The following article is a good
example of what happens when Telco battery strings are
not properly maintained and go into thermal runaway.
Deferring maintenance is like karma, it will come back
BROADCAST MESSAGE FROM THE
SACRAMENTO FIRE MARSHALL TO A FIRE MARSHALL'S LIST
Thought some of you might be interested in this picture.
It is a hydrogen explosion in a UPS/battery room we had
here in Sacramento this week. It is a very good example
of what happens if you lose ventilation in a battery
charging room. The explosion blew a 400+ sq.ft. hole in
the roof (notice the sky above in the picture),
collapsed numerous walls and ceilings throughout the
building, and significantly damaged a large portion of
the 50,000+ sq.ft. building. Fortunately the
computer/data center was vacant at the time, so there
were no injuries. I have more pictures/info, if
interested just let me know. MESSAGE #2:
I received a lot of requests for more
pictures & info - so I'll try to get it all in one
email. I believe it is important to share information in
the industry to prevent future incidents.... but I'm
also guessing this incident could result in some
litigation, which I prefer to avoid, so I apologize if
I'm a little vague on some of the specifics.
STROKE: Remember the 1st Three Letters.... S. T. R.
During a BBQ, a friend stumbled and took a little fall - she assured everyone that she was fine (they offered to call paramedics).She said she had just tripped over a brick because of her new shoes.
They got her cleaned up and got her a new plate of food. While she appeared a bit shaken up, Ingrid went about enjoying herself the rest of the evening.
Ingrid's husband called later telling everyone that his wife had been taken to the hospital - (at 6:00 pm, Ingrid passed away.) She had suffered a stroke at the BBQ. Had they known how to identify the signs of a stroke, perhaps Ingrid would be with us today. Some don't die. They end up in a helpless, hopeless condition instead.
It only takes a minute to read this...
A neurologist says that if he can get to a stroke victim within 3 hours he can totally reverse the effects of a stroke...totally. He said the trick was getting a stroke recognized, diagnosed, and then getting the patient medically cared for within 3 hours, which is tough.
RECOGNIZING A STROKE
Thank God for the sense to remember the '3' steps, STR.
Sometimes symptoms of a stroke are difficult to identify. Unfortunately, the lack of awareness spells disaster. The stroke victim may suffer severe brain damage when people nearby fail to recognize the symptoms of a stroke.
Now doctors say a bystander can recognize a stroke by asking three simple questions: S *Ask the individual to SMILE. T *Ask the person to TALK and SPEAK A SIMPLE SENTENCE (Coherently - i.e. It is sunny out today.) R *Ask him or her to RAISE BOTH ARMS.
If he or she has trouble with ANY ONE of these tasks, call emergency number immediately and describe the symptoms to the dispatcher.
New Sign of a Stroke -------- Stick out Your Tongue
NOTE: Another 'sign' of a stroke is this: Ask the person to 'stick' out his tongue. If the tongue is 'crooked', if it goes to one side or the other,that
is also an indication of a stroke.
Please pass this on. You never know who's life you
Stress is an occupational safety and health problem for
thousands of CWA members who perform their work outdoors
as well as in residential attics and industrial
settings. In order to increase leader and member
awareness and action as well as ensure represented
employers are providing affected workers with safe and
healthful working conditions, the Union has developed
the "CWA Heat Stress campaign" supported by the
Telecommunications Strategic Industry Fund. This effort
seeks to create safer working conditions through the
education of our members as we have had several deaths
related to heat stress.
David LeGrande will oversee the analysis of the
completed surveys and translate them into a report. We
hope that the report will be a useful tool to work with
employers in improving safe and healthful working
conditions as well as be the foundation for union
education, training, and mobilization activities.
We plan to distribute electronic copies of the Heat
Stress fact sheet and survey materials first to staff,
then local officers, and then to members whose jobs
involve working in hot temperatures.
Many local unions have had years of experience with
joint labor‑management health and safety committees.
Gains in workplace health and safety have resulted from
having such a committee where the union can raise and
discuss its concerns. In some cases, however, management
has used these committees to stall, redirect attention
away from union concerns, and limit progress in
addressing union issues. Every union member
participating on a joint labor‑management health and
safety committee should be aware of the pitfalls of
these committees, and what he or she can do to best
represent and pursue the interest of the union and its
This is a code of conduct for union members who are
involved in joint labor management health and safety
committees and activities. Note that this code is not
much different from what we would expect of a union
member in other settings especially when union members
are engaged in any type of discussion with management.
Please read the entire document......
This is a dramatic video (30-second, very short) about
how to deal with a common kitchen fire ... oil in
a frying pan.
Read the following introduction, then watch the
show ... It's a real eye-opener!!
the Fire Fighting Training school, they would
demonstrate this with a deep fat fryer set on the fire
field. An instructor would don a fire suit and using an
8 oz cup at the end of a 10 foot pole toss water onto
the grease fire. The results got the attention of
the students. The water, being heavier than oil, sinks
to the bottom where it instantly becomes superheated.
The explosive force of the steam blows the burning oil
up and out.
the open field, it became a thirty foot high fireball
that resembled a nuclear blast. Inside the confines of a
kitchen, the fire ball hits the ceiling and fills the
entire room. Also, do not throw sugar or flour on a
grease fire. One cup creates the explosive force of two
sticks of dynamite. This is a powerful message----watch
the video and don't forget what you see.
Please click on the picture below to load the video:
Have you ever caught yourself starting to doze off as
you drive home at night? How about when you are on a
long trip? You suddenly hear noise from a rumble strip
at the edge of the pavement. You get the car back on the
road and assess your condition. You rub you eyes,
shaking your head, perhaps take a drink of a caffeine
product or adjust the position of your seat or the
steering wheel. You believe that you can make it home
because it is only a few more miles.
Consider this work situation: You have been assigned to
work on a serious service outage near the end of your
normal shift and continued working all through the
night. Your supervisor talks to you about your
condition. Several thought come into your mind. Overtime
money is building up. You feel a responsibility to
finish the work. You’re a team player. After considering
everything you reply that you are fine and will continue
to work. Finally, after lunch the trouble is fixed
everything is back in service and you walk to your truck
to drive home. Are you in a safe condition to drive?
Considering the above, please take a moment to watch the
attached video to experience what happened to a cab
driver that thought he could make it “just a little
longer.” Don’t let this happen to you.
Click on the picture
below to load the video.
Thanks to Tom Costello, President of 7717, for this
Driving across Nebraska
recently I approached a freeway work zone. It was identified
with warning signs, flags and the reduced posted speed limit.
There was also a radar device informing motorists of their
speed. This was not the first construction zone and I knew it
would not be the last before I arrived at my destination. I have
been involved with safety for many years and respect the values
of safety. The radar devise prompted me to slow down and to
comply with the posted speed limit. I also thought it would be
nice to avoid a speeding ticket. This reaction was justified a
few moments later as the flashing red and blue lights of a state
patrol car came into view. Clearly there was a situation at the
side of the road; an officer was having an “autograph party”
with a citizen. I am sure the citizen receiving the citation was
now in a bad mood contemplating a large doubled fine and the
potential increased cost of automobile insurance.
As drivers we frequently
zip through the orange flags, signs and cones with little regard
to the danger we face. Some, adjust the radio or CD player,
“request” our children to behave, disregard the speed limit, or
find the situation as just an inconvenience. Others gab on their
cell phones and sometimes they crash and take a life.
Every state in the
nation is forced to deal with this safety issue. A recent
article in the Arizona Tribune provides some interesting
information about problems in work zones. In Arizona work-zone
crashes have claimed more than 100 lives in the past five years!
Construction officials call these deaths avoidable. To call
attention to the problem Industry and Transportation officials
have created a traveling memorial. It contains the names of 900
drivers, passengers, law enforcement officers and construction
workers who have died in work zones. Each of the 900 names
listed on a panel, was a father, mother, brother, sister, son or
daughter or friend of someone. Some were workers and some were
police officers just doing their jobs.
Who are the people most
at risk in a construction zone? The workers would be my first
guess. After all, they spend the most time in the work zone.
They become accustom to traffic flying by and they are
concentrating on the task at hand. Would you be surprised to
know that 85% of the fatalities are drivers and their
passengers? (765 of 900)
Do we recognize the
dangers we are driving through? Police say it is a struggle to
slow traffic in work zones and some driver’s behavior is
shocking at times. During a recent project to widen I 10 the
Arizona Highway Patrol cited drivers who sped through the work
zone area at 100 miles per hour. Harassment on the cop’s part?
No. Their job is to make sure we get home safely.
(The Arizona information
is from an article by Garin Groff AZ. Tribune, used by
Who is really
responsible for safety?
1.Drivers: Slow down in work zones -
your life depends on it
2.Drivers: Resist distractions such
as cell phones.
3.Workers: Do not become
“comfortable” look for danger
4.Workers: Use and wear approved
5.Both: Expect the unexpected.
6.Both: Do not be impatient
7.Both: Police – protect, enforce
from a fall into an open utility hole.
On January 18, 2006 in
Draper, Utah a 71-year-old woman walked into an open manhole
falling 17 feet and landing in 6 to 8 inches of water and
sewage. One hour later she was rescued suffering from a compound
leg fracture and cuts and bruises.
A septic tank worker
was using the manhole to access a grease sump from a nearby
deli. The woman parked her car near the open hole. When she got
out of her car, she asked the worker if she was in his way. The
worker replied that she was not. Later he stated that he
believed she was aware of the activity because of the
conversation and the equipment he was using. He used a hose to
vacuum out the grease and sewage and it was protruding from the
hole at the time.
When the woman returned
to her car the worker was about 10 feet away from the hole with
his back turned to her. He was putting equipment back into the
truck. The worker said he never imagined that the woman would
not have noticed that the hole was uncovered. As the worker
returned to put the cover back on the hole, he saw her car keys
lying on the ground next to the uncovered hole and heard the
woman calling for help.
(Information from Pat
Realvy, Deseret Morning News, Jan 18,2006)
is really responsible for safety?
1.Worker: Use proper work area
protection -self and public
2.Worker: Plan for safety - Put the
lid on first
3.Never imagine that people know
where the danger is
4.Others: Be alert - pay attention
– look for danger.
5.Others: Think safety
Walking alone at
Joe travels to
Washington D.C. for a meeting. He checks into a hotel and has a
nice dinner. Later, he decides to take a walk around the area to
get some exercise and fresh air. He feels confident, as he has
visited the Capitol area often. Joe knows the police patrol the
area and a few other people are also walking around.
As he walks his mind
wanders to events of the next day. Soon he is in deep thought
and not paying attention to his surroundings. It is a wonderful
evening. Suddenly a very tall and large man is walking next to
him. The large man speaks. He tells Joe that he has just been
released from prison. He produces an official looking government
travel voucher payable for $10 dollars and he suggests that Joe
provide an additional $10 dollars to get him home to his
“mother!” Startled, Joe assesses his situation and looks around
for help or assurance. No one is in sight and the police often
seen passing by are momentarily in other place. The man has not
threatened Joe. He has only requested some help.
is really responsible for safety?
1.Do not go out alone
2.Be alert of your surroundings
3.Do not reach for your wallet or
4.Agree to help but suggest “we”
walk to a store or restaurant to cash a travelers check
5.Be observant of people near you or
standing in a parking lot or street
6.Make sure they know that you have
seen them (Ability to ID)
7.Speak to them “good evening”
Equipment on the
Every morning you report
for work. You are ready for another wonderful day complete with
job pressures, assignments, quotas to be meet and customers to
please. You gather necessary equipment and supplies, get in your
truck and off you go. The day progresses well and just when you
start to get ahead of the game that old warn out bald tire on
the left front blows out on the freeway. Using all your skill
and training you control the truck and bring it to a safe stop
at the side of the freeway. As you call for a new tire and some
help to change it, you think about how many times you have
turned it in to be replaced. You know you have filled out
several repair tickets and have been given the same old dribble
about budget issues with the company.
Who is really
responsible for safety?
1.You have the right to refuse
2.You have a responsibility not
drive or use unsafe equipment.
3.Limited budgets do not excuse
employers from providing safety items
Thousands of workers die or are
injured because of thousand of on-the-job accidents each year.
Many more are exposed to unhealthy conditions that cause serious
illnesses years later. When does a worker have the right to
refuse dangerous work?
On February 26, 1980, the United
States Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling which more clearly
defined a worker's right to refuse work where an employee(s) has
(have) reasonable apprehension that death or serious injury or
illness might occur as a result of performing the work. The
unanimous decision came in a 1974 case against Whirlpool
Corporation in which two workers refused to crawl out on a
screen from which a coworker had fallen to his death only nine
days earlier. A Cincinnati, Ohio, appeals court ruled in favor
of the worker's rights in "Whirlpool," and the Supreme Court
affirmed that decision. (At the time the Supreme Court took the
Whirlpool case, there were two other appealed court decisions
which had gone the other way. These cases were by courts in New
Orleans in 1977 and Denver in 1978.)
Workers in the "Whirlpool" case were
told to go out on a screen 20 feet above the floor to retrieve
small appliance parts which had fallen from a conveyor belt
system above. The screen was in place to protect workers in the
plant from falling parts. The retrieval assignment had resulted
in other workers falling partially or completely through the
screen. Claiming that the screen was unsafe, two employees
refused to carry out the assignment. Whirlpool supervisors sent
the workers home for the day and withheld about six hours pay.
The Court, in its decision,
emphasized that the OSHA Act provides the worker with the right
to choose not to perform an assigned task due to reasonable
apprehension of death or serious injury coupled with a
reasonable belief that no less drastic alternative is available.
Further, the Court held that a worker who utilizes this OSHA
protection may not be discriminated against for such action.
However; the Court also indicated that an employee who refused
work based on the regulation runs the risk of discharge or
reprimand in the event a court subsequently finds that he/she
acted unreasonably or in bad faith.
As noted, the employer docked the two
workers about six hours pay in the Whirlpool case. The Supreme
Court ruled that the OSHA Act does not require an employer to
pay a worker who refuses to perform an assigned task in the face
of imminent danger. Rather, the Act simply provides that in such
cases the employer may not discriminate against the involved
worker(s). Thus, the Court ruling left this issue to be decided
by labor and management through collective bargaining. Members
of unions that do not negotiate the necessary protective
language in their contracts should not expect to be paid for the
refusal to work, period. This will be true even where an
employer is found guilty of violating the OSHA Act.
In light of the Supreme Court's
decision, what should CWA members who are faced with an imminent
danger situation do? The Supreme Court has said that a worker
may refuse unsafe work where he/she has refused the job in good
faith. Good faith may be interpreted as an honest belief that
the job was unsafe and where the job was unusually and
objectively dangerous. Good faith can be demonstrated by the
manner by which you refuse unsafe work: Explain the hazard to
the supervisor and your steward; Offer to do other, safe work
until the hazard is corrected; Give management a chance to
respond before doing anything else.
If the condition isn't corrected,
call and request an "imminent danger" inspection; do not walk
off the job. If management won't fix the hazard, force them to
take the next step. Make sure you have expressed your reasons
for refusing the job and your willingness to do other work,
clearly and in the presence of your steward or other workers.
If you're fired or disciplined: file
a grievance immediately; file an unfair labor practice charge
with the NLRB immediately but within 180 days; file a section
11(c) discrimination complaint with OSHA/WISHA immediately but
within 30 days. The bottom line is to stay cool. Don't let
management provoke you into rash actions which could hurt your
case later. Proving that your job was" abnormally and
objectively dangerous" is a matter of documentation: Was the job
one you'd never done before? Or; had the conditions of the job
changed recently? Did you protest the job before? Did other
workers protest the job before? Did others refuse to do the job?
Was the company in violation of OSHA, state or local health and
safety regulations? Many chemicals and conditions are clearly
dangerous but aren't covered by any standards. Have workers been
injured or made sick doing your job? Just what chemicals were
you working with? If any CWA member refuses unsafe work, he
should notify the Local Union President or Safety Officer. In
turn this information should be made available to the CWA
Representative, and the CWA occupational Safety and Health
What Can You Do? All CWA members
should make sure that their employer is maintaining a safe and
healthful workplace. The key to making the workplace safe for
all CWA members is strong, active Local Safety and Health
The committee can identify dangerous
conditions at the workplace and discuss them with management. If
the company refuses to cooperate the committee can request a
WISHA inspection. The committee should always coordinate its
Through the Local officers, the CWA
Representative and negotiated Safety and Health Committees.
Local 7804 Vice President and Safety Officer
Regional MOSHC Representative.
A recent incident experienced by a technician prompts this reminder to all
members. This incident involved a work area set up and a disagreement between
the technicians and their supervisor concerning same. Cutting to the quick on
this incident, the two parties involved could not reach an agreement as to what
was right. The techs called in a Local Safety Rep who responded and the
situation was supposedly rectified to everyone’s satisfaction and to all WAP
code requirements. I said “supposedly rectified”. The next day the techs were
told that they were not to call any Union safety person as they were “worker
bees” (my term) not safety experts. That was, I am sure, a statement only
uttered after years of research and deep insight by the supervisor.
Since we all have problems accepting
that statement, I am sure we can all agree that this voiced
tirade by this supervisor was hot air, smoke and mirrors, and an
attempt to intimidate. Needless to say, after a couple of phone
calls this supervisor will be enlightened. We have all had an
experience like this if we have been around very long, some
worse but most workable.
I want all members to be aware of a
couple of “your rights.”
You may call a Union
rep at any time, but especially if you feel that a
situation is developing with a Qwest management
individual, i.e. disciplinary, intimidation, safety,
etc. If you are denied this right, clam up, don’t become
insubordinate and report the situation and refusal to a
Union officer immediately.
Under OSHA, the employee has the
ultimate right to challenge the health and/or safety of
an assigned work operation. You as an employee, have the
right of declaring “imminent danger” in questionable
safety situations and requesting another opinion. You
need to contact a Union officer and/or safety person
immediately to represent you.
Again, if your request is denied,
politely inform the company ,management person that you are more
than ready and willing to complete your assigned task just as
soon as your concerns are resolved.
Be sure to initially contact your
supervisor and report your concerns. Let them attempt to resolve
the concerns. No one has to do something because so and so’s
crew do it that way all the time. So and so’s crew may have been
bucking the safety odds for years or may just not know what is
Use your training and experience, and
the old sixth sense of preservation. After all it’s your life
and limbs, so protect them.
Your CWA safety representatives, have
absolutely no patience with any supervisor who attempts to short
cut safety, or creates an intimidating situation towards any
employee who questions or requests second opinions on any safety
or contract situation.
A supervisor who yells “show me in
writing” or a local member who says “no one can tell me how to
safely do my job!” are of equal ignorance as to their people’s
or their own responsibilities.
So don’t be side tracked by rhetoric.
Question any and all potentially unsafe or questionable safety
situations. I can assure you that not to do so would result in
disciplinary actions or worse.
In all my 40 years as a Net Tech and
Union rep, the number of managers who foolishly disregarded
safety policies and forced an issue can only be counted on the
fingers of one hand.
Most management reps are generally
committed to the safety and welfare of the employee and those
managers who “drift” will be dealt with. You have the ultimate
responsibility for yourself and your survival. If you cut
corners only you and yours will suffer.
Be safe and don’t be afraid to
question any situation.
Local 7804 Vice President and Safety Officer
Regional MOSHC Representative.
is one area of labor-management relations which is
often-discussed, but few rules or guidelines have emerged. Some
of this is due to the fine distinction between uncivil language
or even crude language and threats of violence. Moreover, there
are mitigating factors which seem to drive the arbitrators’
decisions, (and of course, the rule of progressive discipline)
and thus, arbitrators do not cite other cases as precedent or
for general principles.
Employers have a
statutory and common law tort duty to provide a safe working
place. Employees have a right to not be subjected to threats in
the workplace and employers must exercise a reasonable duty of
care to ensure that safety. This duty of care is in addition to
any required by law or regulation.
All threat cases are
viewed initially through a prism of common sense. No arbitrator
is going to ignore what are generally accepted understandings of
words and actions, in order to uphold or reverse the
discipline. Consider how difficult it is to apply common sense
to the words alone. Without knowing the workplace culture and
the context of the words, would the following be considered a
threat of violence?
Grievant to supervisor:
“Don’t F--- with me.”
Grievant to co-worker:
“They take people out back for that.”
Grievant to customer:
“This place would blow.”
Grievant to steward: “I’m
going to go postal.”
What becomes apparent is
that threats are not always clear, not always immediate (in the
sense of time), and never said without a context (including
provocation). Of course, it does not matter whether the threat
was carried out, but the factual record surrounding the threat
is critical to the case.
The problem of workplace
violence cannot be viewed as just an employee versus employee
matter. In fact, only 20% of the perpetrators of workplace
violence are current employees of the workplace. According to a
Northwestern National Life survey, the proportion of violence in
all workplaces is committed by these types of people:
Two frequent scenarios:
the grievant utters the “threat” as part of a joke or as part of
his co-workers’ banter. Or the grievant makes a threat, but has
no intention of carrying it out. By definition, threat means
intending to take action. If the workplace rule covers threats,
the arbitrator is still left to determine whether the grievant
intended for the threat to be taken seriously. Take the extreme
case, where the grievant meekly states or in anger, states,
“we’ll end up in a black hole.” The employer will not be able
to convince the arbitrator that on those words alone, the
grievant intended the result because it is beyond the realm of
Professor Carlton Snow,
a nationally respected arbitrator, defines threat as a
declaration of intent to do harm. Arbitrators and courts define
threat broadly. It can be verbal or non-verbal (including
gestures or other physical appearances). The question is
whether the employee created the apprehension of violence. Did
the grievant use the threat to effect a certain result? And do
the facts support a conclusion that the grievant intended to
arouse apprehension? In short, does the verbal or non-verbal
conduct, to a reasonable person, create an atmosphere of
Raised often as a union
defense, shop talk is not always protected. Arbitrators
Was the shop talk phrase
personalized or was it general?
Was the statement uttered in
Was the statement intended to
demean or challenge the authority of the supervisor?
Who else heard it (customers,
The arbitral presumption is that the
ordinary obscenity is not subject to discipline because it is
not intended to be violent or undermine management’s authority.
In fact, in a private discussion, an employee may be able to go
further with a supervisor than if it were done in front of other
The issue may not even
be the “quality” of the foul language, but whether the language
directed to fellow employees or supervisor signifies a lack of
respect, according to Arbitrator Snow. Otherwise, chaos would
result and productivity would go down. Hence, management has a
right to discipline that which affects productivity.
Most arbitrators don’t
require evidence about the impact on productivity, because it is
assumed. Nevertheless, the real issue is productivity, rather
than an analysis of supervisory authority.
is everything in these cases. If the workplace is stressful,
arbitrators assume that workplace communication will also be
stressful. Arbitrators want to know the exact words and all of
the circumstances surrounding the utterance. A shop steward at
a grievance meeting says threatening words to management. Does
this mean that the steward can be disciplined? Management needs
to be cautious about disciplining for what a steward says in
defense of a grievant, fulfilling his or her duty of fair
representation. The relationship is one of equality. According
to the National labor Relations Board, “the relationship at a
grievance meeting is not a master-servant relationship, but a
relationship between company advocates on one side and union
advocates on the other side, engaged as equal opposing parties.”
It has limits, however.
The shop steward cannot say, “I know where you live” when the
intent is to threaten. If they are of such serious character as
to render the shop steward unfit for further service, the
utterances are a basis for discipline.
Another context, which
may be considered as mitigation, but may also explain whether
the language is truly threatening is the employee’s condition.
If the employee is inebriated, mentally ill, or suffering from
post-traumatic stress, the threat may be explained away. The
emotional outburst from a troubled employee is typically handled
differently ( and not as severely) because the illness is
primary and the threat is viewed as a symptom. This is another
example of where the arbitrator will consider context as
important as the words themselves.
A zero-tolerance policy
does not take away the arbitrator’s authority to determine
whether the discipline was for just cause. The context of the
words used will determine whether the language can be the basis
for discipline. Further, the seniority or good work record of
an employee can be the basis for reducing the discipline.
Finally, an example of
the problem is when the employees, after the fight, claim they
were wrestling. Neither was injured, they withhold the reason
for the altercation or minimize it, and there are no management
witnesses. How likely would the arbitrator uphold discharge,
even under a zero-tolerance policy? The case would be decided
narrowly on the facts. The equal-penalty rule (that both
combatants be treated the same) has fallen into disfavor,
because arbitrators consider it unfair, since nearly all fights
have a provocateur and a victim. Instead, arbitrators look as
closely at the context in which the fight occurred and the
applicability of the work rule.
In many cases,
management has the opportunity to warn an individual about their
behavior. This is the requirement of progressive discipline, and
a stronger case for discipline is made when the grievant has
been warned. Arbitrator Barbara Doering concluded, in a 1998
"In a sense it is easier to deal with actual
violence – the push, the shove, the blows, whatever- than the
less specific fears flowing from something said or done. Where
you have a pretty good idea of extent (from what actually
occurred), a penalty can be more clearly seen as fitting the
offense, or at least the arguments are more clearly drawn. On
the other hand, people who are often loud, or use foul language
treading the line of keeping it object-directed rather than
person-directed, may never be spoken to about conduct that makes
others uncomfortable to be around them until they get themselves
in trouble by directing the language at a person or being loudly
insubordinate to a supervisor in front of an audience, or simply
flying into a rage. At that point it may come out that what to
them is a matter of degree, has made others fearful – or ready
to be fearful if there be an incident.
My prescription for the latter is that we need to emphasize “orderly” conduct
and that managers need to deal with on-going “disorderly” conduct, because
co-workers won’t take the chance of ridicule or of increased name-calling if it
is left to them to object. Supervisors have to disciplinary authority to put a
stop to it."
on the foregoing, some general guidelines emerge:
to be the basis for discipline
Name-calling (used as emphasis in
Likely to be the
basis for discipline
“Fight words” that intend to incite a
Personalized words and/or words
directed toward a person
Threats which are conditional, but
nevertheless real (If I had a gun, you'd apologize.”) (”I
won' t ever forget what you did-there’ll be a time when you
pay for it.”)
Local 7804 Vice President and Safety Officer
Regional MOSHC Representative.