Another thread has brought up the 'blame game,' which seems to follow nearly every mishap.

In it's purest form, a supervisor directs a man to do something .... then denies giving the order when things go bad. These are, of course, the same folks who will question the competence of an electrician who doesn't want to work hot.

A more subtle form is the automatic conclusion "only an idiot would do THAT." Sometimes, this is institutionalized as automatic disciplinary action against anyone who gets hurt.
Both are really bad approaches; they only result in concealing accidents and inhibiting the free discourse that would allow all to learn from the event.

Finally, there are contradictory pressures on the job that often mitigate against safety. For example, on a prison job it simply "wasn't possible" to kill the power until someone actually was electrocuted; now, convinced of the danger, the administration suddenly figured out a way to let the power be killed.

Yeah John,
Isn't it strange how a supervisor who may have no electrical competence what-so-ever, can direct an electrician to do work that is dangerous, I've been in that boat before, in an industrial situation.

But, when things turn to custard, the guy will conveniently forget what he said.

I've always had the idea that I never get anyone to do something that I wouldn't personally find safe or do myself.



Actually, parties like OSHA have caused this somewhat, there is often a knee-jerk reaction from management, so that they can be seen to be "doing something" after an accident, even though they may have caused the accident in the first place, with things like restrictive down-time policies and "work-hot or not work" rubbish.

That's one of the main reasons that all the trademen who worked with me at one of the Ford plants had AVO books with them at all times.
When they were told to do something, they were more that happy to accomodate you...so long as you wrote it down on his pad (along with your name, date and time).
It ended the guys doing so many odd jobs while not getting their assigned work done, because we now knew who kept snagging them to do stuff that was not on the official to-do list.
Turns out that almost 100% of our problems were the Supervisors/Managers who thought these guys had nothing better to do than their tons of little jobs.
Once that was implimented and the guys knew that they wouldn't get in trouble so long as they could tell the boss what they had been spending all day on...and who told them to do it...that most of the timewasting sidetrack jobs stopped.
A great system, but a real shame that it was the only way to control the people who thought they knew everything.

AVO - Avoid Verbal Orders

Yeah ghost,
But it shouldn't have to be like that.

I can see what you are saying and yes 9/10ths of the time, Management causes these problems.

Oddly enough, all the "little" jobs happen to be the most dangerous, like "change that lamp in that 500W halogen that we had installed last week, you might not be able to lean your ladder up against the pole because it's only 1" galv pipe and it's also 6ft above the roof, but have a go anyway, see how you go with that"

In a situation like that, I would hand the lamp back and say, "see how you go with that one, sweetheart, I like being able to walk"

Actually, the fitting this clown was talking about was a 500W Metal Halide fitting that had a bad ballast.
I cut the mast off and welded a new one on, the other one was far too high, the roof was 50ft off the ground.

When they can't deny having given the order, they call it "malicious compliance", saying that the subordinate shouldn't have complied because said subordinate knew it was going to go wrong!

Isn't that what they call a vicious circle?

Then again, here we have a multu-billion pound "safety" industry that has balooned beyond reason in Europe to ludicrous levels of stupidity, linked to an increasingly public willingness to call in the Lawyers.

Examples just this week:

The Post Office refuses to deliver to a house after a mail-lady got savaged by......a kitten!

UK Teachers are issued with a five page long list of safety measures to be implemented when kids use...wait for it!...Prit Stick paper glue!

A UK school ordered adults and children to wear....
HAHAHAHahaha! .... goggles when using Blu-Tack!

A Clown can't wear giant shoes in case he trips over!

At one primary school, a three-legged race was dropped from sports day because it was "too dangerous".

A ban on children being sent out of the classroom to "cool off" was implemented..... "because it is a fire hazard."

Wet grass stops PE lessons.

Children told not to eat sweets for fear of choking.

And then having gone to all that cackamany lunacy... a Headmistress is sacked after... she insisted on finished her lunch and delayed for 10 minutes the call for medical assistance to.... a boy with a broken leg! The mind simply boggles!

...and what about this for utter idiocy...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...anned-for-health-and-safety-reasons.html

I used to write down the work order when it involved hot work and got the person who made the decision to work hot to sign it. Once they were faced with responsibility I almost always got the OK to turn off the power. It was almost always to change 347 volt ballast hot. Our OSHA rules require written authorization from the board to change a ballast over 150 volts to ground hot. They almost never give authorization which suits me fine. Any building with 347 volt lighting has to have an annual maintenance permit and agreement with an electrical contractor so we can at least discourage janitors from making ballast changes.

his whole ballast issue goes away when you install the disconnect added to the code a couple cycles ago.
I hope that upgrade is part of any ballast swap.
Now if we could just get NEMA to get the manufactures to standardize a plug ;-)
I could foresee a standard receptacle with different wells for the common voltages and the ballast wired appropriately so whatever you plugged in would end up properly tapped.
Single voltage ballasts would only have pins keyed to the right socket holes.
Inventors, start your CADs

Greg ... though not specifically a "safety" example, you have stumbled upon a great example of the 'blame game.'

OK, so the NEC requires some disconnecting means, but is silent on the specifics. Somehow, everyone agreed that the little plug&socket connectors met the requirement. So far, so good.

Issue #1: Who installs them? Is it the electrician, the fixture maker, or the ballast maker? I notice that new fixtures come with them already installed, but that replacement ballasts do not. From this I deduce that it is the fixture maker who installs them.

Issue #2: For old work and maintenance, the things obviously need to be installed by the electrician. Since he's likely to be replacing the ballast at this point, it would make sense if the ballast came with the devices. They do not; it's up to tge sparky to obtain them.

Issue #3: Where do you get them? Well, the electrician goes to the parts house, where he is almost certain to find ones made by Ideal. Alas, I have never seem a luminaire manufacture waiting in line there; they must have other resources.

Issue #4: What should these devices look like? Despite the very existance of NEMA - it's no accident that bulb sizes are standardized - there's been no effort made to standardise the plug&socket. Therefore, it is wuite possible that every maker of these connectors will come up with a different arrangement, using different design criteria.

The result: Monies spent on these connectors by manufacturers are monies wasted. Since the replacement connectors will not matych the existing ones, we're back to working 'hot,' as we replace the connectors.

Oddly enough, the solution lies with not just the ballast makers, but with one in particular: Advance. With their large share of both the new fixture and ballast markets, whatever connector they choose will become the "norm." Yet, they are the one party involved that is under no obligation to instal the things.

Were Advance to settle on a design, I suspect that Ideal would find a way to supply this design to the parts houses - even if their current design is not the one selected.

The only reason that there is no 'industry standard' is that the NEMA members don't want there to be one. Everyone wants 'their' design to remain exclusively theirs ..... and the one guy with the market power to impose a decision is keeping out of the fray.

What we have here is the equivalent of every toaster maker either not supplying a plug, or supplying one that matches no known receptacle - and the solution laying in the cord-maker's hands.

well Reno,
many of us are under the assumption that the 'Hidden hand of the Market' is self correcting, self serving, providing us all with an amicable end result

but i find that concept to be somewhat foolishly predicated on the expected good will and good nature of mankind given a capitalist system that clear does not

here we really only have the stick, but not the carrot , and who really advocates an entity who's all about collusion and collaboration with jackbooted beauracracy other than the obligatory lip service?

the picture gets even more skewed when the onus of compliance is attached to the employer

the best anology there (and one that might be palatable to the cultural gap here) is health care falling on the employer's back

how exactly that happened is a long story (i'll refrain) but the stigmatism after a generation is exactly the same

does your employer pay for your house insurance? car insurance?

etc, ad nasuem....

so in said respect, why is it we are in a trade with hazards that the employer is responsible for educating us to?

perspective please....?

~S~

Sparky, I take it that you are -with your reference to the 'hidden hand'- taking exception to my suggesting a common plug design.

I can't say I object, and I am sure things will -eventually- shake out. Until then, the code requirement, and the anticipated increase in safety, is just so much more eyewash.

My point was also that, in this case, the 'hidden hand' has a name attached to it: Advance. That's how dominant they are.

Otherwise, the guy who replaces the ballast has zero input into the purchase of the fixture, let alone the manufacture of it. Sure, the parts house might attempt to offer many different makes of the connectors ... but this isn't likely to accomplish much; if nothing else, as every Chinese plant comes up with it's own design.

exception?....no, not at all Reno, in fact it's a grand example....



well here we have the onus of safety foisted upon what is sometimes refered to as supply side economics insinuating compliance by proxy

but what real motivation does any manufacturer have in providing it other than a $$$ in their back pocket?



yet said guy is held responsible to the extent of fines and loss of work

more $$$ made eh?

perhaps a better anology would have been our wod's? there's nothing quite like the specture of monetary interests to kick the crap out of any altruism....~S~

oh and, to add here, i have a small jar full of those ideal brand 'disconnects'

one more connection to fail for a callback imho

~S~