Protection of the stupid. (Workplace Health And Safety)

DrunkenMonkey

New member
Sep 17, 2012
256
0
0
Ihateregistering1 said:
You must remember, we live in a world where a woman can put a cup of very hot coffee between her legs, spill it on herself, and then sue the place that gave her the coffee...and WIN.
Bad example to cite, as the coffee was so hot that it literally gave the woman third degree burns. The reason being was because they heated the coffee to scalding levels, which once again literally burned a lot of people's throats for even taking a tiny sip, at the time. And the reason they did that was because they were skimping out on the amount of coffee they put in each cup, so the temperature was raised to hide that lack of coffee. It also did not help that before that case those cups were about as sturdy as one piece cardboard looped together with scotch tape.

edit: the place that sold the coffee was McDonalds.
 

shootthebandit

New member
May 20, 2009
3,867
0
0
DrunkenMonkey said:
Ihateregistering1 said:
You must remember, we live in a world where a woman can put a cup of very hot coffee between her legs, spill it on herself, and then sue the place that gave her the coffee...and WIN.
Bad example to cite, as the coffee was so hot that it literally gave the woman third degree burns. The reason being was because they heated the coffee to scalding levels, which once again literally burned a lot of people's throats for even taking a tiny sip, at the time. And the reason they did that was because they were skimping out on the amount of coffee they put in each cup, so the temperature was raised to hide that lack of coffee. It also did not help that before that case those cups were about as sturdy as one piece cardboard looped together with scotch tape.

edit: the place that sold the coffee was McDonalds.
But surely it mustve said "caution: contents may be hot" on the cup. As we all know warning labels are like a shield against any danger
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
Fatboy_41 said:
TL:DR - Workplace Health And Safety is getting out of control and its because of stupid people who should never have been given a screwdriver in the first place.
No, it's getting out of hand because of stupid people who fail to take responsibility for their own stupidity and instead go running to their fucking lawyers. Incidentally all lawyers should be rounded up and dumped into a volcano.
 

gigastar

Insert one-liner here.
Sep 13, 2010
4,419
0
0
Chemistry can be pretty overkill for H&S.

For things like explosives and the sort of stuff that would, on skin contact, do some pretty serious damage to you before you noticed it, and anything thats toxic and produces vapors, its entirely justified.

But for things involving less hazardous material, the H&S is the same. I dont mind the lab coats, i find them stylish. However the one-size-doesnt-quite-fit-all disposable gloves continue to be a source of irritation.
 

DrunkenMonkey

New member
Sep 17, 2012
256
0
0
shootthebandit said:
DrunkenMonkey said:
Ihateregistering1 said:
You must remember, we live in a world where a woman can put a cup of very hot coffee between her legs, spill it on herself, and then sue the place that gave her the coffee...and WIN.
Bad example to cite, as the coffee was so hot that it literally gave the woman third degree burns. The reason being was because they heated the coffee to scalding levels, which once again literally burned a lot of people's throats for even taking a tiny sip, at the time. And the reason they did that was because they were skimping out on the amount of coffee they put in each cup, so the temperature was raised to hide that lack of coffee. It also did not help that before that case those cups were about as sturdy as one piece cardboard looped together with scotch tape.

edit: the place that sold the coffee was McDonalds.
But surely it mustve said "caution: contents may be hot" on the cup. As we all know warning labels are like a shield against any danger
I honestly don't remember at the time if they used caution labels, but regardless it was no excuse to make those cups that flimsy, or for that matter heat the coffee to that temperature just to cut some costs.

edit: "McDonald?s admitted at trial that consumers were unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald?s then-required temperature."

source: https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts
 
Nov 28, 2007
10,686
0
0
shootthebandit said:
DrunkenMonkey said:
Ihateregistering1 said:
You must remember, we live in a world where a woman can put a cup of very hot coffee between her legs, spill it on herself, and then sue the place that gave her the coffee...and WIN.
Bad example to cite, as the coffee was so hot that it literally gave the woman third degree burns. The reason being was because they heated the coffee to scalding levels, which once again literally burned a lot of people's throats for even taking a tiny sip, at the time. And the reason they did that was because they were skimping out on the amount of coffee they put in each cup, so the temperature was raised to hide that lack of coffee. It also did not help that before that case those cups were about as sturdy as one piece cardboard looped together with scotch tape.

edit: the place that sold the coffee was McDonalds.
But surely it mustve said "caution: contents may be hot" on the cup. As we all know warning labels are like a shield against any danger
Actually, the cups didn't. They put that warning on after the lawsuit. But there is a difference between "hot" and "If you spill this coffee on yourself, you will give yourself third degree burns before the coffee cools off".
 

MorphingDragon

New member
Apr 17, 2009
566
0
0
Abomination said:
Wish other people commented on this as we have the same thing in New Zealand at times where you spend more time on the safety than the actual work itself.

Retracting covers on saw blades, safety catches on ladders, harnesses, high-vis vests and helmets are great for safety. Essentially requiring wheelchair access to a building site is not.

It is essentially the protection of the stupid.
Yet OSHA won't actually get their knickers in a knot for shit that can actually damage people, like not using suitable materials to save money.

I've worked with computers, I've been "electrocuted" many times. Yet I've injured myself more by dodgy floors.
 

solemnwar

New member
Sep 19, 2010
649
0
0
See, it's not just the idiots who get injured. Other people get injured, too.

Say Idiot forgets to do something, or does something that shouldn't be done. It might not even hurt them, but it could hurt someone around them, or whoever uses a product later, that sort of thing.

I'd rather we protect the stupid, and not risk getting our own asses kicked because of their stupidity.
 

wickedmonkey

New member
Nov 11, 2009
77
0
0
I still find it insane the woman didn't, when holding the cup *in her hands*, register that the liquid cup was hot and probably shouldn't be placed precariously near vulnerable flesh. She must have known the liquid would have been at least boiled very recently and that boiled stuff is hot and hurts.

OT: Yes, I also find it obscene the lengths we go to in order to stop the stupid being filtered out of the genepool, and if the victim isn't killed there's a good chance (he says, full of optimism) they won't do something so stupid ever again.

Companies simply have to nanny every single facet of everything their employees do to stop themselves being sued into the ground because Joe Dumbass put his dick in a belt sander* and wasn't told that doing so is a fucking terrible idea.

*I'm not even making that up - http://darwinawards.com/stupid/stupid1998-10.html
 

shootthebandit

New member
May 20, 2009
3,867
0
0
gigastar said:
Chemistry can be pretty overkill for H&S.

For things like explosives and the sort of stuff that would, on skin contact, do some pretty serious damage to you before you noticed it, and anything thats toxic and produces vapors, its entirely justified.

But for things involving less hazardous material, the H&S is the same. I dont mind the lab coats, i find them stylish. However the one-size-doesnt-quite-fit-all disposable gloves continue to be a source of irritation.
I think the problem isnt with the more hazardous stuff its the long term effects of the "milder" stuff. Companies are pretty big on dermatitis nowadays. I had to go on course to learn how to wash my hands

The one bit of safety gear which annoys me at my workplace is what they call a "bump cap". They are only designed to stop you from bumping your head so basically if im underneath an aircraft and i stand up it protects my head. Yet i have to wear it even when im working on top of the aircraft where it provides no benefit what so ever. Ive actually seen people get "shark finned" basically some stands up and because the cap limits their view they end up catching thier back on a VHF antenna (which looks like a shark fin). They have made the peaks smaller but the hats still get in the way especially as a lot of jobs have very limited access. Not to mention as i sweat throughout the day it gets really clammy and makes your scalp really itchy
 

A BigCup of Tea

New member
Nov 19, 2009
471
0
0
Esotera said:
When I was working as a software tester we had to watch a 2 hour video and complete a quiz about how to correctly view a screen and use a keyboard. I can see why they'd want to do a bit of health & safety for electrics/construction but having it in an office setting is just ridiculous.
don't you know those water coolers can be mighty dangerous! dangerous you say? how? well you could pick up one of those plastic cups and BAM!! you get a drink of water!

OT: i used to work with disabled kids on trips out during the summer, there were so many health and safety rules i'm not even going to go into it! (although if someone really wants to know i will give some)
 

sneakypenguin

Elite Member
Legacy
Jul 31, 2008
2,804
0
41
Country
usa
O man working various retail and vending jobs OSHA is the biggest pain in the ass with some of their rules. I feel the pain, same for some DOT regs screwing up things for drivers/deliveries.
 

shootthebandit

New member
May 20, 2009
3,867
0
0
There was a guy at my work. You know those old guys that have been doing the job for 40 years and have a wit drier than ghandi's flip flop. He gave me the golden rule for health and safety

golden rule said:
dont put your hands anywhere you wouldnt put your dick

wickedmonkey said:
Companies simply have to nanny every single facet of everything their employees do to stop themselves being sued into the ground because Joe Dumbass put his dick in a....
Obviously some people cant even follow the golden rule /facepalm
 

Ihateregistering1

New member
Mar 30, 2011
2,034
0
0
DrunkenMonkey said:
shootthebandit said:
DrunkenMonkey said:
Ihateregistering1 said:
You must remember, we live in a world where a woman can put a cup of very hot coffee between her legs, spill it on herself, and then sue the place that gave her the coffee...and WIN.
Bad example to cite, as the coffee was so hot that it literally gave the woman third degree burns. The reason being was because they heated the coffee to scalding levels, which once again literally burned a lot of people's throats for even taking a tiny sip, at the time. And the reason they did that was because they were skimping out on the amount of coffee they put in each cup, so the temperature was raised to hide that lack of coffee. It also did not help that before that case those cups were about as sturdy as one piece cardboard looped together with scotch tape.

edit: the place that sold the coffee was McDonalds.
But surely it mustve said "caution: contents may be hot" on the cup. As we all know warning labels are like a shield against any danger
I honestly don't remember at the time if they used caution labels, but regardless it was no excuse to make those cups that flimsy, or for that matter heat the coffee to that temperature just to cut some costs.

edit: "McDonald?s admitted at trial that consumers were unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald?s then-required temperature."

source: https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts
It's also not an excuse, whether the coffee would give you 3rd degree burns, 2nd degree burns, or simply ruin your day, to stick a cup of HOT coffee between your legs.

This is like someone licking a knife, cutting their tongue, and then trying to sue the knife company because they had no idea the knife would be that sharp because it didn't have a warning label on it.

And consumers were unaware that they would be badly burned if they spilled very hot liquid on themselves? Sorry but no. By that logic, anyone can argue that they are 'unaware of the risk of driving' and sue the car company when they get in a wreck by saying they thought the airbag or seatbelt would save them.

Oh, and also, McDonald's coffee is still served at the same temperature (or hotter) than when Ms. Firecrotch burned herself, so her suit didn't do anything except make her and her lawyers rich.
 

DrunkenMonkey

New member
Sep 17, 2012
256
0
0
Ihateregistering1 said:
It's the context that you are missing. A cup of hot coffee that inflicts third degree burns upon impact is not the same as licking a knife. Hell it's strange but you know what's weird boiling oil doesn't even burn that fast, and people at least try to watch out for that.
 

oliver.begg

New member
Oct 7, 2010
140
0
0
best i ever saw was working in a welding shop.

we had MIG and TIG units that would throw you across the room after putting 3 phase power through your ass, and grinders that would go through you gloves, skin muscle and bone like butter. now all that really dangerous gear had SOP's that made sense (like don't leave the fucking chuck key in the lathe set to 4000RPM), but the induction was 3 hours, and if your not sure don't fucking touch.

i then went into the office and the induction their was 8 hours on the dangers of papercuts, and triping. thats shit that the supposed blue collar thickos didn't even think about because its common sense, or a case of drink a cup of concrete and harden the fuck up
 

Ihateregistering1

New member
Mar 30, 2011
2,034
0
0
DrunkenMonkey said:
Ihateregistering1 said:
It's the context that you are missing. A cup of hot coffee that inflicts third degree burns upon impact is not the same as licking a knife. Hell it's strange but you know what's weird boiling oil doesn't even burn that fast, and people at least try to watch out for that.
I can't see this context I'm missing:
A knife and a hot cup of coffee are actually quite similar. Both perform a function, but are dangerous if handled improperly. Some improper ways to handle a knife would be to lick it or run around with it. Some improper ways to handle a hot cup of coffee would be to throw it at someone or stick it between your legs. Both would cause injury. I don't consider either one to be grounds for suing the knife or coffee producer.

I equate it to this: have you ever been to a Mexican restaurant and ordered fajitas? You know how they bring them out on a metal plate that is sizzling, with steam coming off of it? If I decided to hold the plate between my legs because, I don't know, I had to make a phone call, should I be able to sue the restaurant if the waiter/waitress didn't explicitly warn me that the sizzling metal plate with hot food on it and steam coming off of it was hot?

To me, this goes back to the concept of what a 'reasonable person' would do, which is cited frequently in court cases. To me, a reasonable person would be intelligent enough not to stick a cup of hot coffee between their legs. Just like a reasonable person would be intelligent enough to not fold up their stroller with a baby in it (yes, there is actually a warning label on it to remind you to remove your baby) or not to drive by looking at your GPS and not look at the road.

Also, it doesn't inflict 3rd degree burns "on impact" (it's not napalm). The reason it burned the woman so bad was because 1: She was 79, so she didn't exactly move quickly, and 2: she was wearing cotton sweatpants, which absorbed the liquid and held it against her skin.
 

Mid Boss

Senior Member
Aug 20, 2012
274
10
23
All the safety measures at any I've worked had nothing to do with safety. They were all just a check list given to them by their insurance companies to check off to get lower insurance rates. Any obviously needed safety measures were ignored until they were added to the check list by the insurance company.

It's not protection of the stupid because that would imply your employers might actually give a shit about you. No, it's all about saving money.
 

duct tape guardian

New member
Nov 8, 2010
16
0
0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Coffee_%28film%29

So where should she have put the coffee? The car she was a passenger in didn't have cup-holders nor was it even moving. I definitely don't think she deserves the vilification she gets; she was 79 and she spilled something, a minor mistake, that would put her in the hospital for 8 days and in treatment for the next 2 years, and here there are all these people defending McDonalds. McDonalds is a multibillion dollar corporation, are you really that disappointed that they had to pay out less than a million dollars to an old woman that they grievously injured?

I doubt a Mexican restaurant would not serve your fajitas on a metal platter if you were getting drive through.

It may not burn to 3rd degree "upon impact" but the link DrunkenMonkey posted lists that water at 180 degrees can cause 3rd degree burns within 3 - 7 seconds, taking that figure as true, the McDonalds policy at the time was to keep coffee between 180 and 190. Her being older and her tissues likely less resilient than a younger person; I would wager that it was on the quicker end of that time spectrum, and when applied through sweatpants the soaked area would stick to her legs. I doubt most people could remove the sweatpants while seated, possibly even with a seat-belt on.