I like to think of myself as a pretty easygoing person. But as a safety professional, I'm passionate about what I do, and I tend to think that injury and death put a damper on the whole "living life" thing. And, as the mother of five young adults, and a Safety Officer, I'm a strong advocate of proper training for younger workers. So when WorkSafe BC announced that as of July 26, 2007 there were going to be new regulations regarding new and young workers, I dang near had a party. It was something I had felt needed greater focus. Too many young and new workers have been seriously injured and lost their lives because they weren't properly trained.

A Typical Dialog

Many people I have spoken to over the last couple of months about these changes are as happy to see them as I am. And some others ... well, they need a little persuading. Here's a typical conversation I've had regarding the new regs. (Some of the language has been softened.)

Supervisor: Oh for Pete's sake! Why the heck do I have to Fraggle Rock baby-sit these kids? I have enough gumdrop work to do as it is, and now I have to coddle them as well? Lead them by the hand? Isn't that what we're paying you to do?

Me: Nope. You're paying me to advise, guide, educate and recommend. I'm not the supervisor; that's what you get the big bucks for.

Supervisor (Hands on his hips, red in the face): You know, it's your profession that's to blame for all of this!

Me (grin): Thank you so much! It's nice to know my posse and I are getting the job done.

Supervisor: That's not funny.

Me: Too right. So what is it exactly that you have a problem with?

Supervisor: Bad enough I have to do all the Freakazoid paperwork before the job is done, now I have to sockwashin' watch them, record how they are doing their work and make sure they're doing it step by step. Then if they don't, I have to sockwashin' stop them, show them how to do it AGAIN, and write down that I did it!

How the heck are we supposed to get any gumdrop work done if we have to keep holding their hands? Am I supposed to wipe their noses for them too?

Me (opening book): Nope. Nothing in here about handholding or nose wiping.

Supervisor: Har-dee-har. You know what I mean. You know what the problem is, don't you? The problem is that kids today have no drive. They have no get up and go. They just want the paycheck. Work for their paycheck? Work? What's that? No, when I was young, you did what you had to do. You did what the boss told you to do and you hoofed it or you were out the door. We had work ethics then, and the boss knew if there was a job to be done it'd be done. And we had pride! (Arm raised, shaking finger in the air) You did the job and you did it well! Not today, noooo. Gotta tell them, then show them, then watch them and then tell them again and wipe their little noses.

Me: I sense that this is something you have strong feelings about. (Receive deadpan look.) I know, I'm not funny. Look, how did you become such a stellar worker? You just went to the job and picked up the tools and just did it?

Supervisor: Yes I did. The boss told me what to do and I did it.

Me: Really? He just told you? So the first time you picked up a welding torch you just sparked it up and away you went?

Supervisor (Less certainly): Yep. Boss showed me what had to be done, and then I did it.

Me: So that's all it took to make you the man you are today? He showed you just once and bang ... you had it down pat. Can I meet your first boss? I'd pay good money for his secret. (If you haven't guessed by now, sarcasm is a service I often provide free of charge.)

Supervisor (Face scrunched, arms crossed): No, smarty, he showed me a few things and told me how to do it, and before you know it I was welding pretty dang smooth.

Me: So he offered you guidance and training, did he? How long did it take?

Supervisor: About two weeks.

Me: Two weeks? Didn't you just tell me that he just told you and you just did it?

Supervisor: You know what I mean. He didn't have to hold my hand and watch me every step of the way. And he didn't expect to.

Me: And he didn't, right?

Supervisor: Dang right.

Me: So ... I couldn't help noticing ... you have two fingers missing on your left hand. Did the boss tell you to do that?

Supervisor: No, that was my own fault. The pressure was on to get the job done, so I was working fast and I wasn't watching what I was doing.

(Then comes the moment I live for: He pauses, and you can see the light bulb coming on in his head. He raises his hands and nods his head.)

Supervisor: You win.

Me: Cool! Do I get to go to Cuba this winter?

Supervisor: Alriiiiight, smarty pants, you win! I get it now, I'll Family Feud baby-sit the new and young workers ... Have I told you you're not funny?

Me: I didn't "win."

Supervisor: Yes you did, I'll coddle them and I'll write it down and I'll make sure the little princes and princesses don't get hurt...Are you happy now?

Me: The people who "won" were you and your workers. If someone had been "babysitting" you, you might still have those two fingers.

Supervisor: You make it real hard for people to like you.

Me: It's not a popularity contest. If my work means people get home safe and sound in one piece, why should I care who likes me?

Supervisor (Look of resignation): Okay, fine. Show me what I gotta do.

Me: Can't I just tell you? Then you can just go and do it.

Supervisor: You're really, really, not funny.

Conclusion

This is a compilation of about seven actual conversations I've had over the five months prior to the regulations taking effect. I'm sure you've all had similar discussions. Rather than smashing my head against a brick wall, I thought I'd vent in the form of an article. Thanks for listening. I am not the only one who has felt this way ....ah...I feel better now...

REGULATIONS FOR YOUNG WORKERS

Just What Are Those "Gumdrop Regulations" Anyhow?

By Ted Morrison

Young workers are vulnerable and need extra protection

As you read Alana's article, you might have wondered what these new, onerous regulations are that cause such a strong reaction in Alana's co-workers. In short, the new OHS rules from the province of British Columbia mandate a four-step process:

1. Employers must first check the job requirements of young (age 25 or under) or new workers against a checklist, available from WorkSafe BC. This will help employers decide what hazards such workers will be facing, and therefore what safety training is required.
2. A trainer must then explain the hazards to the worker, and do a full and thorough walk-through of the workplace to show the worker where and what the hazards are, and how to correctly avoid them.
3. The trainer then needs to ask questions of the worker to ensure that the worker fully understands the training.
4. The trainer or training supervisor must document the training with an orientation or safety training checklist, signed by both the worker and the trainer.

In many cases, workplaces were performing some variant of these four steps already. In lumber mills, for example, a safety orientation might be expected to last a full day even before the new rules became laws. And in most industries you would expect people to get a basic grounding in workplace safety before beginning work. So all that's really changed is that the workplace is now required to document that training.

Does that sound like such a hassle? And if it does, isn't a young worker's life worth it?

OSHA & THE CANDIDATES

John McCain

John McCain

By Glenn Demby

Bio: Born in the Panama Canal Zone, Aug. 29, 1936. Father and grandfathers Admirals in the U.S. Navy. Graduated U.S. Naval Academy 1958 and became navy pilot. Shot down during bombing run over North Vietnam in 1967. Spent five and a half years as a prisoner of war, including periods of torture. Released in 1973. Awarded Purple Heart, Distinguished Flying Cross, Silver Star and Legion of Merit. Retired from navy in 1981. Served two terms in House of Representatives from Arizona starting in 1983. Elected to U.S. Senate in 1986. Sought Republican presidential nomination but defeated by George W. Bush in 2000.

Position Regarding OSHA: The easiest way to find out where a presidential candidate stands on OSHA is by looking at what they've said to enlist union support. But Republican candidates haven't made an effort to court the vote of organized labor. And they don't talk much about OSHA in their speeches or public position papers. So it's a lot harder to gauge their positions.

McCain is known as a maverick who has sided against the Republican position on some notable issues, including most notably, campaign finance reform and torture of political prisoners. But when it comes to OSHA, McCain is pretty much mainstream Republican.

Ergonomics: McCain voted to repeal the OSHA ergonomic standard in 2000. And he hasn't changed his position. McCain considered the Clinton standard unwieldy and unnecessarily burdensome to business. "We can definitively say that there would not be a new ergonomics rule if we are elected," a McCain staffer is quoted as saying, "Senator McCain does not take the issue lightly. But he would not impose the economic burden on businesses that a standard would almost certainly have."

Asbestos Reform: McCain also supports a Republican bill that would make it harder for persons with mesothelioma and other asbestos related diseases to bring class action lawsuits against employers and asbestos manufacturers. Sponsors of the bill claim that reform is necessary to get asbestos litigation under control.

General Regulatory Philosophy: Although he is very much his own man, McCain makes no apologies for his beliefs in the tenets of conservatism. Among these tenets is the commitment to less government. Although he hasn't mentioned OSHA by name, McCain has called for not just the reform but the reorientation of the federal workforce. He has attacked the civil service for its bureaucratic culture. His call for a new generation of civil servants infused with commitment to "higher aspirations" and a "greater sense of purpose" represents something akin to a conservative version of the public service philosophy of John F. Kennedy.

Rhetoric: "The civil service has strayed from its reformist roots and has mutated into a no-accountability zone, where employment is treated as entitlement, good performance as an option and accountability as someone else's problem."

TOMORROW'S PROFILE: Mitt Romney

Story Tools:  Email This Post  Print This Post Top