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

It's ironic that the very thing that one complains about is what one does. It's all about their ego? Well wasn't the video or photo someone posted about their ego?? Maybe, just maybe, it's that having seen it and swiped past it with a shudder that it finally comes down to saying something. Let's face it, the posting of pics and vids is meant to elicit comment. When it's not all high fives and awesomes the poster gets butt hurt. More of that irony.... Here's the big, tough, tree dude trying to tell the world or whatever billions are on the net what a badass they are. Soon as someone points out that they may in fact be a bit of a danger to themselves and others, they pout (in a manly way mind you), whine and generally exhibit the fine quality of butt hurting. They hurtle names, i.e., safety police, at the offender and then there's a rush to defend this poor badass and some virtual balm is applied to the butt in the form of me toos and some ganging up on the SP.

I'll pass over an awful lot of stupidity online but every once in a while I"ll comment in a non-judgemental way. But once that butt is hurtin' nothing is going to easy that pain or cause an epiphany short of them actually getting killed or maimed. They'll say they've never in whatever number of years been hurt.... much....They'll continue on that it' too hot, uncomfortable, etc.... (that really diminishes the image of being the manly man, rugged outdoorsy badass). Oh and then say we go to work to make money. For what? Funeral costs? To build a widows and orphans fund? Pay your doctor a shitload of money so their kid can go to college and be a doctor too? Or is it to have a life? If that's the case, then it behooves one to make sure they go home in one piece, alive and ready for some action, or at least a beer on the couch.

One thing for certain is we don't go to work with the expectation that we will die or be severely injured and that it is ok. We go to work knowing that the potential for these things exists. It's up to us to decide to utilize the collective experience and wisdom of an industry to apply best practices that aid in minimizing, please note that I don't mean eliminate, risk that we are all too aware of.

What Paul O'Neill understood is that by making worker safety the precondition to working it rippled through all aspects of business and improved them. That it is good for business in all respects including the bottom, top and mid line. As he said to the executive who wanted to set an interim goal of 1 instead of zero, go find me that volunteer. This is what we do when we don't put a few bucks into supplying our employees with PPE, or model dangerous practices in a chase for a dollar. We are saying your life and well being mean little to mean.
 
Agreed, way too many baits @Scheffa . There are a lot of thought trains coming from as many directions on here, this is a productive thread.
But I will say this -
Whether job safety, or any other behavior you want others to follow: fear and shaming are the two least effective ways to get the job done. This is because both of these are very temporary.
You can try to keep people in a permanent fear response by telling them every scare story, but if you succeed we call that PTSD. Constant shame is a form of depression. People working in either a paranoid or depressed state do not change or make a work environment safer, and without help, they often don't last as employees where some level of physical caution is a requirement.
Don't get me wrong, those facts and stories are great for getting everyone's attention for a minute, but once you have it, you better have a way to inspire and motivate people in a lasting way.
The most effective way to do this is to get their attention, spell out the kind of behavior you expect, and then most importantly, drill home a common goal that will drive the behavior you want - something like: "your job is to get the work done, AND make sure that everyone you see here makes it home for dinner tonight." or how about "I want to be at my kid's weddings, and I want you to be at yours, so let's watch out for each other today while we get these trees down". These are the kinds of ideas people can keep in the back of their minds all day, adjust behavior accordingly, and not need therapy afterwards. Peace out.
 
This entire thread is very timely. I have been involved in a convoluted debate on a private group over a matter of safety. It splintered from safety to the typical millennial don't hurt anyone's feeling and everybody gets a trophy kind of chatter. Just to sidebar from the original post on here, the industry doesn't practice what they preach. There is a corporate sponsored climber who is all over facebook, instagram, and other social media outlets performing risky operations, showboating, improperly using gear, and overall performing in a less than safe manner. That individual has been contacted constructively and blocks whoever tries to point out the flaws and or misuses. His band of followers/worshipers then jump to his defense with ignorant and uneducated responses. This guy has thousands of followers and is routinely on the inter webs being unsafe. Several have contacted the sponsor and they turn a deaf ear. They ignore the safety and languish in the PR from this guys followers. They respond with "XXXXXX Sells" No issues for them. Mostly I agree with the Humper. Many people get buthurt when they don't get a pat on the back. Then there are others of us who welcome constructive feedback. It depends on how you present yourself and how the responder presents themselves as well. This particular threat was kicking the crap out of this guy and one individual posed an opinion on what he though may be going on with the gear and a reason for it. He stopped the thread in its tracks. People took an entirely different approach after that. This guy presented himself in a reasonable educated manner. No matter what side of the argument you were on, you took pause and respected his input. It's all an ego contest on the forums. Total popularity contest and virtual stroking of libido.
 
Muggs said:
Actually Tony, my definition is straight out of the Oxford dictionary:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/safe

But yes, there was clearly a bit of wordplay on my part with the "safer" and "safest", etc., just to make a point. If we were going to accuse anybody of "changing the definition to suit your argument", it would be you sir, but I won't hold that against you. You're a standup guy in my book.

Clearly when I posted this, I did so with the recognition that the safety police would pounce all over it, claiming that I said all sorts of things that I didn't actually say. At one point there I was starting to question whether people had actually read it at all, or were just reacting to what others were posting in return.

When I write something like this, I am not hoping to appeal to everyone. If my material appealed to everyone, it would appeal to no-one. That being said, this is not about being controversial for the sake of being controversial. This is my honest opinion based on years of hearing the 'safety, safety, safety' mantra droned on endlessly by the industry. I care deeply about safety! I truly do. But that's not why we come to work. This idea that the safety police cares more about your own safety than you do is ludicrous. The reason that the safety police feel the need to nitpick everything they see online is to stoke their own egos, plain and simple. They want to be seen as authorities, as knowing more than everybody else. I literally see tons of stuff every single day on Instagram, Youtube, Facebook, and the like that makes me just shake my head. Ridiculous, stupid stuff. Super unsafe. Do I think that my comment on their picture or video is going to change hearts and minds, pulling the poor souls back from the dark side so they can finally see the light? No, I don't. So I just shake my head and move on. I guess I'm just practical that way. Sorry if that rubs people the wrong way. Like I said, I care deeply about safety. Life is full of contradictions, both real, and assumed. But this one... I don't see this one as a contradiction.
Click to expand...

I appreciate you writing this. While I do not agree with the premise, that is neither here nor there. I think your "essay" spurned valuable conversation, added insight and retains value beyond the words. I wish more people would take the time to sit down, express themselves, then follow up with a defense in a civil manor as this post has accomplished.

Having said that I look at this argument on two fronts.

I put the word argument in bold because that is how I see this, a debate. An exchange of ideas that need not agree, but are put forth in a thoughtful way. (Yes, my definition!)

From that standpoint, allow me to put on my philosophy professor hat. ( I actually did co teach a few philosophy courses at Penn State while I was attending. I look forward to perhaps doing it again.)
You argument is based of a definition of safety. A fine point to begin from, but your play on words turns the definition circular. If a condition of "safe" is unobtainable, then how do we define that which cannot be achieved? Now don't get me wrong, I love a good play on words. In fact, I make some semblance of my living at it one form or another, but here it undermines the point.

From there I pointed out that other aspects of the definition were weak. We all know the quips about a strong foundation, so I won't rehash them. You are a smart guy.

My suggestion is that you need a better starting definition. I provided one for thought. (Pretty well accepted in certain circles. Sorry I can't come up with the name of the guy I heard it from. I am working on that) I think that if you based your argument off a stronger definition you would have a more sound argument. I may still not agree with it. In fact, I am pretty sure I would not. That's O.K. The idea is strong argument not my satisfaction.

The second front is the gist of the article. I feel others have put forth their thoughts and for the most part I am in line with them. The few times I feel compelled to comment on social media about substandard work and practices, I never feel as if I am on a crusade to change the poster. I comment for two reasons. One, what I permit I condone. In the realm of social media, to not say something would bother me about as much as commenting. I know, a personal Sophie's choice scenario. We all have our issues. For the most part I choose to avoid the situation. Like you, I have better things to do.

The second reason I comment when I do is for the audience. Social media gives a new type of anonymity. The audience could be anyone from season professionals like many of us, laughing to ourselves wondering about fate and the universe, or a 13 you old girl or boy who thinks the tree work they just saw on the walk back from the bus stop was the coolest thing ever. Are there those out there who stroke their own ego through social media. Yes. With that I am in wholehearted agreement. Unfortunately, I don't think they are reading this.

I agree life is full of contradictions. The people we are now will morph and change over time. The blessing and curse of life really. I don't see contradiction in you argument. In my judgement, I see some faulty logic, a cynicism that generally betrays your points. The thought was to help you push the article and your thinking along. No more. Definitely no less.

Tony
 
Last edited:
There is a name or word for the process of moving from here to there when each move halves the distance to the goal

The first few halfings are usually easy and inexpensive. Like...wearing basic PPE

Then the halfings become more challenging. These seem to be accepted practices and procedures. The easiest whipping post example is one handed chainsaw use

I think a lot of us are talking about halfings that seem so hard to attain. They seem to be worth the effort
 
Steve Connally said:
There is a corporate sponsored climber who is all over facebook, instagram, and other social media outlets performing risky operations, showboating, improperly using gear, and overall performing in a less than safe manner. That individual has been contacted constructively and blocks whoever tries to point out the flaws and or misuses. His band of followers/worshipers then jump to his defense with ignorant and uneducated responses. This guy has thousands of followers and is routinely on the inter webs being unsafe. Several have contacted the sponsor and they turn a deaf ear. They ignore the safety and languish in the PR from this guys followers. They respond with "XXXXXX Sells" No issues for them.
Click to expand...
Like the "reality shows" that came out of our industry and quickly died, it took the associations to speak up along with all the others writing and commenting on the absolute calamity they were airing. The net is a different media but the end game is the same. I wonder if TCIA and ISA are aware of this person?

As for the virtual world, I liken it to what happens in person. Would you say something if you witnessed some of the unsafe practices firsthand? What if this person showed you that picture or video to you face to face? What then? There are plenty that are just plain rude due to the anonymity factor or that they lack a filter online and tend to just click reply before proofing. Would they be different in person?

The world has shrunk. Where once we were limited to our cliques and local contacts, now we have a much greater exposure to a multitude of perspectives. The challenge for us, is to be able to sift through it all to find the nuggets of wisdom or insight. If I have been misinterpreted, i.e., I thought I said one thing and yet it seems it was read to mean something else, I question my ability to convey my thoughts.
 
I personally would be willing to share my thoughts and answer questions. Thats me, I feel I could do it without being hostile. I do it on a daily basis with other climbers i've worked with. Some appreciate it and some push the other way and shut off. I tried to explain rigging big wood with an aluminum screw lock biner as a girth on the wood. He wasn't hearing it and continued to compensate for my reasoning by taking bigger pieces as if to show me up. He'll learn his lesson someday and hopefully no-one will be killed. he ended up quitting because he didn't like being told what he was doing was wrong, no matter how gentle I tried to be. He was used to working with folks who didn't know better and stroked his ego. I started doing tree work when he was in pre-k. He was dangerous in the fact he believed he knew it all and had reached expert status. I have no time for people like that.
 
treehumper said:
Like the "reality shows" that came out of our industry and quickly died, it took the associations to speak up along with all the others writing and commenting on the absolute calamity they were airing. The net is a different media but the end game is the same. I wonder if TCIA and ISA are aware of this person?.
Click to expand...
Likely not Rob, he’s the anti of them both in so many sad ways! most of what I’ve seen on his pics/ videos is almost no one on the ground wearing any sort of PPE, working in close proximity to conductors, can likely say 100% him or anyone he’s working with aren’t trained to be that close to them. Likely doesn’t know or has seen what a tailboard / job briefing form looks like. Simple stuff at the beginning of a job that could prevent things during the job from happening, not just winging it and hoping for the best. It’s like Steve said amateur hour hyped up by people who don’t know better either and don’t want to follow a safety culture amping it up and supporting it. The younger people are following this guy and it’s the blind leading the blind. He doesn’t seem to take constructive criticism at all, really really scary. It’s like all we work for, and support and what Muggs brought up in the original post here turned around upside down. Someone’s going to pay a bad price eventually if the circus continues, and not that I wish that upon anyone, writings on the wall, time to smarten up. Not that it matters to me but the big corporate sponsor that was mentioned supporting this guy should maybe come out to a real legitimate companies work site, see how things are done safely, properly with real trained arborists and crews, then think deeply on what they are supporting. Dr. John Ball could do a wholes day seminar at the TCIA tree expo on the safety violations and shenanigans in his videos, who knows they may end up in one some day.
 
Last edited:
Travor and sherrill. Some very respected individuals in the industry have reached out to sherrill and it falls on deaf ears. The showboating boosts their sales. In general he does fair tree work but it seems most of the IG posts are off the hook. I don’t personally follow him because I’m not interested in the madness.
 
I didn’t want to be the guy who named dropped but let’s get it out there. It’s another Johnny pro phenomenon. Looks cool at first until you think about what he’s actually doing and the potential risks involved. We don’t need a tribe of guys flipping out of trees at Mach 10
 
Poor reflex timing. Reaction panic grabbing the multicender resulting in Free fall. Shock load of gear and tie in point a tangle. A few off the top of my head. Granted these guys aren’t likely to do that due to practice. I’m not gonna backflip on a snowboard because I saw someone do it but many are. It’s a personal choice but when your the poster child for a company you endorse that use of gear by not addressing it. Johnny pro wasn’t representing anybody but himself. No harm no foul.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom