Six fingers
Today’s Age carries two stories that show the inadequacy of penalties for negligent employers that cause their workers’ deaths.
In the first case:
[A] machine operator who lost an index finger had not done the job before, was not given exact instructions or training and had not completed a daily safety checklist.
The company, Metcon, paid a $20 000 fine.
In the second case:
Darren Moon, 29, died from head injuries after he was pulled into the [paper-making] machine’s rollers at [Amcor]’s Fairfield paper mill in March last year.
The County Court heard that the large machine, used to create paper from liquid pulp, had been in operation since 1966 and had “little or no guard”.
The company paid a $120 000 fine.
Darren Moon’s life is worth six fingers.
Six fingers.
Oddly, if a person went around cutting off fingers or crushing heads, they’d be locked away. If a corporate does it, they are a stellar citizen of the business world for increasing productivity, and their CEOs are considered praiseworthy captains of industry.
I think you’ll find that the “corporate” did not actually cut off a finger or crush a head.
Isn’t it six fingers.
Nope, the difference between death and an injury is $100,000, five fingers.
The extra finger may be for your words of reassurance for Mrs Moon.
John — my bad. Six fingers it is. That’ll teach me for posting after bed time.
Actually, John, in both cases the company pleaded guilty to causing the accidents through negligence. (If a person did the same thing, it would be manslaughter and they’d be in jail.)
Well the facts are that the machine had been safely in use for 9 more years than the deceased had lived. It was probably reasonable to assume that the working conditions were safer than the the deceased’s journey to work risk. (Quest: had any worker at the plant been killed driving to or from work in the past 38 yrs?) Certainly safer than continuing to allow the legal sale of asbestos brake pads until Jan1 this year, by all accounts. The plain truth is, it is impossible to guard machinery in order to prevent any injury. Think about attempting this task with the power saw, chain saw or rotary mower. In fact you’d be hard pressed to bring these products to market in today’s litigious environment. Stick to pen pushing Rob, but mind the paper cuts mate.
No it’s five fingers I tell ya
I used to work for a company that supplies systems to the pulp and paper industry, so I’ve seen paper machines (and winders, sheeters, cutters, etc.) in action. Of course there’s no such thing as a 100% guarantee of safety, but it’s clear that unless strict regulation is enforced, and as long as workers are cheaper than equipment, paper companies will set the lowest safety standards they think they can get away with. For example, our client runs a paper mill in Russia with lots of obsolete equipment from the 1970s and earlier, and incredible levels of overstaffing; and they told us point-blank that it was cheaper to pay for the occasional crushed finger (or severed head) than to upgrade the equipment. The situation there is improving slowly, but the almost complete lack of regulation in Russia means there’s little incentive to improve.
At a similar facility in France, where workers’ rights and safety regulations are taken seriously, the accident rate is nearly nil.
Lets look at the figures then observa. If I were driving a car, on average I would die, roughly speaking, every 11363 years. (100,000 people/mortality rate of 8.8 deaths) or my vehicle has a one in 7142 chance of being part of a fatal accident every year, or drive 100 million kilometres. Now this includes drinking, multiple vehicle pile-ups, country deaths, drink drivers and speeding. I’d take a guess “driving to work” is a fairly low category for road deaths.
So are you convinced? Didn’t think so. Really what you’ve given us is the old “might be hit by a bus” argument for smoking. The machine adds to his regular risks that he has to face anyway. And besides do you really want road use to be the model of regulation - police, vehicle safety standards etc. (they do work though - road fatalities have dropped by about 75%, funny about that)?
Safer than a chainsaw is not an argument because chainsaws are not the minimum safety limit, nor should asbestos be either. I’m quite surprised you didn’t dig out the old widowmakers to show the workers how lucky they are. Read the article, it’s not impossible to make the machine safer because they did it (but obviously not against “any” injury, nobody expects that). It was, therefore, an accident waiting to happen, they could have done something about it but they didn’t and somebody died. There is a trade off between cost/deaths but I think we’re inside that with this case. As vaara rightly points out, it becomes a race to the bottom otherwise.
Little is ever said about workers’ stupidity as a factor in some accidents. Would workers ignore instructions and unhook the hose removing dust from a factory? Would they do it in an asbestos factory? Even after the dangers of asbestosis had been explained to them by not only management but even their union officials?
And yet, when a union official walked into a haze filled asbestos factory, that’s exactly what the workers had done, WITHOUT letting the management know.
Actions like this probably don’t help us to develop a better safety culture?
Actions like this probably don’t help us to develop a better safety culture?
Is that actually a question, or are you just struggling with punctuation again, Norman?
I know an OH&S investigator well, and he confirms what I have thought (and seen) over the years- about 90% on industrial accidents are due to stupidity, carelessness and/or intoxication- none of which should be compensatable. Life is a risk.
A typical example of OHS occurred with a 21 yr old employee 2 years ago. I had 2 other young blokes his age and was constantly on their hammer about wearing safety glasses while drilling C-sections on the drill press. The work had to be clamped each time in position and as well they were not to lean on the work in case the drill bit caught and the work dislodged and spun, which was a rare occurrence. They didn’t see the need to wear goggles as the work seemed well below eye level and the swarf of no risk. I described what could happen if a drill bit snapped with a fragment taking off. Again one morning I saw the 21yr old with his hand leaning on the work and called all 3 young blokes together to again explain the danger of doing so. Two days later the drill caught and shattered while spinning the work. The 21 yr old sliced open his hand like a sausage in a pan with 22 stitches. The morning he returned to work I called all 3 young blokes together for a meeting. It started with- ‘Now why do you think this silly old fart has called you smart young blokes together this morning so he can talk to the walls again?’ as they looked sheepishly at their feet and the older blokes went about their tasks shaking their heads knowingly.
Surely, Robert, even at a private university like Notre Dame, you’re familiar with the role of rhetorical questions?
[That need not be treated as a rhetorical question, Robert.]
But I hope you would have understood the thrust of my earlier post, which was extent to which workplace problems can be created by some workers’ foolishness?
[That too need not be treated as rhetorical, Robert, if you’re willing to respond to the question.]
[That too
For example, our client runs a paper mill in Russia with lots of obsolete equipment from the 1970s and earlier, and incredible levels of overstaffing
Did you mean to say understaffing? Why would the mill be overstaffed? To make up for inadequacies in equipment?
If it weren’t for the badly corrupt economy in Russia, I’d say workers would decide to work at a place with better safety. I once heard someone say “Life is cheap” in Russia, and I’d be inclined to believe it.
And not to be a smarty pants, but that (pre)1970s equipment - wouldn’t a fair bit of its life cycle have been under globalisation-unfriendly communism?
For the record Norman, Darren was doing exactly what he was trained to do in the conditions he was trained to do them. You should take care to have all the facts before you pass judgement on people. It is the mindset of people like you and the outright disregard that corporates have for peoples safety and lives when there is a $ at stake that makes me sick. Darren was my brother-in-law and all he did wrong was go to work that morning and do his job the way he was trained to do it.
Darren Moon was my best friend.
I’d known him since I was thirteen years old and lived with his family for years.
I watched his little sister grow up.
I saw him become an uncle.
When I last saw him he was getting ready to marry his girlfriend and start a family.
Now all of it is gone.
Anybody who tries to justify AMCOR’s work practices is an idiot.
Remember before you make glib remarks that a person was killed because a company deemed the cost of safety guards too expensive. It’s not just one person effected. It’s an entire family, friends.
Nothing that occured that day was Darren’s fault. $360,000 is STILL NOT ENOUGH.