Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 69

Thread: working live on electrical systems

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    49,024
    Quote Originally Posted by the blur View Post
    This is another obama type gov't regulation taking control of what should be put on the responsible party... which is the licensed electrician.

    Two points

    1) OSHA regs were put into place in the early 70s, for the most part the rules have been there but no one was following them.



    2) We don't allow political comments so please leave them out.
    Last edited by iwire; 04-06-12 at 02:06 AM.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    49,024
    Quote Originally Posted by the blur View Post
    there is no way you can blame the property owner. It's the biggest glass company out there, and they are professionals at what they do. There insured, the GC is insured, and the property owner is insured, but you need to place liability where it should be placed.
    We can feel that way but that is not the reality of it.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    cyberspace
    Posts
    160
    Then the reality of it is wrong. you place blame where it is due. not on someone else because they hired a 'professional'.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Easton, Maryland NEC: 2011
    Posts
    7,881
    Quote Originally Posted by the blur View Post
    Then the reality of it is wrong. you place blame where it is due. not on someone else because they hired a 'professional'.
    The reality of it is not wrong. The rules are there to protect workers, like it or not - 'tis the law. Please do not espouse ideas or policies that could endanger the workers - we do not appreciate it.

    If your are an EC and owner, then do what you want - but do not even think of telling me to do something crazy if I work for you. Those days are over.
    "Electricity is really just organized lightning." George Carlin


    Derék

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    49,024
    Quote Originally Posted by the blur View Post
    Then the reality of it is wrong. you place blame where it is due. not on someone else because they hired a 'professional'.
    OK, lets look at that.

    In many cases the employer has provided all the safety equipment necessary but the employee chooses to work with out.

    If they employee gets hurt who would you say the fines should go to?

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    6,368
    Good example iWire.

    Here is what the 70E says:

    110.1 Relationships with Contractors (Outside Service Personnel, etc.).

    (A) Host Employer Responsibilities:
    (1) The host employer shall inform contract employers of:
    a. Known hazards that are covered by this standard, that are related to the contract employer’s work, and that might not be recognized by the contract employer or its employees
    b. Information about the employer’s installation that the contract employer needs to make the assessments required by Chapter 1
    (2) The host employer shall report observed contract employer- related violations of this standard to the contract employer.

    (B) Contract Employer Responsibilities:
    (1) The contract employer shall ensure that each of his or her employees is instructed in the hazards communicated to the contract employer by the host employer. This instruction is in addition to the basic training required by this standard.
    (2) The contract employer shall ensure that each of his or her employees follows the work practices required by this standard and safety-related work rules required by
    the host employer.

    (3) The contract employer shall advise the host employer of:
    a. Any unique hazards presented by the contract employer’s work,
    b. Any unanticipated hazards found during the contract employer’s work that the host employer did not mention, and
    c. The measures the contractor took to correct any violations reported by the host employer under paragraph (A)(2) of this section and to prevent such violation from recurring in the future.

    (C) Documentation. There shall be a documented meeting between the host employer and the contract employer.



    So the owner of the system (In the case of the OP that would be the company Jimbo works for) is required to:
    1) Identify hazards (Arc flash labels from the study for the OP)
    2) Ensure the EC follow the 70E requirements and any additional requirements the OP's company may have in thier safety program (Does not sound like this was done)
    3) Report any observed violations of the 70E or it's own safety requirements (Obviously Jimbo tried to do this, as he should have)
    3) Hold a meeting with the EC covering the safety requirements and document it (Does not sound like this was done either)

    If the owner of the system does all of these things they will likely not be held liable in the event of an accident on thier property involving a contractor, but if these are not done they can be held liable (IBM found out the hard way to the tune of a few million bucks).

    Sooooo, to protect themselves many companies use this form (Attached) to pre-qualify EC's before they are allowed to come on site. Contractor safety brief.doc

    Here is an EC&M article that address some of these issues http://ecmweb.com/ops_maintenance/ar...ents-20110101/

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    cyberspace
    Posts
    160
    If my boss gave me eye protection, and I choose not to wear it, that’s my decision. He’s not standing over me all day long.
    If I choose to ride my Harley without a helmet, that's my choice. If my brains are scattered all over the pavement ….. According to your logic, it’s Harley’s fault because I’m not qualified, and they sold me the bike.

    We are adults, not kids in elementry school.

    If someone pulls the trigger on a gun, they sue the gun company.

    unforturnitly, the lawyers always walk away as the big winners, and the others are all losers.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    6,368
    Quote Originally Posted by the blur View Post
    If my boss gave me eye protection, and I choose not to wear it, that’s my decision. He’s not standing over me all day long.
    Exactly the point!! But he is required to give you eye protection if the job he assigns you requires it.

    Quote Originally Posted by the blur View Post
    If I choose to ride my Harley without a helmet, that's my choice. If my brains are scattered all over the pavement ….. According to your logic, it’s Harley’s fault because I’m not qualified, and they sold me the bike.
    No ones logic is blaming Harley, you are overreacting. However, if your state requires you to wear a helmet and you don't and splatter your brains that is your choice, however who ever your next of kin is will most likely not get any money from your insurance company becuase of that choice you made.

    Quote Originally Posted by the blur View Post
    If someone pulls the trigger on a gun, they sue the gun company.
    Who is they? How would the gun company be liable? You are just making stuff up.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    cyberspace
    Posts
    160
    I read those 2 links in the post above.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sooooo, to protect themselves many companies use this form (Attached) to pre-qualify EC's before they are allowed to come on site. Attachment 6746
    Here is an EC&M article that address some of these issues http://ecmweb.com/ops_maintenance/ar...ents-20110101/
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All I see is legal manipulating to shift blame away from the electrical contractor...... who should know better, and take responsibility for his actions.

    case in point, a 480/277v 600amp service does not have an arc flash label. So the above laws say, the electrician can become a complete moron, and not assume he's opening a dangerous panel, when he should know, any 480v panel has enough energy to do major damage.

    I can't argue with you, because I know the laws are in place, and you will defend them, no matter how right or wrong they are.
    I'm just waiting for the 1st residential arc flash, and they blame the home owner for NOT having an arc flash label, and hot work permit.


    and we all know gun companies have been sued over murders by criminals.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NE Nebraska
    Posts
    19,244
    Quote Originally Posted by the blur View Post
    Then that's a problem with the licensing board, or licensing system. plain and simple.

    say a 277v 3o lighting panel, in retail store, like office depot, or book store, or similiar. Is the store manager suppose to be qualified enough to know a master electrician is doing it wrong ??? or a master plumber is doing it wrong ???? That's totally ridiculous.

    Electrian drops screw driver across 2 phases and blows himself up.
    You put that store owner before a judge and JURY of common lay people, he would not be found liable.
    This is another obama type gov't regulation taking control of what should be put on the responsible party... which is the licensed electrician.

    just the other day, doing commerical alterations, my co-worker is cutting an existing conduit shorter. stuffed with 10 THHN #12 wires. 1 wire was still live, and he sliced it with the pipe cutter, and it blew up in his face. He fell off the ladder from fright. Your blaming the strip mall owner !!!! please, that is totally insane. We were hired because they moved a partition wall in the strip mall, and we're dropping outlets & low voltage computer wire down the new wall. we're hired to do it properly, in a work-man like professional manner, and we take responsility for our actions.
    I feel the same way that you do with most of what you said. The jury of common lay people probably does also.
    The job of the attorneys is to make the jury see it in the way the the attorney wants to present it. Like it or not the jury can not just ignore the fact the owner may have some responsibilty if the attorney presents facts that show this. But the owners attorney will have things to counter that with - so that makes it complicated. Only real winners in the end is both attorneys, judge, and court related employees only because they have a job. Everyone else was inconvenienced at the very least.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •