H+S Electrician lone working

040722 2039 - Jinx posted:

If you are working on electrical maintenance in a factory, there are times that there is nothing to do. The factory owners cut costs by having only one person doing nothing rather than two. But when something comes up, like some work on a 480 volt bus, or a panel, or switchgear, then it is not safe to work this alone. There may even be something in your contract to that effect. Also, if there is machinery in the factory, sometimes it is safer that two work on a project in an effort to promote the safe resolution of the problem.

I worked for 2.5 years at a University doing trouble calls and electrical maintenance alone. That was more than 5 years ago. It is called risk management. They are betting that no one will make a serious mistake. Your life and well being is a secondary consideration for most employers now. It is the bottom line only, or the stock quote for the week. My last employer an OEM of electrical products had me flying all over the western US doing work, 90% was alone. Some facilities would assign a person to be with me most would hand me the keys and a map, "go do your job".

Work safe and be aware that refusing to be a team player will probably cause you to find the door and unemployment. If you think it is unsafe call some one in to assist, I did.

One risk management guru convinced everyone that the tunnel system was not a confined space. I took him into the tunnel, a dead end one, and hand cuffed his legs together. I turned out the lights and walked away from him. Tunnel was steam lines, water lines, medium voltage, low voltage and communications. After the threats subsided he walked to the first junction where the lights were on about 150 feet. I was sitting waiting for him. He considered changing the tunnels and then decided that is was not to be. Until a man got hurt and the fire department fined the place the tunnels and vaults remained non-confined spaces.

Work safe and be careful

It's funny how history repeats itself. This safety issue is precisely what brought about the rise of electrical workers unions, specifically, I.B.E.W. in the US and Canada, at least.

I used to work on high power UHF broadcast transmitter equipment. Fortunately, there was a good union contract in place that required that at least two people be present if the high voltage cabinets were opened and if it was necessary to defeat the HV interlocks in any way.

In this city, every few years there were incidents of electrocutions, always in non-union shops, where a transmitter technician was forced to work alone and made a fatal mistake with no ready source of help nearby.

During these times of high unemployment, there is an almost blind, automatic anti-union sentiment among many individuals, but if you look at the historical record, policing job-safety is one of the legitimate and proper job functions that unions have traditionally done well.

elingdago,

I am curious as to why two workers are safer than one? I do agree that if a worker is untrained or careless and commits an unsafe act that the second worker can assist in the first aid or rescue. But the fact is that the first worker should not have performed the work in the first place. The use of the second worker is called "feather bedding".

Regards,

John Phillips

Sorry notreal,

The electrical workers union memberships have declined in the US on a percentage basis as have the electrocution fatalities. I do not but some might argue that this is cause and effect.

Regards,

John Phillips

If that is not the point you are trying to make, then why bring it up. Could it also be that fewer fatalities are due to other factors such as a decline in manufacturing jobs, stricter codes, and new technologies (GFCI's, for example, on construction sites).

The fact is that there are about 4,000 non-disabling and 3,600 disabling electrical contact injuries that occur annually in the United States (OSHA statistics).

Accidents occur for all sorts of reasons and that there are specific occasions in work rules that require an additional person for safety reasons is an intelligent and economical application of resources when considering the life and safety issues at stake. This is not necessarily the "featherbeding" that you refer to in your earlier comment.

From a historical perspective, the enforcement and necessity of these safety work rules did arise largely as a result of the labor movement in the electrical industry in the U.S. and Canada. In the early years of the electrical age, to be a lineman was to be in one of the most hazardous occupations known to man with a mortality rate similar to being a bomber crewmember in the WWII RAF Bomber Command. Being "pro" or "anti" union does not change this fact.

Beachcomber

Beachcomber

This is an absolutely false comment. RAF losses were on the order of one or more per cent per mission.

Regards,

John Phillips

Martin Middlebrook, who is considered something of an authority on the subject states as follows in "The Bomber Command War Diaries" by Martin Middlebrook and ChrisEveritt - published 1985.

..."Approximately 125,000 aircrew served in the squadrons and the operational training units of Bomber Command during the war * Nearly

60% of Bomber Command Aircrew becaume casualties. Aprroximately 85% of these casualties were suffered on operations and 15 per cent in training and other accidents...

killed in action or died while prisoners of war 47268 killed in flying or ground accidents. 8195 killed in ground-battle action 37

Total fatal casualties to aircrew 55,500

The overall fatality rate was thus 44.4% for the war. The overall loss rate (wounded + missing) was even higher.

*Mr. Middlebrook further goes on to state that that the figures are quoted by Sir Arthur Harris from his book "Bomber Offensive".

Beachcomber,

Thank you for making my point. Now show me data that lineman fatalities were 44% of those employed in any similar period. This was your original argument.

Regards,

John Phillips

Yes. You are correct. That was my original argument and I stand by it. Here is a direct quote in reference to the period of the late

1800's when conditions were pretty dismal for the lineman at the time.

"There was no apprenticeship training, and safety standards were nonexistent. In some areas the death rate for linemen was one out of every two hired, and nationally the death rate for electrical workers was twice that of the national average for all other industries."

reference: History of IBEW

Please quote a credible source.

Regards,

John Phillips

John:

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I will let you have the last word.

I believe I've made my point accurately and clearly, cited credible sources, and made a reasonable argument to the contrary of your points, all, which in my opinion, have been proven unfounded.

I respectfully rest my case.

Beachcomber

040726 1031 - John Phillips posted:

...or even "Negative Reinforcement". Nevertheless, some contracts require that when working on higher voltages, two individuals will work together as a safety factor. A contract is a contract, and was, no doubt, agreed upon by the employer. So, regardless of your terminology, the requirement was installed in the contract was recognized as a safety factor in the work engaged in.

040726 1035 - John Phillips posted:

You are talking of the here and now. Unions were organized for the safety of the lineworkers in the late 1800's and early 1900's. The employers of the time were much like the railroad employers: safety was not much of a concern -- after all, you could always hire someone to replace a worker who slipped under the wheels of a freight car, or fell from a high line pole while working on an electrical line, or worse yet, became electrocuted and burned to death from contact with a high line.

Right! Back in those days there was no OSHA or workmans compensation. There were no social security disability payments, no fines, no safety rules, no economic incentive for a company to value a human life. If the worker were lucky, his co-workers passed around a hat to collect whatever they could for the man's widow and children.

If you can find it... there is an old Henry Fonda movie called "SLIM" (1937) that accurately portrays the conditions that lineman faced during the early years. It was said to be Henry Fonda's favorite movie.

There are several accidents depicted in the movie. In one, an unfortunate worker falls off a 100 ft. tower and is killed. There is no investigation - his co-workers simply carry the body to the truck and call it a day. The next man in seniority is promoted to his position and a new grunt worker is hired to do the low level stuff.

In another incident, a lineworker questions the safety about working on a "hotwire" substation operating at 88,000 volts. The lineworker is instantly fired.

Overall though, the movie is a tribute to the bravery, dedication of the linemen and the working conditions they had to work under.

| You are talking of the here and now. Unions were organized for the safety | of the lineworkers in the late 1800's and early 1900's. The employers of | the time were much like the railroad employers: safety was not much of a | concern -- after all, you could always hire someone to replace a worker who | slipped under the wheels of a freight car, or fell from a high line pole | while working on an electrical line, or worse yet, became electrocuted and | burned to death from contact with a high line.

In some respects, slaves were taken better care of because of the property value aspect. Employers back in those days lost nothing but the cost of re-hiring if someone died or could no longer work. And re-hiring was cheap during many periods such as 1880-1900 due to economies that were either bad, or were just not trickling down (such as what we have in 2004). But slave owners lost an investment if a hard working slave died or was injured to a degree he could no longer work. At least today slavery is gone and to some degree employers have to take a hit if people die or are injured on the job due to any fault, but especially so if the employer is a fault.