cited by osha

Wearing only the helmet face screen will get you a fine if you get inspected by OSHA, but you probably know that the screens don't pass the Z87.1 standard.

A company in Ft. Collins got fined because their climber took off his glasses because of fogging. He kept working and that lead to the fine. Stopping to clear the glasses and then continuing to work is allowed if there isn't a present danger of getting something in the eye.

I quit using earmuffs by themselves when I found out how much sound leaked in around the bows of my glasses. You could pick up a bit of attenuation by getting the Peltor muffs with the red spacer in them. They have more sound protection that might balance off the leakage. Probably not though since the sound would already be inside the muff from the leak.

I use Tiger Tails. They attach to the bows of my glasses with a small coiled lanyard. They're right there when I need them. So far, knock on wood, I've never had an problems with ear infections.
 
So the company got cited for the climber removing glasses for fogging? That is excatly what I'm talking about- Inspector could not understand that when your glasses are fogging they are going to repeatedly fog creating a more dangerous situation than sawdust in your eyes(because he never worked for a living). Climber was probably under pressure to get the job done That is why I took to wearing smiths- they don't fog. However that said- they are not compliant eyewear. I took my welder style glasses to an eye doc and got glass (safety) put in. I got yellow- you can see good up in a canopy. Expensive but fogging problem reduced.
I use yellow plugs with my muffs. In and out is a pain- but not as bad as the noise.
For the record as well- osha inspector did try to get me to rat out other companies in the area that are non-compliant.
 
Whether the inspector is experienced in every field they inspect or not is a moot point. Set that aside. What is the reason for wearing safety glasses? To save your eyes. It took me a while to find a combination of glasses/helmet/antifog to keep my glasses clear. Before I got that solved, I would justify not wearing fogged glasses too. It never felt right to me.

It's much easier to have knife-edges than gray areas between right and wrong. Too much interpretation and hard feelings.
 
Excuse me but I thought that this forum was the right place to air gripes such as mine. Don't get me wrong- I am not embittered by the osha experience. I guess alot of my feelings toward the whole experience are my general unhappiness with our government in general. I suppose I have sort of a Liberatarian view of things to where I feel like if I am not hurting any one but my self then what is the big deal? Yes I am rebelious towards authority- I left home at 17 and have always fended for my self with no support from any person or entity.
However that said I also like to think that I am capable of learning from my mistakes and taking responsibility for them. I must admit that there is a certain feeling of security from wearing saw pants(albeit hot as heck at this time of year). Although I feel as though I was and have been very safe over the years I now have had cause to re-evaluate my methods. I know for a fact that I also am a very lucky man- every day I expect to be struck by lightening out of the clear blue sky by virtue of the bounty that I have recieved up to this point.
So as I said, I am not embittered- on the contrary I feel very happy and fortunate. The whole experince just happens to have concured with some other very stressful, heavy things going on in my life.
So catering to my very strong desire to have the last word - you have to admit there is something to this when grown men are discussing the virtues of different sets of $200.00+ pants.
And lastly an attempt to kill this thread on a more jovial note- And now for something completely different- a man with three buttocks.
 
Could we re-make "The Holy Grail" but have the Knights that go Nih [???] suit up in chainsaw gear instead of soup cans?

When I was in Scotland I got to see the castle where THG was filmed. It was off in the distance though.

A while ago I read "The Rest of the Story" about "Bring me shrubbery!" and the character who is a "Shrubber" Turns out it's not what we think it is. Nothing to do with gardening. I'll leave it to any Pythons to sess out the meaning, you'll get a chuckle at how clever those guys are...once again!

It does seem a bit absurd talking about $200 pants. The same as trying to get another 100rpms out of a production saw by some hot rodding process. :) We're all nerds in some part of our lives...
 
I saw the smiling face of the German version of OSHA step on my site today. We immediately shut everything down. He checked PPE, recommended a few improvements and then went on his merry way.

He had a bit of a chip on his shoulder, but yes sir, no sir, and respect bought us a lot. I took the time to stop by their booth at the arbo convention in Augsburg and he remembered me. Networking definitely helps.

The inspection reminded me of being stopped by mexican police or a small town cop in Texas - if they want to find something, they will.
 
Nathan- it sounds like the osha guys there are a little more reasonable. When I was having my informal conference the gal asked me what I thought should happen in regards to my citations. I said I thought I should get a stern warning, to which her reply was " osha is a regulatory agency. We don't give warnings."
The one comforting factor for me was that in my inscessant whining about my citation to any other trades men that would listen was this: I have never seen a more universally hated agency (with the IRS a close second).
 
It seems no one in the United States is responsible for what they do anymore and we keep taking the responsibility away by putting more rules and laws in place.

Fast food chains are responsible for making us fat.

Cigarrette companies are responsible for making us smoke to our death.

Schools are responsible if our kids get pregnant at the age of 15 cause they didn't teach sex ed good enough.

McDonalds is responsible if I spill a hot coffee on myself and get burned.

The landowner is resposible for my broken leg if I run across his yard and step in a hole.

And our government is responsible if I cut my leg with a chainsaw at work. WHY CAN'T I BE RESPONSIBLE!

If I think I may get heat exhuastion on a 100 degree day with the use of chaps, why can't I take them off and continue the job?

If my glasses are making an unsafe situation, why can't I take them off and be responsible for something getting in my eye? Why can't I weigh my actions to choose what I feel is the safest way for myself?

If I get heat exhaustion wearing chaps, or make a mistake from my fogged glasses, or trip on my chaps and brake my wrist; can I sue OSHA for making me wear them?

Here's a serious question though: If I'm the owner of my tree service. And I filled out the form so that I'm excluded from my Injured Workers policy. Do I really have to follow all the PPE rules??? I do anyway, but I don't think I should have to. I don't hurt anyone but MYSELF, not insurance companies, not a boss, no one but myself. Does anyone know if I would be excluded. I doubt it, but just thought I'd ask.

Also, this 95 degree hot and humid weather is a pain this year, seems hotter and more humid for more days this summer. My ground guys wear there proper PPE and I find them putting on the chaps to make a few cuts while chipping then taking them off again, then on again for one little cut, then off again. I don't blame them, it's freakin hot this year. But boy it's a lot of time spent in a day putting on and taking off chaps.

Now one of you will take one or two of my sentences and pick at that little part. But really, you have to admit, some of these remarks are some good points aren't they?
 
Hell yea.
dude.gif
 
Be careful, by questioning OSHA requirements, you may be violating some obscure OSHA requirement!-haha. --Oops sorry.

Seriously, you can(as owner) and would be excluded only from the insurance coverage, but not from OSHA or any other prof. requirements.

Many great points though!

We should be meeting requirements to fulfill the good purposes for which they were intended, not just to be policed or for the sake of meeting some obscure provision of the code which has no bearing on anything, but obviously the gov. has turned it into a turkey fest where they only simply care if we meet provisions and not whether life or property is made more safe, which is the heart or intent of the laws.

Touche' Xman!
 
Or you could do like my "kid" sister did a few years ago and testify at a congressional hearing, pointing out the fallacy of some of OSHA's proposed regs, to good effect.

I may be wrong about it, but am under the distinct impression that the regs only apply to employees. If you've incorporated and are an employee of your own company, they'd apply to you. But would not otherwise.

Glen
 
We have the right to refuse here if the work can't be done safely.
We never get inspected by Canada Labour and after having a serious accident and reporting it to the ministry of labour five weeks ago myself it still hasn't been investigated.
Unless the worker dies or is permanently disabled they really aren't interested.
The company boasts that our "in house training" is second to none and the indicators are proof of that but they don't report accidents to the MOL so we have excellent results.
I think someones palm is getting greased. /forum/images/graemlins/cool.gif
 
Yes X you can be cited as owner if you are an LLC or a corp. This is what happened to me(LLC). Your other points aptly describe what is wrong with this country(partially)
 
[ QUOTE ]
I believe that many OSHA regs are enforced at the owner level. Some, like not wearing a helmet, are applied to the employee directly, but I believe others will go to the head office.

[/ QUOTE ]
Mark, there may be a distinction missing from our statements. I think you've hit upon it with a glancing blow. The distinction is whether or not an owner(s?) is an employer. I'm fairly certain OSHA regs pertain to employees, thus their employers. If there are no employees there is no employer and the whole body of regs is impertinent. Laws/regs have limited scope even though foolish (though hopefully well-meaning) "officers" occasionally attempt to go beyond it.

It's my understanding that OSHA regs are in place not to ensure we'll be safe in wherever/whatever we do, but to protect us as employees from perhaps less-than-scrupulous employers.

Okay, just back from a rabbit-chase. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSHA says "OSHA's statutory authority extends to most nongovernmental workplaces where there are employees."

Back to the distinction: it's a moot point, perhaps, for some of us here (such as yourself :) but I believe some of us are "one man shows" or thereabouts. Perhaps in such a case if an OSHA "revenuer" sauntered onto the jobsite, a quick "there are no employees here" should get them turning on their heels if they're even halfway up to speed on things, regardless what it might have been that caught their eye in the first place.

Glen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom