When did crazy become the new norm? I realize that is a contradiction in terms, but what other explanation are we to believe? Our only hope is that the crazies do not end up running the asylum but it will not be for lack of trying. A highly respected Congresswoman votes her own conscience, the constitution and her own EYES to vote on impeachment. Fortunately in a secret ballot she is resoundingly supported. Meanwhile a crazy who claims Jewish laser beams cause forest fires, tramatized survivors of school shootings are lying and, by the way, it is perfectly acceptable to "murder" your opponents is rewarded after a "fake" apology with a standing ovation. Huh? An apology which continues to attack and expound on more half-baked, half-assed conspiracies. Maybe they should have done a secret vote on the crazy as well. Sometimes the majority is not the loudest voice...
I have often thought that the uneducated, non-readers and non-travelers are way too insulated in their own little world. They have no understanding of other cultures, religions, customs and colors, etc. They seem to be most comfortable with following the lead of others as apparently it is too much work to research, learn and understand. They are afraid to step outside their little circle and take a stand. Much like one of the Gospels of John where he relates Jesus' lament that even though they see with their own eyes but do not believe. Going further he points out the real "truth" that many are afraid of being thrown out of the synagogue and not accepted if they travel in another direction from the norm. Standing up for what one thinks is right is often lonely and takes courage.
Reminds me of a job interview with the State when I was asked what I would do if a complaintant threatened to go to the Governor. First I said, "well we want to avoid that", hold for laugh.
Then I said if I was wrong after review I had to admit it and fix the issue, but if circumstances revealed I was correct I would go to the wall to defend it. Despite that indicator of "trouble maker" I got the job anyway. I am always surprised that there is so little humility, with some people, that even though they might, just possibly, be wrong but will never admit it even to their detriment.
One incident that comes to mind is a gentleman who injured his back, more than once, which always put him into light or restricted duty. I was the devil when it came to finding light duty-no one stayed home on my watch unless they were bedridden. Doctors, psychiatrists and physical therapists will agree it is better to keep people actively engaged in life as much as possible for the best outcome. If I am sitting home watching television commercials from work comp lawyers rather than showing up everyday and valued as an employee, I start to disengage with the whole workie thingee and start to think that a lawsuit is my only option.
I am not saying the light duty was always the epitome of wonderful job chores but it was real work. Ok - I had a crew of restricted workers whose job duty was to go to the recycle station and sort plastic from the recycle materials as it paid more if we did so. I also will admit they took a lot of grief from the other employees as they limped across the road after punching in. The gentleman I referenced earlier was a stubborn sort and after months of physical therapy, work hardening and actually bringing a therapist along on his first day back to full duty for coaching and feedback he still refused to follow any of her direction on how to perform the work. His explanation to me was he preferred to do it his way, which of course, led to more back injuries, therapy, work hardening, coaching, etc., etc. His solution was to make him a supervisor of the restricted duty "plastic sorting" crew. Points for imagination.
The inability to look beyond one's basic beliefs and admitting limitations is a dangerous mindset when it comes to safety. It takes looking at situations from all aspects, getting down and dirty to understand the nuances, interviewing users, experimenting and changing design to assure that most if not all hazards are identified. It requires time and perseverance which is a luxury that many managers do not understand. Which probably what got me into trouble when I did not deliver on someone's else's timeline. Rebel that I am.
To illustrate, I had a situation where an entire rack came down as the employee climbed on it to reach items on a higher shelf. Right off the tendency is to blame the employee for being lazy. Or maybe: there was no ladder or platform available; no secondary support system to assure the racks were stable and properly designed for the load; or perhaps, supervisory pressure (who themselves are under pressure) to just get the job done quickly. The engineer designing the system never walked the floor, did not understand the challenges, and did not talk to the employees impacted by the system. Safety should not be reactive, but often it is. "That never happened before" thinking is an accident.
Another serious accident occurred on a massive clean-up operation in a neighborhood. The refuse packers being used were under unusual stress with the constant operation of the machinery that packed the loads tightly into the box. The controls for the mechanism were stationed right next to, what turned out to be, a relief valve for the lubricant bathing the system which became unstable from the constant operation. As designed, when it reached a critical temperature, it blew -- right into the face of the operator. Thankfully he was wearing the eye and head protection that darn safety person insisted upon for the deparment. Painful burns but no loss of sight. Did it ever occur that the system could be under unusual pressure sometime and maybe controls located in the line of fire might be problematic? Overkill and redundance are the sweethearts of the safety world.
I apparently went off on a tangent away from my original rant of the crazies ruling. Though it reminds me of another cra-cra moment. I fought worker comp or unemployment claims that I believed were bogus. Taxpayer money and all and damn it, it just wasn't right! One interesting situation was a discharge related to the drug and alcohol program I implemented for the CDL (Commercial Driver) employees. A gentleman applied for unemployment after being discharged for multiple alcohol-related incidents. As I explained to the Judge there was a six-pack of empties still attached to their plastic handle in the front seat of the truck before the accident. Yes there's always an accident.
Rather than try to make the case that he picked them up that way, though who would throw away dimers (deposit) still attached to the plastic unless they were sipping as they went? His attorney, who apparently attended the same law school as the ones pushing the election fraud-devil voting machine theory, argued that beer truck drivers are allowed a six-pack in the cab. Really. No. 1, he is driving a refuse packer not a beer truck, and 2, they were empty, and 3, CDL or any driver for that matter can be busted for a sipping while they cruise. The Judge kept his cool, I did not. Slam and Dunk.
No comments:
Post a Comment