willard 0 #76 February 17, 2007 During WWII my grandad went to join up and help fight. The government felt his skills were needed more stateside than overseas so instead of taking him into the military they put him to work with a crew installing and maintaining oxy & acetylene piping in factories. He was paid a buck an hour and worked 10-12 hrs a day, 7 days a week. He would get a day off every other weekend. At the end of each and every day as they left the workplace there would be a man standing by a car. Give him a dollar and he checks your name off a list. If you came to work the next day and your name didn't have a check next to it, you didn't get to work. Give the man two bucks and he lets you work. Do we really want to go back to those days? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,651 #77 February 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteVice President Dick Cheney declared the administration's opposition to the measure earlier on Wednesday, saying secret ballots are needed to prevent possible worker intimidation. Not everyone wants to be in a union. Sounds like they are trying to protect worker's rights. Exactly right. A worker has more to fear from pro-union people if he votes against the union (or resfuses to sign a petition) than he ever would from an employer if he voted in favor of a union. Oh yes, employers are SO benign. Try Googling "Haymarket riots".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #78 February 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteVice President Dick Cheney declared the administration's opposition to the measure earlier on Wednesday, saying secret ballots are needed to prevent possible worker intimidation. Not everyone wants to be in a union. Sounds like they are trying to protect worker's rights. Exactly right. A worker has more to fear from pro-union people if he votes against the union (or resfuses to sign a petition) than he ever would from an employer if he voted in favor of a union. Oh yes, employers are SO benign. Try Googling "Haymarket riots". That is so weak! An incident 120 years ago is not relevant to the relative power to intimidate by unions or companies. I agree completely with Willard that individual workers have much more to fear from unions than companies.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #79 February 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteVice President Dick Cheney declared the administration's opposition to the measure earlier on Wednesday, saying secret ballots are needed to prevent possible worker intimidation. Not everyone wants to be in a union. Sounds like they are trying to protect worker's rights. Exactly right. A worker has more to fear from pro-union people if he votes against the union (or resfuses to sign a petition) than he ever would from an employer if he voted in favor of a union. Oh yes, employers are SO benign. Try Googling "Haymarket riots". Kallend, we could sit at our computers for years posting links to sites listing violence by both sides. As far as Haymarket, correct me if I am wrong, as I remember from a paper I wrote concerning that in high school, it was the protest organizers who were ultimately found responsible for the violence that led to a police officer being murdered. As a said before, the only thing I would fear from an employer is loss of a job. Piss off a union enough and you could very well lose your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #80 February 17, 2007 QuoteAs a said before, the only thing I would fear from an employer is loss of a job. Piss off a union enough and you could very well lose your life. I think that is not true, a company can, and has, had thugs to harm workers. You don't have to go back 120 years to find it, but I agree with you that it is a lot less likely than the unions doing it. It doesn't have to be the union sanctioning it, just guys that are very pro-union will do it all on their own. That is the reality.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,651 #81 February 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteVice President Dick Cheney declared the administration's opposition to the measure earlier on Wednesday, saying secret ballots are needed to prevent possible worker intimidation. Not everyone wants to be in a union. Sounds like they are trying to protect worker's rights. Exactly right. A worker has more to fear from pro-union people if he votes against the union (or resfuses to sign a petition) than he ever would from an employer if he voted in favor of a union. Oh yes, employers are SO benign. Try Googling "Haymarket riots". Kallend, we could sit at our computers for years posting links to sites listing violence by both sides. As far as Haymarket, correct me if I am wrong, as I remember from a paper I wrote concerning that in high school, it was the protest organizers who were ultimately found responsible for the violence that led to a police officer being murdered. As a said before, the only thing I would fear from an employer is loss of a job. Piss off a union enough and you could very well lose your life. Improper working conditions, care of employers, kill or maim dozens of workers in the US each year, in coal mines, steel mills, etc. Misfeasance or malfeasance, dead is still dead.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #82 February 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteVice President Dick Cheney declared the administration's opposition to the measure earlier on Wednesday, saying secret ballots are needed to prevent possible worker intimidation. Not everyone wants to be in a union. Sounds like they are trying to protect worker's rights. Exactly right. A worker has more to fear from pro-union people if he votes against the union (or resfuses to sign a petition) than he ever would from an employer if he voted in favor of a union. Oh yes, employers are SO benign. Try Googling "Haymarket riots". Kallend, we could sit at our computers for years posting links to sites listing violence by both sides. As far as Haymarket, correct me if I am wrong, as I remember from a paper I wrote concerning that in high school, it was the protest organizers who were ultimately found responsible for the violence that led to a police officer being murdered. As a said before, the only thing I would fear from an employer is loss of a job. Piss off a union enough and you could very well lose your life. Improper working conditions, care of employers, kill or maim dozens of workers in the US each year, in coal mines, steel mills, etc. Misfeasance or malfeasance, dead is still dead. Granted, there are instances even today where working conditions are less than mandated. But it is also upon each and every worker to make his job as safe as possible. To trust only in one's employer or union for safety is foolhardy. Have you ever worked in a steel mill or coal mine? Have you ever set foot in a steel mill or coal mine? As far as I know, this thread is about privacy in voting for or against unions in a workplace. Workplace safety is a whole bucket of worms in itself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,651 #83 February 17, 2007 Quote Have you ever set foot in a steel mill or coal mine? As far as I know, this thread is about privacy in voting for or against unions in a workplace. Workplace safety is a whole bucket of worms in itself. As it happens, I have spent lots of time in steel mills, and have also been in a deep pit coal mine, including crawling through galleries only 18 inches high at the coal face. (Also been in an iron mine, silver mine and a salt mine, but the coal mine was nastiest by far).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #84 February 17, 2007 Is that how you lost all your hair prof' and turned green??? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,651 #85 February 17, 2007 QuoteIs that how you lost all your hair prof' and turned green??? Die, Earthling. Your feeble race is no match for the Treens.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #86 February 17, 2007 Sorry! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #87 February 17, 2007 QuoteQuote Have you ever set foot in a steel mill or coal mine? As far as I know, this thread is about privacy in voting for or against unions in a workplace. Workplace safety is a whole bucket of worms in itself. As it happens, I have spent lots of time in steel mills, and have also been in a deep pit coal mine, including crawling through galleries only 18 inches high at the coal face. (Also been in an iron mine, silver mine and a salt mine, but the coal mine was nastiest by far). Then you should know that there will always be risks involved in those jobs, and the responsibility for safety falls squarely in the lap of everyone involved. I have been involved in investigating industrial accidents both in factories and at mine sites. The overwhelming majority of the time the accident was the direct result of a worker ignoring basic rules of safety. Accidents don't "just happen". They are the end result of a long chain of events, and that chain can be broken at any link and the accident prevented. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,651 #88 February 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote Have you ever set foot in a steel mill or coal mine? As far as I know, this thread is about privacy in voting for or against unions in a workplace. Workplace safety is a whole bucket of worms in itself. As it happens, I have spent lots of time in steel mills, and have also been in a deep pit coal mine, including crawling through galleries only 18 inches high at the coal face. (Also been in an iron mine, silver mine and a salt mine, but the coal mine was nastiest by far). Then you should know that there will always be risks involved in those jobs, and the responsibility for safety falls squarely in the lap of everyone involved. I have been involved in investigating industrial accidents both in factories and at mine sites. The overwhelming majority of the time the accident was the direct result of a worker ignoring basic rules of safety. Accidents don't "just happen". They are the end result of a long chain of events, and that chain can be broken at any link and the accident prevented. I employers are SO wonderful and safety conscious, I wonder why the Congress felt it necessary to pass the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970, and for the president to sign it into law?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #89 February 18, 2007 Blaming Nixon now? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #90 February 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Have you ever set foot in a steel mill or coal mine? As far as I know, this thread is about privacy in voting for or against unions in a workplace. Workplace safety is a whole bucket of worms in itself. As it happens, I have spent lots of time in steel mills, and have also been in a deep pit coal mine, including crawling through galleries only 18 inches high at the coal face. (Also been in an iron mine, silver mine and a salt mine, but the coal mine was nastiest by far). Then you should know that there will always be risks involved in those jobs, and the responsibility for safety falls squarely in the lap of everyone involved. I have been involved in investigating industrial accidents both in factories and at mine sites. The overwhelming majority of the time the accident was the direct result of a worker ignoring basic rules of safety. Accidents don't "just happen". They are the end result of a long chain of events, and that chain can be broken at any link and the accident prevented. I employers are SO wonderful and safety conscious, I wonder why the Congress felt it necessary to pass the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970, and for the president to sign it into law? Because, in case you missed it in my last post, "The overwhelming majority of the time the accident was the direct result of a worker ignoring basic rules of safety." Humans, being humans, do stupid things. OSHA was created to remove as much of the opportunity for stupid mistakes as possible and to reduce the impact of any accidents that did occur. OSHA is aimed not only at an employer, but at an employee as well. But even OSHA can only do so much. Did you know that even after electric headlamps became available and affordable, many miners resisted the change and wanted to stay with carbide lamps, even though they could have lethal consequences if mathane gas had accumulated in a mine? I'm not saying corps used to ignore safety in favor of profits. That is a well documented fact. But it wasn't a Democrat thing or a Republican thing, it was something that went on regardless of political affiliation. It's just too bad that it took some tragic incidents, both in the workplace and on the picket lines, to bring change. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #91 February 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteVice President Dick Cheney declared the administration's opposition to the measure earlier on Wednesday, saying secret ballots are needed to prevent possible worker intimidation. Not everyone wants to be in a union. Sounds like they are trying to protect worker's rights. Exactly right. A worker has more to fear from pro-union people if he votes against the union (or resfuses to sign a petition) than he ever would from an employer if he voted in favor of a union. Oh yes, employers are SO benign. Try Googling "Haymarket riots". Kallend, we could sit at our computers for years posting links to sites listing violence by both sides. As far as Haymarket, correct me if I am wrong, as I remember from a paper I wrote concerning that in high school, it was the protest organizers who were ultimately found responsible for the violence that led to a police officer being murdered. As a said before, the only thing I would fear from an employer is loss of a job. Piss off a union enough and you could very well lose your life. Improper working conditions, care of employers, kill or maim dozens of workers in the US each year, in coal mines, steel mills, etc. Misfeasance or malfeasance, dead is still dead. Granted, there are instances even today where working conditions are less than mandated. But it is also upon each and every worker to make his job as safe as possible. To trust only in one's employer or union for safety is foolhardy. Have you ever worked in a steel mill or coal mine? Have you ever set foot in a steel mill or coal mine? As far as I know, this thread is about privacy in voting for or against unions in a workplace. Workplace safety is a whole bucket of worms in itself. But just ironically the vast grouping of workplace injuries occurrs in RTW states...... as well RTW states all have wages below the national average. Just our RTW Republican brothers looking out for us, huh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #92 February 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote Have you ever set foot in a steel mill or coal mine? As far as I know, this thread is about privacy in voting for or against unions in a workplace. Workplace safety is a whole bucket of worms in itself. As it happens, I have spent lots of time in steel mills, and have also been in a deep pit coal mine, including crawling through galleries only 18 inches high at the coal face. (Also been in an iron mine, silver mine and a salt mine, but the coal mine was nastiest by far). Then you should know that there will always be risks involved in those jobs, and the responsibility for safety falls squarely in the lap of everyone involved. I have been involved in investigating industrial accidents both in factories and at mine sites. The overwhelming majority of the time the accident was the direct result of a worker ignoring basic rules of safety. Accidents don't "just happen". They are the end result of a long chain of events, and that chain can be broken at any link and the accident prevented. This thread is about clean union elections, RTW states have the highest rates of injury and death as well as being below the national average for wages. Address that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #93 February 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Have you ever set foot in a steel mill or coal mine? As far as I know, this thread is about privacy in voting for or against unions in a workplace. Workplace safety is a whole bucket of worms in itself. As it happens, I have spent lots of time in steel mills, and have also been in a deep pit coal mine, including crawling through galleries only 18 inches high at the coal face. (Also been in an iron mine, silver mine and a salt mine, but the coal mine was nastiest by far). Then you should know that there will always be risks involved in those jobs, and the responsibility for safety falls squarely in the lap of everyone involved. I have been involved in investigating industrial accidents both in factories and at mine sites. The overwhelming majority of the time the accident was the direct result of a worker ignoring basic rules of safety. Accidents don't "just happen". They are the end result of a long chain of events, and that chain can be broken at any link and the accident prevented. I employers are SO wonderful and safety conscious, I wonder why the Congress felt it necessary to pass the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970, and for the president to sign it into law? Don't forget OSHA and Clinton initiated the Ergonomics Bill for repetitive motion injuries, which Bush struck down. Repubs looking out for workers again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #94 February 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Have you ever set foot in a steel mill or coal mine? As far as I know, this thread is about privacy in voting for or against unions in a workplace. Workplace safety is a whole bucket of worms in itself. As it happens, I have spent lots of time in steel mills, and have also been in a deep pit coal mine, including crawling through galleries only 18 inches high at the coal face. (Also been in an iron mine, silver mine and a salt mine, but the coal mine was nastiest by far). Then you should know that there will always be risks involved in those jobs, and the responsibility for safety falls squarely in the lap of everyone involved. I have been involved in investigating industrial accidents both in factories and at mine sites. The overwhelming majority of the time the accident was the direct result of a worker ignoring basic rules of safety. Accidents don't "just happen". They are the end result of a long chain of events, and that chain can be broken at any link and the accident prevented. I employers are SO wonderful and safety conscious, I wonder why the Congress felt it necessary to pass the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970, and for the president to sign it into law? Because, in case you missed it in my last post, "The overwhelming majority of the time the accident was the direct result of a worker ignoring basic rules of safety." Humans, being humans, do stupid things. OSHA was created to remove as much of the opportunity for stupid mistakes as possible and to reduce the impact of any accidents that did occur. OSHA is aimed not only at an employer, but at an employee as well. But even OSHA can only do so much. Did you know that even after electric headlamps became available and affordable, many miners resisted the change and wanted to stay with carbide lamps, even though they could have lethal consequences if mathane gas had accumulated in a mine? I'm not saying corps used to ignore safety in favor of profits. That is a well documented fact. But it wasn't a Democrat thing or a Republican thing, it was something that went on regardless of political affiliation. It's just too bad that it took some tragic incidents, both in the workplace and on the picket lines, to bring change. Wrong again, the vast grouping of workplace accidents happens in RTW states, inferring non-union. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #95 February 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Have you ever set foot in a steel mill or coal mine? As far as I know, this thread is about privacy in voting for or against unions in a workplace. Workplace safety is a whole bucket of worms in itself. As it happens, I have spent lots of time in steel mills, and have also been in a deep pit coal mine, including crawling through galleries only 18 inches high at the coal face. (Also been in an iron mine, silver mine and a salt mine, but the coal mine was nastiest by far). Then you should know that there will always be risks involved in those jobs, and the responsibility for safety falls squarely in the lap of everyone involved. I have been involved in investigating industrial accidents both in factories and at mine sites. The overwhelming majority of the time the accident was the direct result of a worker ignoring basic rules of safety. Accidents don't "just happen". They are the end result of a long chain of events, and that chain can be broken at any link and the accident prevented. I employers are SO wonderful and safety conscious, I wonder why the Congress felt it necessary to pass the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970, and for the president to sign it into law? Because, in case you missed it in my last post, "The overwhelming majority of the time the accident was the direct result of a worker ignoring basic rules of safety." Humans, being humans, do stupid things. OSHA was created to remove as much of the opportunity for stupid mistakes as possible and to reduce the impact of any accidents that did occur. OSHA is aimed not only at an employer, but at an employee as well. But even OSHA can only do so much. Did you know that even after electric headlamps became available and affordable, many miners resisted the change and wanted to stay with carbide lamps, even though they could have lethal consequences if mathane gas had accumulated in a mine? I'm not saying corps used to ignore safety in favor of profits. That is a well documented fact. But it wasn't a Democrat thing or a Republican thing, it was something that went on regardless of political affiliation. It's just too bad that it took some tragic incidents, both in the workplace and on the picket lines, to bring change. Wrong again, the vast grouping of workplace accidents happens in RTW states, inferring non-union. Wrong about what? That the majority of accidents are because an employee ignored safety procedures? I think you should check the statistics, because that reamark was obviously made without data to back it up. On the other hand, I can provide proof that your assertion is BS. http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshstate.htm OSHA website with data on nonfatal injury and illness from 2005 showing number of injuries/illnesses per 100 full-time workers. As you will see, the national average of states included is 4.6 The average of the 19 RTW states included is 3.4, well below the national average. Hmmmm....seems you were wrong, doesn't it? Let me guess, you got your figures from a unions website? The RTW states not included, reasons not given, are typical farming/ranching states so we can safely assume their incident rate would be similar to other farming/ranching states. Those similar states had incidence rates close to the national average. If you want to prove a point, do it with facts and not with opinion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #96 February 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Have you ever set foot in a steel mill or coal mine? As far as I know, this thread is about privacy in voting for or against unions in a workplace. Workplace safety is a whole bucket of worms in itself. As it happens, I have spent lots of time in steel mills, and have also been in a deep pit coal mine, including crawling through galleries only 18 inches high at the coal face. (Also been in an iron mine, silver mine and a salt mine, but the coal mine was nastiest by far). Then you should know that there will always be risks involved in those jobs, and the responsibility for safety falls squarely in the lap of everyone involved. I have been involved in investigating industrial accidents both in factories and at mine sites. The overwhelming majority of the time the accident was the direct result of a worker ignoring basic rules of safety. Accidents don't "just happen". They are the end result of a long chain of events, and that chain can be broken at any link and the accident prevented. I employers are SO wonderful and safety conscious, I wonder why the Congress felt it necessary to pass the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970, and for the president to sign it into law? Don't forget OSHA and Clinton initiated the Ergonomics Bill for repetitive motion injuries, which Bush struck down. Repubs looking out for workers again. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I don't know. But let's assume that he did. Did you read the entire bill? I know I didn't, therefor I am in no position to play critic of whether it was the right thing to do or not. I'm pretty sure you haven't read the entire bill yourself. I am also assuminh the bill was struck down on it's own merits, which is rare these days since virtually every bill that goes before the President is attached to other bills. Maybe Bush liked the bill from OSHA, but it was attached to something that he would not sign. I don't know, and neither do you, so that leaves neither of us in a position to pass judgement on the case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #97 February 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Have you ever set foot in a steel mill or coal mine? As far as I know, this thread is about privacy in voting for or against unions in a workplace. Workplace safety is a whole bucket of worms in itself. As it happens, I have spent lots of time in steel mills, and have also been in a deep pit coal mine, including crawling through galleries only 18 inches high at the coal face. (Also been in an iron mine, silver mine and a salt mine, but the coal mine was nastiest by far). Then you should know that there will always be risks involved in those jobs, and the responsibility for safety falls squarely in the lap of everyone involved. I have been involved in investigating industrial accidents both in factories and at mine sites. The overwhelming majority of the time the accident was the direct result of a worker ignoring basic rules of safety. Accidents don't "just happen". They are the end result of a long chain of events, and that chain can be broken at any link and the accident prevented. I employers are SO wonderful and safety conscious, I wonder why the Congress felt it necessary to pass the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970, and for the president to sign it into law? Don't forget OSHA and Clinton initiated the Ergonomics Bill for repetitive motion injuries, which Bush struck down. Repubs looking out for workers again. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I don't know. But let's assume that he did. Did you read the entire bill? I know I didn't, therefor I am in no position to play critic of whether it was the right thing to do or not. I'm pretty sure you haven't read the entire bill yourself. I am also assuminh the bill was struck down on it's own merits, which is rare these days since virtually every bill that goes before the President is attached to other bills. Maybe Bush liked the bill from OSHA, but it was attached to something that he would not sign. I don't know, and neither do you, so that leaves neither of us in a position to pass judgement on the case. Yes, Clinton and OSHA worked on it, it made its way thru Congress as I recall and Bush kileld it. He said it was bad for business. It provided a fasttrack for carpel tunnel injuries and other repetitive motion injuries. http://hr.blr.com/news.aspx?id=7664 The Clinton administration rules would have required businesses to change work stations to reduce injuries and compensate injured workers. The Labor Department estimated the changes would have cost businesses $4.5 billion, but would save them $9 billion by preventing injuries. Businesses estimated the cost at $100 billion. Remember, Republicans are for workers, just chant that and it will become true. The Democrat-controlled Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee voted 11-10 along party lines for the bill, which was sponsored by Sen. John Breaux, D-La. Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao announced in April that her agency was pursuing voluntary guidelines for certain industries with high injury rates. That announcement came as a disappointment to labor unions, Democrats and some Republicans, who had requested sweeping regulations. ______________________________________________________________ Here's your hero at work, helpin out a workin man: http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/laws-government-regulations/783718-1.html The U.S. Senate and House of Representatives both voted to disapprove the OSHA ergonomics standard in March. President Bush signed the legislation to disapprove the bill, which makes the OSHA regulation null and void. Any future ergonomics rule that is "substantially similar" cannot be passed without an act of Congress. More Republicans helpin out a working man. Are you seriously goona keep saying the Repubs are good for the workin man? Let's sort some things out: - Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. -----> Oh, he did - I am also assuminh the bill was struck down on it's own merits, which is rare these days since virtually every bill that goes before the President is attached to other bills. -----> I wouldn't say bad merit, but bad for the Republican agenda, rode alone, no piggyback - Maybe Bush liked the bill from OSHA, but it was attached to something that he would not sign. I don't know, and neither do you,... ----> It rode alone, Bush said it was bad for business. Quit defending the crazy notion that Repubs are somehow for the workin man. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #98 February 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Have you ever set foot in a steel mill or coal mine? As far as I know, this thread is about privacy in voting for or against unions in a workplace. Workplace safety is a whole bucket of worms in itself. As it happens, I have spent lots of time in steel mills, and have also been in a deep pit coal mine, including crawling through galleries only 18 inches high at the coal face. (Also been in an iron mine, silver mine and a salt mine, but the coal mine was nastiest by far). Then you should know that there will always be risks involved in those jobs, and the responsibility for safety falls squarely in the lap of everyone involved. I have been involved in investigating industrial accidents both in factories and at mine sites. The overwhelming majority of the time the accident was the direct result of a worker ignoring basic rules of safety. Accidents don't "just happen". They are the end result of a long chain of events, and that chain can be broken at any link and the accident prevented. I employers are SO wonderful and safety conscious, I wonder why the Congress felt it necessary to pass the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970, and for the president to sign it into law? Because, in case you missed it in my last post, "The overwhelming majority of the time the accident was the direct result of a worker ignoring basic rules of safety." Humans, being humans, do stupid things. OSHA was created to remove as much of the opportunity for stupid mistakes as possible and to reduce the impact of any accidents that did occur. OSHA is aimed not only at an employer, but at an employee as well. But even OSHA can only do so much. Did you know that even after electric headlamps became available and affordable, many miners resisted the change and wanted to stay with carbide lamps, even though they could have lethal consequences if mathane gas had accumulated in a mine? I'm not saying corps used to ignore safety in favor of profits. That is a well documented fact. But it wasn't a Democrat thing or a Republican thing, it was something that went on regardless of political affiliation. It's just too bad that it took some tragic incidents, both in the workplace and on the picket lines, to bring change. Wrong again, the vast grouping of workplace accidents happens in RTW states, inferring non-union. Wrong about what? That the majority of accidents are because an employee ignored safety procedures? I think you should check the statistics, because that reamark was obviously made without data to back it up. On the other hand, I can provide proof that your assertion is BS. http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshstate.htm OSHA website with data on nonfatal injury and illness from 2005 showing number of injuries/illnesses per 100 full-time workers. As you will see, the national average of states included is 4.6 The average of the 19 RTW states included is 3.4, well below the national average. Hmmmm....seems you were wrong, doesn't it? Let me guess, you got your figures from a unions website? The RTW states not included, reasons not given, are typical farming/ranching states so we can safely assume their incident rate would be similar to other farming/ranching states. Those similar states had incidence rates close to the national average. If you want to prove a point, do it with facts and not with opinion. Here's a site that has fatalities by state from 92 to 02, I am crunching the numbers now, we'll see which states have ho many deaths. It will be a litttle inexact, as the rate won't be figured in. http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0186.pdf Also, don't provide some partial list of states with your data. Fuck, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #99 February 18, 2007 QuoteQuit defending the crazy notion that Repubs are somehow for the workin man. This is a great place to have a debate/argument, to offer facts, suggest other viewpoints, remind people of perspectives and previous history, however your commands to do or not do something carry no weight here.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #100 February 18, 2007 QuoteHere's a site that has fatalities by state from 92 to 02, I am crunching the numbers now, we'll see which states have ho many deaths. It will be a litttle inexact, as the rate won't be figured in. http://www.bls.gov/...wc/cfoi/cftb0186.pdf Hate to pop your bubble, but those figures are totals, not rates. It is incident rates that tell where the safest states are. I'll give you an extreme example, a purely hypothetical situation. State A has 1000 workers. State B has 100. In a given year A has 10 fatalities and 100 injuries. B has 5 fatalities and 50 injuries. Is state A more dangerous because it has higher totals? no, because when you calculate the rates and percentages, a worker in state A has a 1% chance of a fatal injury, and a 10% chance of any injury. State B, in the same year, a worker has a 5% chance of a fatal and a 50% chance of any injury. QuoteAlso, don't provide some partial list of states with your data. Fuck, If you want to continue this debate I would suggest watching your tone. There is nothing wrong with the OSHA data I presented for the purposes of this discussion. It is accurate, it is reliable, and if you want to fill in the missing states then feel free to search for the data on your own. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
