i.e., your insurer, and feel different. Then again, it is up to the client and whom you choose to deal with.
As for the incidents, what's your point? That these companies are all just a sham? Maybe. That'll be up to them to review what happened and what they did or didn't do that led to the incidents. If they espouse a safe work place and the incidents were foreseeable and preventable, why did they occur? What do they need to do differently to ensure everyone embraces the commitment to no more accidents. I really am getting the impression you didn't read the article or listen to presentation I posted a link to. Watch the 12 minute video of his speech and listen, really listen to what was done to create a safer work place.

While the ISA CA isn't actually rocket science is a starting point. Think it's not enough or could be better? Then get on the committee and help make it so. Instead of belittling the efforts of those who do volunteer to act. Sure it's akin to herding cats but its better than nothing and is a work in progress.

 

[treehumper]

BUT extra billing because "this tree is sketchy and I perceive an appreciable chance of being maimed or killed while performing my work" is nonsense.

Right! But maybe it would be better to say, I perceive an appreciable chance of being maimed or killed while performing my work in the usual way therefore I'm going to take some extra steps, maybe use a couple of useful tools and techniques that reduce that chance to a minimum at the time the job is being priced will lead to the appropriate amount being charged to afford those extras.

Too often safe work practices are ignored because of the expense to which I say, nonsense. That's the cost of doing business right. Build it into the price and be sure to value sell it to the client.

 

[SomethingWitty]

Right! But maybe it would be better to say, I perceive an appreciable chance of being maimed or killed while performing my work in the usual way therefore I'm going to take some extra steps, maybe use a couple of useful tools and techniques that reduce that chance to a minimum at the time the job is being priced will lead to the appropriate amount being charged to afford those extras.

Too often safe work practices are ignored because of the expense to which I say, nonsense. That's the cost of doing business right. Build it into the price and be sure to value sell it to the client.

Yep

 

[Pelorus]

I watched the video.
It was good. Impression of the fellow (Paul O'Neal) is of an honorable and decent man. Story of feeling responsible for the 18 year old employee getting whacked was interesting.
A bit of a optimistic stretch though to directly correlate Alcoa's increased profits to increased safety. You can't do that. And you know it.

 

[Pelorus]

...Instead of belittling the efforts of those who do volunteer to act. Sure it's akin to herding cats but its better than nothing and is a work in progress.

I'm on record as saying that a baboon can pass the current exam, but I hardly think that is belittling the efforts of volunteers.
Baboons are strong resilient creatures.

 

[SomethingWitty]

The trick is that nobody can cut corners and slash prices because they aren't taking the safety measures. Then the reasonable, sober, professional companies become the spectrum of bids rather than the upper half of the spectrum. Everyone who plays nice and safe makes more money.

 

[SomethingWitty]

A "tree rights" movement might make it easier.
If people got in as much trouble for cutting huge leads off of mature trees as they would for chopping a leg off of their dog (to make it cuter, all hobbling around), there might be some hesitation to just let some cheap old jackleg come hack on your tree because "he knows what he's doing".

 

[RopeShield]

Really loved what Moss has said.
For me crawl, walk and run.
Things only get really fun when we start to fly.
How fast and far can you fly? Safely?
What kind of work can you do? Safely?
What is the most fun?
Flying right? Rigging and man.
Money is the icing on the cake.
And doing it pain and injury free allows you to due it over and over again.
We owe it to the next generation to share this philosophy.
Your best safest SELF will take you higher, further and faster. fly you monkeys

 

[treehumper]

I watched the video.
It was good. Impression of the fellow (Paul O'Neal) is of an honorable and decent man. Story of feeling responsible for the 18 year old employee getting whacked was interesting.
A bit of a optimistic stretch though to directly correlate Alcoa's increased profits to increased safety. You can't do that. And you know it.

He was the CEO for 13 yrs reporting to a board of directors and shareholders. He could and did correlate the two. If you want and have the time there's a 1 hr 7 min. video of the entire presentation.

Safety is part and parcel of a larger perspective. It is integral to key ideas of leadership. He says that in an organization with the potential for greatness everyone should be able to answer "yes" to these 3 questions:

Are you treated with dignity and respect every day by everyone you encounter in the company?

Are you given the things you need, tools, equipment, training, encouragement so that you can make a contribution that gives meaning to your life?

Do you get recognized for what you do?

You can't say people are our most important asset and then emphasize profit over taking care of those assets. More importantly he reinforced this by saying and making safety his primary focus and that when a deficiency in safety was recognized they were to resolve it immediately, not budget for it, fix it.

"Safety should never be a priority, it should be a precondition."

All of this, throughout his tenure just led to other aspects of improved performance. Imagine the change in morale and commitment to the success of the company by employees when they saw the CEO taking it to management and holding them personally responsible for the well-being of the employees.

So, when you say it can't be done, you're really saying that my staff isn't worth the effort. It can be done and is done. But if you don't commit to safety as a precondition of organizational behavior then you're right.

 

[treehumper]

A "tree rights" movement might make it easier.
If people got in as much trouble for cutting huge leads off of mature trees as they would for chopping a leg off of their dog (to make it cuter, all hobbling around), there might be some hesitation to just let some cheap old jackleg come hack on your tree because "he knows what he's doing".

The stick approach, i.e., getting into trouble for doing something, doesnt' work. Besides it requires enforcement which, as we know all too well, is a challenge at the best of times.
But we do need a better means of conveying the value of healthy trees and urban forests to our clients and the community at large. Instead of seeing trees as just so much standing timber they need to see them as a valuable asset in their landscape that they need to invest in to maintain that value and the services they provide. Just as they will invest in upkeep of the roof, furnace, A/C, plumbing, etc... they need to invest in their trees.

 

[treehumper]

Let me ask this, When it comes to the performance of your job to you strive for "good enough" or your best? When you hire someone to work for you, who do you choose, the person who will work to a standard of "good enough" or, the person who will work to their best with a commitment that each day they look to improve on their best?

Then why would we ever settle for "save enough"?

 

[Pelorus]

I consider myself an adequate arborist.
When the job is 1. completed in a timely fashion, 2.meets or exceeds the clients expectations, and 3. nobody has been crunched, then I go home and relax with an ice cold root beer and a bag of bbq chips. It's as good as it gets.
I've given up searching for the mythical utopian ideal employee. As long as they are dependable, semi-intelligent, trustworthy, and willing to work hard, it's ok.
If they want to learn knots and trees, that's awesome. I've purchased and given away quite a few copies of Jepson's "Tree Climber's Companion" and "Knots for Tree Climbers"
As an aside, the most qualified (lotsa certs and credentials) fellow who ever worked for me also caused me the most aggravation. He would do dumb stuff on a regular basis. Not the same mistake twice; variety was key. And I'd come home kinda worn out and tell my wife "I gotta fire Andy". She would talk me out of it. It went on all summer till late fall when things slowed down, and he got hired on by Hydro One. Super nice fellow, who was interested in learning. Just a bit absent minded sometimes.

 

[moss]

Back to the original post... the biggest irritant in all of this is when you post something and then get jumped on for not being safe. I think that's what Mugg's is really getting at. It's super easy to armchair "Gotcha!". Some people like to do it more than others, they become known as the Safety Police. It's fine to safety police on the homeowner who's about to crush their child felling a tree. A little trickier when you're dealing with a professional who's doing something in a particular situation where they've worked out the risk variables and made a decision to act and they feel that it is a good decision whether or not it is following a particular rule. One-handing a top handle saw is a great example, goes something like this: "We know everyone does it at one point or the other, just don't publicize it because we're trying to set a good example for the community". Super tricky. So instead of jumping on a worker who makes informed decisions at least show respect to the professional and check-in with them to find out what's up before doing the public gotcha. Tricky business, I don't know the answer.
-AJ