Hooper accident 2-26-07

[Ghostrider]

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa — A Burlington, Wis., man died Monday after falling 90 feet while repairing power lines in Clinton Township, authorities said.

The 34-year-old man, whose identity has not been released, was an employee of Hooper Corp. of Madison, Wis., which Alliant Energy had contracted to repair utility lines after the weekend snow storm left thousands without electricity.

The man died at about 2:45 p.m. when his utility boom truck apparently malfunctioned, causing the basket and the worker to fall from the extended boom, according to the Linn County sheriff’s office.

The worker — a Burlington, Wis., resident — was pronounced dead at the scene. An autopsy has been ordered, officials said.

[Bull Dog]

Unfortunately this is correct-He fell 90ft according to what i heard He was one of our contractors that worked in this area and went to iowa for restoration along with all our other contractors. May God rest his soul and my heart felt sympthies with his family. Hooper is a excelent contractor and this it a rare thing. Im shure its not a good day for the men there today. From what i know there was over 100 miles of transmission line down in that area. If I find out more about this i will post.

[BigClive]

These type of posts make me squirm. You tend to feel pretty secure in a bucket so it's disturbing when an accident occurs that was due to bucket detachment. The fact it was at 90 feet makes it worse.

Most of the units I use have the harness attachment point in the bucket itself, so even a harness isn't going to help in that scenario unless the bucket detaches and then dangles. At 90 feet you'd still be in trouble with suspension trauma in an ordinary harness unless there was another bucket truck to rescue you quickly.

I hate to ask.... Was he wearing a harness?

[Ghostrider]

We are working near Perry IA. The story we heard was the basket was on a crane but it was only rumor. The guys all say Hooper is a good company to work for and can not imagine how this could have happened. I am sure the operator is sick. My thoughts are with his family.

[Electriceel]

Very sad day for all of us.
Things like this should never happen.
Harnesses are mandatory, all Lanyards are to be no more than 6' when they have been deployed.
Point of attachment is to be on the boom itself, not the bucket. If your boom heads do not have a point of attachment, have your company get the ratchet strap with the built in point of attachment.
Let's not let things like this happen again.

Pretty bad storm in eastern and northern Iowa, Alliant, MEC, and Rec's hit the hardest a few municipals.
They have more bad weather coming towards the end of the week.

Take time to be safe

[loodvig]

My thoughts are with his family.

[tramp67]

He was in a man basket attached to the deadman jib on a crane. Apparently the crane had a mechanical failure, causing the boom to telescope together. Hooper is a very safety conscious company, I'm sure we will know more details when their investigation is complete. My condolences to his family and coworkers, I can imagine the pain they are feeling.

[tramp67]

Many of the new bucket trucks have only lanyard attachments on the basket itself, the manufacturers have to meet strict ASME tests and guidlines to be able to use the basket as a point of attachment. They usually have threaded inserts on the boom tip, filled with epoxy that can be drilled out, to allow eyebolts to be attached if the user prefers.

[BigClive]

I'm pretty strict about ensuring that the guys on my jobs wear their harnesses in the bucket, but even so it's not uncommon for me to be working away up top and realise that I've forgotten to attach mine. This is easy when your up and down and in and out the bucket a lot.

Doing most of my aerial work in the city it's quite common to look down and see somebody pointing a camera at me. My first reaction is to check my harness is attached. This is probably because in Glasgow the Health and Safety officers just LOVE expensive camera's and have to justify their cost by zooming in to try and catch workers without their harnesses attached. They don't like it at all when you pull out a camera too and take a photo of them doing it.

[old lineman]

I too am saddened for this lineman and feel for his family. You wish we never had to read of these accidents.
It behoves us to learn all of the details so we can decide what steps need to be taken to ensure it doesn't happen again in the future.
Hopefully someone close to the situation will enlighten us.
In the meantime I would wonder why the boom retracted. The hydraulic cylinders on aerial devices all have to have holding valves that contain the oil in the cylinder should a fitting or hose burst.
Then it's just a matter of escaping the stranded bucket.
Hoisting cranes were not intended to become manlifts, therefore, they are not equipped with holding valves. Should a hydraulic system failure occur that releases the oil pressure gravity takes over and the boom collapses.
If a crane is outfitted with a man bucket as many are, there should be a regulation that the crane has to be upgraded with holding valves.
Otherwise we see this type of accident.
Another thing that has to be done is that the fabricated bucket that will be attached to the boom MUST be engineered and certified, otherwise we end up with buckets being fabricated in Joe's welding shop and unscruplous companies will try to get the bucket built by the lowest bidder. Worse yet it could be fabricated in the company's garage.
Someone mentioned that the lanyard could only be 6 feet long when deployed. That's incorrect.
If a worker falls the maximum dynamic force that can be exerted on the body is 1800 lbs. This can be accomplished with a lanyard that originally is 6 feet long and when the shock absorber when fully deployed is 42" longer.
Thats a total length of 114". Even with this longer length the shock absorber will hold the dynamic force under 900 lbs.
The last point I would like to make is that I diagree with the use of a ratchet boom strap. The reasons are many. A couple are;
#1 is that it will be fabric and since this a material handling crane the strap will be contacting sharp edges of steel. A far cry from a smooth fiberglass boom.
#2 fabric will deteriate over time.
#3 the telescoping boom on this type of crane fully retracts which would not allow space for a boom strap. It would be crushed when the boom is fully retracted and may not be noticed by the worker.
Since the bucket has to be engineered the anchorage for fall protection can also be done at the same time. The anchorage for fall protection must be able to withstand 5,000 lbs of dynamic force without distortion.
The the need to wear fall protection goes without saying.
I will be interested to learn more details.
The Old Lineman

[tramp67]

Telescoping booms on this type of crane have internal cables, sheaves, and cable anchor points that are used to extend and retract the sections, and all these components are very difficult to inspect. Hooper Corporation, in my experience, always uses man baskets built by the crane manufacturers. All of the man-baskets I have had experience with had a lanyard attachment separate from the basket, as the basket generally is ultimately attached by one pin to the boom. Not much margin for error on that part, thus always having your lanyard attached to the boom, not the basket. Hooper Corporation management has always strived to make the jobsites as safe as they can, and have several full time safety men constantly visiting jobsites. It is a very unfortunate accident, and even more unfortunate that it happened with a company that tries to do everything with safety in the forefront. This really makes you wonder about contractors that cut corners all the time....

[WONTSTAYSILENT]

Brother was working out of a Manitex w/jib extended and basket mounted to jib. The "official" story is equipment malfunction. Another story I've heard is the jib wasn't pinned properly, allowing the jib to slide back inside the boom and when the basket hit the end of the boom, sheared off the basket and Brother Eric Jones rode the bucket down to the back of the truck and was killed instantly on impact.

Many, many unanswered questions about this accident. Heard there were two different crews on this site, first got called off the job and Eric was on the second crew. Heard his crew came off of distribution and might not have been much transmission experience on the crew. Heard the crew might have been all or mostly apprentices. Heard the truck was a complete piece of shit to begin with.

Something's wrong at Hooper.

Dave "Lumpy" Lauer Hooper J/L RIP
Chad Peters Hooper Apprentice RIP
Eric Jones Hooper Apprentice RIP

All in the last 4 or 5 years. 3 deaths of Wisconsin Brothers at one company.

I think of all the other contractors combined, there's been one death in that time frame. 1 is way, way too many. 4 is just downright sickening.
This is a company that has had groundman in the basket working transmission. A "journeyman lineman" handling the bells on an energized 69KV line with visible arcing across his gloves. Didn't know they made 70,000 volt class gloves! Should have been fired on the spot. What happened? A day or two off. Crews made up entirely of apprentices working transmission. 3 and 4 man crews working hot distribution with only one J/L on the crew.

HOW MANY MORE? :mad:

[old lineman]

Brother was working out of a Manitex w/jib extended and basket mounted to jib. The "official" story is equipment malfunction. Another story I've heard is the jib wasn't pinned properly, allowing the jib to slide back inside the boom and when the basket hit the end of the boom, sheared off the basket and Brother Eric Jones rode the bucket down to the back of the truck and was killed instantly on impact.

Many, many unanswered questions about this accident. Heard there were two different crews on this site, first got called off the job and Eric was on the second crew. Heard his crew came off of distribution and might not have been much transmission experience on the crew. Heard the crew might have been all or mostly apprentices. Heard the truck was a complete piece of shit to begin with.

Something's wrong at Hooper.

Dave "Lumpy" Lauer Hooper J/L RIP
Chad Peters Hooper Apprentice RIP
Eric Jones Hooper Apprentice RIP

All in the last 4 or 5 years. 3 deaths of Wisconsin Brothers at one company.

I think of all the other contractors combined, there's been one death in that time frame. 1 is way, way too many. 4 is just downright sickening.
This is a company that has had groundman in the basket working transmission. A "journeyman lineman" handling the bells on an energized 69KV line with visible arcing across his gloves. Didn't know they made 70,000 volt class gloves! Should have been fired on the spot. What happened? A day or two off. Crews made up entirely of apprentices working transmission. 3 and 4 man crews working hot distribution with only one J/L on the crew.

HOW MANY MORE? :mad:


If you can assemble all of this negative data by yourself, were in hell is OSHA.
What limp wristed organization. It would be better to have nothing than having them and knowing they are not doing their job as watch dogs.
Do you mean that all of these deaths are family members. Hoopers.
I guess that the all mighty dollar speaks louder than blood.
The Old Lineman

[WONTSTAYSILENT]

No, they were Hooper-employed Journeymen and Apprentices. I don't think there are any Hoopers that work at Hooper.

IBEW Brothers.

OSHA? What's that? Oh, that's that organization that lets a company bargain a fine down to 5 or 6 thousand dollars after an on-the-job fatality.

[Bull Dog]

Im sorry but i know this co very well and I know there safety record. Ive worked with there hands some of the best. They are a co that does it all and I would work there any day. Lets Hear the facts about these accidents before we go painting them like this. The training is top notch and it shows. If things have changed there im not aware of it. Lets have some facts and I will see if they are accurate. All contractors are hurting for experienced help that is not news to anyone. Im shure they put togeter as many crews as they could due to the huge problem in Iowa. Construction is a dangerious business as we all know and things can happen no matter what we do humans will always make mistakes. Equipment can fail also lets wait for the facts and not assume anything. You may be right lets see what happened.

[WONTSTAYSILENT]

Im sorry but i know this co very well and I know there safety record. Ive worked with there hands some of the best. They are a co that does it all and I would work there any day. Lets Hear the facts about these accidents before we go painting them like this. The training is top notch and it shows. If things have changed there im not aware of it. Lets have some facts and I will see if they are accurate. All contractors are hurting for experienced help that is not news to anyone. Im shure they put togeter as many crews as they could due to the huge problem in Iowa. Construction is a dangerious business as we all know and things can happen no matter what we do humans will always make mistakes. Equipment can fail also lets wait for the facts and not assume anything. You may be right lets see what happened.

I know this company well also. When's the last time you worked there and where, Bulldog? In my experience you can find quite a few hands who say it used to be a great place to work, not so much any more. No doubt they have some great hands, you are absolutely correct. However, some great hands in the field mixed with some not-so-great ones brings the whole operation down. What training are you talking about? MO Valley apprenticeship? If so, yes, MO Valley is the best, toughest regional apprenticeship in the country as far as quality of Journeymen that come from the program. If you are questioning my facts, EVERYTHING in my original post is FACT other than SOME hearsay about this individual accident. I have WITNESSED most of what I've stated other than the accident causing the death of Brother Jones. However,from what I know and the Brothers I've talked to and worked with, it appears most of what I've reported on the accident is accurate.

[Bull Dog]

Its been several years thats true but if you know anything let us know its appreciated. Been with them on a few road trips and at the co i worked for. Nothing but good to say of them. No im not doubting you at all Ive seen things that happen in this business so im slow to jump on my brothers thats all. There is a regular pace of fatalities in this business and we go for a long time with nothing happening and then the odds catch up to us. This is still a dangerous business.

[tramp67]

If I think a contractor is at fault for an accident, I will definitely say so. Here's the facts on the Hooper fatalities.
1) Chad Peters
He was a 4th step apprentice, and his "accident" occurred when his foreman sent him up a pole alone to cut open a jumper. This was an old single phase line that had been parallelled with a new line nearby. The new line was connected to the feeder, and he was to cut open a jumper on the old section so the conductors could be dropped down and the old section of line wrecked out without causing an outage. Due to the lines being parallelled, when he cut the jumper open, both sides would still be energized. When he cut the jumper, one end swung around and made contact with his shoulder, just past his rubber sleeve. Contributing factors to this incident were the fact that he was in too high of a position on the pole, and he lost control of the jumper when he cut it. A bucket truck was available, and the pole was accessible. Company and Union policies required a journeyman to be on the pole, in a bucket, or on the ground if it made it easier to supervise the apprentice. Hooper provided all the needed equipment and PPE, the foreman decided to make an inexperienced apprentice climb a pole instead of using an insulated bucket truck, sent him to do a task more hazardous than usual in that the line was being fed from two directions, and wasn't paying attention to the apprentice nor did he assign another journeyman to work with him. Was Hooper at fault? In as far as the company placing the foreman in charge, yes. Other than that, the foreman is the one that was very negligent in this accident.
2) Dave Lauer
Dave Lauer was the foreman on the crew. The task was to transfer an underbuild conductor around a new transmission pole. The crew decided to cut the conductor, lower it to the ground, pass the end around the pole, and pull it back up with a handline. Dave was on the ground, and the conductor was disconnected from a three phase feeder a span away. When Dave walked the conductor around the pole from the ground, the end of the conductor by the source dropped down and made contact with an energized conductor. Contributing factors include: no rubber gloves were used on the ground by Dave, the conductor was not grounded, inadequate, if any cover up was used on the energized line. Dave was the foreman. It was his crew. He had all the necessary grounds, cover, PPE available. HE chose not to use it. Was Hooper at fault? He was a foreman, and willfully violated many safety rules. I don't see what more Hooper Corporation could have done. Back to the foreman's errors, but at least this time the victim wasn't someone that didn't know any better.
3) Eric Jones
The accident is still under investigation. Several questions I have include: was Eric wearing fall protection, and if so, where did he have his lanyard attached? If it was caused by the pin falling out of the deadman section of the boom, who set up the crane and didn't properly install the pin? Did anyone do the company required crane inspection - Hooper Corporation provides forms for this purpose. Did the operator have experience running the crane? If the cause was due to the pin falling out of the boom, why didn't anyone notice - especially the person in the basket who is depending on everything being properly set up? If the pin falling out is determined to be the cause of the accident, is Hooper at fault? My experience with Hooper Corporation is that there isn't much enforcement of the required inspections, be it crane, bucket truck boom, or D.O.T. inspections. As far as the company not policing their policies, yes, they are at least partially at fault. But they do continual training, jobsite inspections, and provide everything needed to do a job safely. If they don't have it and a foreman asks for it, they will get it for you, but the company doesn't have a crystal ball on Pennsylvania Ave.
Can the company be there constantly, making sure we follow the rules and safety policies, and do our inspections? That's what the foremen are supposed to be doing.

[tramp67]

Im sorry but i know this co very well and I know there safety record. Ive worked with there hands some of the best. They are a co that does it all and I would work there any day. Lets Hear the facts about these accidents before we go painting them like this. The training is top notch and it shows. If things have changed there im not aware of it. Lets have some facts and I will see if they are accurate. All contractors are hurting for experienced help that is not news to anyone. Im shure they put togeter as many crews as they could due to the huge problem in Iowa. Construction is a dangerious business as we all know and things can happen no matter what we do humans will always make mistakes. Equipment can fail also lets wait for the facts and not assume anything. You may be right lets see what happened.
I've worked for Hooper off and on over the years, in Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota. I've worked high line and distribution for them. There's a few bad apples, but you'll find that anywhere you go. Most of the hands, along with management, are top notch, and I look forward to working with them again. Some of the equipment sucks, but they are weeding out most of the junk, and have spent a lot of money on new equipment for a company that size. They have some of the best training I have seen, and I've worked for a lot of contractors.
The comment about the journeyman gloving a 69KV line from WONTSTAYSILENT is partially correct. It was a foreman in a bucket by himself. At least he didn't make someone else do it, as he is the kind of guy that won't make anyone do something he wouldn't do himself. Yes, it was a very dumb thing to do. As far as Hooper goes, he violated several of their safety rules when he did that. The discipline he received was mutually ageed upon by Hooper management and the Union local.
The contractors ultimately are responsible because they are the ones that decide who their foremen are, but we all need to use common sense and do our part to follow established safety rules and policies. The companies that spend all the time and money on training and providing us what we need to do our jobs safely are looking out for us, but they can't and shouldn't be out there babysitting us all the time.

[WONTSTAYSILENT]

If I think a contractor is at fault for an accident, I will definitely say so. Here's the facts on the Hooper fatalities.
1) Chad Peters
He was a 4th step apprentice, and his "accident" occurred when his foreman sent him up a pole alone to cut open a jumper. This was an old single phase line that had been parallelled with a new line nearby. The new line was connected to the feeder, and he was to cut open a jumper on the old section so the conductors could be dropped down and the old section of line wrecked out without causing an outage. Due to the lines being parallelled, when he cut the jumper open, both sides would still be energized. When he cut the jumper, one end swung around and made contact with his shoulder, just past his rubber sleeve. Contributing factors to this incident were the fact that he was in too high of a position on the pole, and he lost control of the jumper when he cut it. A bucket truck was available, and the pole was accessible. Company and Union policies required a journeyman to be on the pole, in a bucket, or on the ground if it made it easier to supervise the apprentice. Hooper provided all the needed equipment and PPE, the foreman decided to make an inexperienced apprentice climb a pole instead of using an insulated bucket truck, sent him to do a task more hazardous than usual in that the line was being fed from two directions, and wasn't paying attention to the apprentice nor did he assign another journeyman to work with him. Was Hooper at fault? In as far as the company placing the foreman in charge, yes. Other than that, the foreman is the one that was very negligent in this accident.
2) Dave Lauer
Dave Lauer was the foreman on the crew. The task was to transfer an underbuild conductor around a new transmission pole. The crew decided to cut the conductor, lower it to the ground, pass the end around the pole, and pull it back up with a handline. Dave was on the ground, and the conductor was disconnected from a three phase feeder a span away. When Dave walked the conductor around the pole from the ground, the end of the conductor by the source dropped down and made contact with an energized conductor. Contributing factors include: no rubber gloves were used on the ground by Dave, the conductor was not grounded, inadequate, if any cover up was used on the energized line. Dave was the foreman. It was his crew. He had all the necessary grounds, cover, PPE available. HE chose not to use it. Was Hooper at fault? He was a foreman, and willfully violated many safety rules. I don't see what more Hooper Corporation could have done. Back to the foreman's errors, but at least this time the victim wasn't someone that didn't know any better.
3) Eric Jones
The accident is still under investigation. Several questions I have include: was Eric wearing fall protection, and if so, where did he have his lanyard attached? If it was caused by the pin falling out of the deadman section of the boom, who set up the crane and didn't properly install the pin? Did anyone do the company required crane inspection - Hooper Corporation provides forms for this purpose. Did the operator have experience running the crane? If the cause was due to the pin falling out of the boom, why didn't anyone notice - especially the person in the basket who is depending on everything being properly set up? If the pin falling out is determined to be the cause of the accident, is Hooper at fault? My experience with Hooper Corporation is that there isn't much enforcement of the required inspections, be it crane, bucket truck boom, or D.O.T. inspections. As far as the company not policing their policies, yes, they are at least partially at fault. But they do continual training, jobsite inspections, and provide everything needed to do a job safely. If they don't have it and a foreman asks for it, they will get it for you, but the company doesn't have a crystal ball on Pennsylvania Ave.
Can the company be there constantly, making sure we follow the rules and safety policies, and do our inspections? That's what the foremen are supposed to be doing.

I NEVER said Hooper is completely responsible for these 3 deaths in a very short amount of time. I SAID something is wrong at Hooper, meaning the "safety culture". You can employ a whole fleet of safety men, but if they are powerless, it doesn't do any good. Hooper's safety department and management are well aware of everything I've brought up. If they don't do anything about it, who will? Most of the men don't speak up, and God only knows why.

Now, the FACTS I've stated are the 69 gloving incident, crews made up entirely of apprentices at times, and one J/L on hot distribution crews. There are many more that I have not talked about, but to me these are the most serious. As far as the company being responsible, you tell me Tramp, why are the "bad apples" still employed?

[WONTSTAYSILENT]

I've worked for Hooper off and on over the years, in Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota. I've worked high line and distribution for them. There's a few bad apples, but you'll find that anywhere you go. Most of the hands, along with management, are top notch, and I look forward to working with them again. Some of the equipment sucks, but they are weeding out most of the junk, and have spent a lot of money on new equipment for a company that size. They have some of the best training I have seen, and I've worked for a lot of contractors.
The comment about the journeyman gloving a 69KV line from WONTSTAYSILENT is partially correct. It was a foreman in a bucket by himself. At least he didn't make someone else do it, as he is the kind of guy that won't make anyone do something he wouldn't do himself. Yes, it was a very dumb thing to do. As far as Hooper goes, he violated several of their safety rules when he did that. The discipline he received was mutually ageed upon by Hooper management and the Union local.
The contractors ultimately are responsible because they are the ones that decide who their foremen are, but we all need to use common sense and do our part to follow established safety rules and policies. The companies that spend all the time and money on training and providing us what we need to do our jobs safely are looking out for us, but they can't and shouldn't be out there babysitting us all the time.

You're going to sit there and make excuses for our sorry excuse of a "Brother" gloving 69? I don't give a flying f**k if he was by himself or not. "Kind of guy who won't make anyone do something he wouldn't do himself"? He gloved f-ing 69!!!!! :mad: So if he will do it, it's apparently OK with you if he has an apprentice (or groundman) do it? Violated several safety rules? You make it sound so innocent. Discipline mutually agreed upon by the Union local? I was one of several who called the hall about this incident, and in several follow-up conversations with the reps, they couldn't believe he wasn't fired. Sounded to me like the hall was waiting for a call from the member wanting to file a grievance over his termination. I think they're still waiting. Hooper buried it.

The one thing I will grant you is that the company can't be out babysitting every day. However, letting shit like this slide sends the wrong message to all of us.

Stop making excuses, they don't bring our fallen Brothers back. Don't want to lose any more, don't want to go to any more funerals or send any more cards and flowers.:mad: :mad:

[WONTSTAYSILENT]

You're going to sit there and make excuses for our sorry excuse of a "Brother" gloving 69? I don't give a flying f**k if he was by himself or not. "Kind of guy who won't make anyone do something he wouldn't do himself"? He gloved f-ing 69!!!!! :mad: So if he will do it, it's apparently OK with you if he has an apprentice (or groundman) do it? Violated several safety rules? You make it sound so innocent. Discipline mutually agreed upon by the Union local? I was one of several who called the hall about this incident, and in several follow-up conversations with the reps, they couldn't believe he wasn't fired. Sounded to me like the hall was waiting for a call from the member wanting to file a grievance over his termination. I think they're still waiting. Hooper buried it.

The one thing I will grant you is that the company can't be out babysitting every day. However, letting shit like this slide sends the wrong message to all of us.

Stop making excuses, they don't bring our fallen Brothers back. Don't want to lose any more, don't want to go to any more funerals or send any more cards and flowers.:mad: :mad:

Looks like you could have made my points with one of your previous posts, Tramp. You seem to have changed your tune on looking the other way after this post:

tramp67
Member Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Somewhere In Alaska
Posts: 87



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was on a project in Texas for a union contractor (Michels Power) and reported a crew that was using drugs on the job, with an accident resulting. Four days later, another accident occurred with the same crew. It was a hard deadline job, and the only thing my reporting the drug usage to the GF accomplished was my getting terminated for - get this! - "disruption of jobsite" ! But, at least I can sleep at night knowing I did my part to try and keep myself and my coworkers safe. I agree, there's too much drug use, too many shortcuts, too many other unsafe work practices going on because people look the other way. We keep hearing "well, he's a good worker, gets a lot done, keeps the job within budget".
By allowing people to do things we know are wrong or unsafe, we are hurting outselves and our brothers and sisters, not to mention our families. Sooner or later, the things that we allow that we know are wrong will bite us. Whenever we allow something to continue that we know is wrong, we are sending the message to our apprentices that it's ok to take shortcuts. After all the time and effort, and learning from accidents and mistakes, all these safe work practices have evolved. There is no room for shortcuts on safety! That used to be one of the things that set Union apart from non-union contractors. But, if the contractor provides us everything we need to do our job safely and we don't bother to be safe, there's no one to blame but ourselves.
There's no job so important that we cannot afford to take the time to do it safely! Our apprentices learn from our example, and it is easier to learn good habits than to change bad ones! What's more important - meeting a deadline or budget, or going home safely every night? Our job can be done safely - there is the rare instance where everything that could possibly done to mak a job safe has been done and something goes wrong anyway, but those circumstances are very rare. Almost every "accident" could be prevented if we followed the safety rules and took the time to assess the task. Maybe this sounds like a bunch of b.s. you hear from a safety man, but... almost all accidents are avoidable!


tramp67
View Public Profile
Send a private message to tramp67
Find all posts by tramp67

#14 05-25-2006, 08:46 PM
rusty
Member Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 68



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

tramp67,

WELL SAID!!! Those who do have the right training and skills and tools and manpower for the job, that get Brothers Killed and injured because of short cuts and BS, SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE " EVEN MORE " than those that don't!!!! But everytime it is our Brothers who pay with their lives and limbs, REGARDLESS of who's fault it is!!! Many times I have heard Brothers say " IT IS THE WORKERS RESPONSIBILTY TO DO IT RIGHT AND PROTECT HIMSELF"! That is all well and good " IF " the workers has been given the knowledge and skills and TIME IN THE TRADE, to know how!!! But it is PURE BS, to take a kid or any unskilled worker and teach them bad habits or not the right way or not enough training and time in our trade ( THEY DON"T EVEN KNOW WHAT IS OR IS NOT BAD HABITS OR UNSAFE ACTS) and then put them in situations that get them KILLED OR MAIMED AND THEN BLAME THEM TO AVOID LIABILITY!!!!! BSSSSSSSSSSS!!!! AND IT IS HAPPENING MORE AND MORE EVERYDAY IN OUR TRADE, FACT!!! That is why I started S.A.C.!!!
__________________
Family, Lives , Limbs and Safety " BEFORE " production, bonuses and profits!

NO MORE LIVES FOR DOLLARS!!!


S.A.C.
Rusty White
817-253-1358
rustywhite20@hotmail.com
or click on my logo on the home page

[tramp67]

No, I haven't changed my tune. I still feel that if the contractor provides us with everything we need to do our job safely, tools, equipment, PPE, training, and yet we still choose to take shortcuts, don't pay attention to what's going on around us, or allow others to engage in unsafe work practices and we don't say anything, then we have ourselves to blame for accidents. If the contractor sweeps safety rules aside to try to get more productivity, doesn't provide us with the necessary things to do our job safely, and looks the other way when they know unsafe things are being done, then the contractor is definitely responsible.
Hooper was very lax in their punishment to the foreman that gloved the 69KV. My point is that he was management's representative, and at least he didn't put anyone else at risk. Hooper should have made more of an issue about the incident to make sure nobody else did that in the future, as well as should have been much more severe in their discipline. The hall was aware of the incident, they could have insisted on more severe punishment from the contractor, as well as bring him in front of the E-board.
Chad Peters, unfortunately, was very inexperienced, and his foreman should have never put him in that position. His accident was totally preventable, and in my opinion, his foreman was completely at fault for that accident.
I'm unaware of any crews Hooper has with only apprentices and no journeymen, but I suppose it's possible. If you are referring to their crews in Madison, every crew has a journeyman lineman as a foreman, and the crew sizes when I worked there were within the required ratio of journeymen to apprentices. That held true as long as the foreman would stay with his crew. If the foreman left, the apprentices should no longer be working in the primary zone. Their crew sizes were dictated by the customer, as is customarily done by utilities when you are working T&E. When it's a bid job, the customer doesn't have much say over what your staffing levels are.
If you see work rules being violated, unsafe conditions or acts, lack of equipment, you need to let people know about it such as management, safety department, union representatives. You also have the right to refuse to do things you feel are unsafe. If you just go along with the flow, afraid to make waves, you share in the responsibility. If you take steps to do what you can to keep yourself and your coworkers and the public safe, and let others know about deficiencies, then you've done your part and the responsibility gets shifted to whoever has the power to make the changes. But, as in my post from last year, the responsibility ultimately lies with all of us to work safe and be safe.

[Bull Dog]

Mostly the contractors have a utility forman checking on them all the time and if there unsafe the word gets to higher ups and there history. The contractor is fired and another co takes there place. I know this for a fact. Its to dam bad when a brother is killed im so sorry for his family.

[PA BEN]

Tramp67 Quote
If you see work rules being violated, unsafe conditions or acts, lack of equipment, you need to let people know about it such as management, safety department, union representatives.

This is good advice, but, I wouldn't go to management first. I would go to my union first and let them handle it from there.

[A Laska Lineman]

PA BEN The Union has no managerial rights with a Contractor. The Union understands that the Contractor(Employer) is responsible to perform the work required by the owner. The Employer therefore has no restrictions, except those specifically provided for in the collective bargaining agreement, in planning, directing, and controlling the operation of all his work, in deciding the number and kind of employees to properly perform the work, in hiring and laying off employees, in transferring employees from job to job within the Local Unions juristiction, in determining the need and number, as well as the persons who will act as Foreman, in requiring all employees to observe all saftey regulations and in discharging employees for just cause. The Union can not control work rules being violated, unsafe conditions or acts, or lack of equipment. This should be addressed by crew members to the Foreman, who then should correct these issues. The crews have a responsibility to ensure none of the above issues occur. The Foreman has a responsibility to make sure the crew has the proper tools, correct material, enough equipment and trained manpower so that the task at hand can be done safely and effeciant. This can be accomplished through management. A good Foreman will plan ahead and work with management to make sure it has everything they need ahead of time. If there is a contract violation, contact your Shop Steward, if you have one, to address the issue at hand. All crew members should know the terms and conditions of their agreement and therefore are their own "shop stewards". If the Shop Steward can not resolve the issue, with the crews or management, the Shop Steward should contact the Hall and talk to a Business Rep. If he does not, contact the Hall and get a new Shop Steward. Going straight to the Union accomplishes nothing but ticking off management for not going to management first. Could get you fired or put on "one shot" for violating a company policy, depending on where you work. When there is a ladder to climb and you should start at the bottom. The crew is at the bottom and the Union should be the top. Most issues can be resolved at crew levels but sometimes the crew is the issue. Again contact management or a Shop Steward first before calling the Hall. The Union has no managerial rights.

[tolex42]

A Laska Lineman has given us some very accurate information. What he has described is known as "management's rights". This language is required by law to appear in all collective bargaining agreements. The employer, by law, is ultimately and finally responsible for the safety, health and well-being of his employees. It is not legally the responsibility of the union to see that the work is performed safely, IT IS THE EMPLOYER'S RESPONSIBILITY. The Union can and should demand safety on-the-job, file grievances, contact government agencies, etc. but it is still finally the employer's responsibility. It goes without saying that safety violations and hazardous circumstances should be reported to the employer and the union immediately, so that both parties can take immediate action. As stated earlier, if there is an accident OSHA will investigate, issue a fine of a few thousand dollars which eventually will be reduced by 50% or more. Big business, the Chamber of Commerce, the American Manufacturers Association and others like to see that OSHA remains a paper tiger.


As far as the Union demanding that the employer level a higher degree of discipline, you must keep in mind it is the Union's responsibility to serve as the members counsel and defender. There is a very common term used in these cases it is called "a duty of fair representation". Members deserve and are entitled to representation by the Union. It is not the Union's job to ask the employer to impose more discipline. You would not expect a public defender to get up before a judge and recommend that his client be hung, would you. Union members have brought suit against the Union claiming that they did not have "fair representation". However, the Union has its own internal mechanism to deal with members who work unsafely, cause harm or inflict damage to other members of the union.

[WONTSTAYSILENT]

Anyone know any more details? I hear OSHA isn't done with the "investigation" yet.

[riverhog14]

BigClieve stated that he sometimes goes up in a bucket, goes to the top and realizes he forgot to attach his lanyard to the boom. How about a safety kill switch at the point of attachment. One similar to a boat kill switch. Have the "key" to the switch attached to the lanyard, and the recieving end on the boom. Everytime someone gets in the bucket, they will have to hook to the boom and plug in there safety switch in order for the bucket to operate.

[Bull Dog]

www.http//.woi-tv.com/global/story.asp?=6355020&nav=1LFX (http://www.woi-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6355020&nav=1LFX)

[PA BEN]

PA BEN The Union has no managerial rights with a Contractor. The Union understands that the Contractor(Employer) is responsible to perform the work required by the owner. The Employer therefore has no restrictions, except those specifically provided for in the collective bargaining agreement, in planning, directing, and controlling the operation of all his work, in deciding the number and kind of employees to properly perform the work, in hiring and laying off employees, in transferring employees from job to job within the Local Unions juristiction, in determining the need and number, as well as the persons who will act as Foreman, in requiring all employees to observe all saftey regulations and in discharging employees for just cause. The Union can not control work rules being violated, unsafe conditions or acts, or lack of equipment. This should be addressed by crew members to the Foreman, who then should correct these issues. The crews have a responsibility to ensure none of the above issues occur. The Foreman has a responsibility to make sure the crew has the proper tools, correct material, enough equipment and trained manpower so that the task at hand can be done safely and effeciant. This can be accomplished through management. A good Foreman will plan ahead and work with management to make sure it has everything they need ahead of time. If there is a contract violation, contact your Shop Steward, if you have one, to address the issue at hand. All crew members should know the terms and conditions of their agreement and therefore are their own "shop stewards". If the Shop Steward can not resolve the issue, with the crews or management, the Shop Steward should contact the Hall and talk to a Business Rep. If he does not, contact the Hall and get a new Shop Steward. Going straight to the Union accomplishes nothing but ticking off management for not going to management first. Could get you fired or put on "one shot" for violating a company policy, depending on where you work. When there is a ladder to climb and you should start at the bottom. The crew is at the bottom and the Union should be the top. Most issues can be resolved at crew levels but sometimes the crew is the issue. Again contact management or a Shop Steward first before calling the Hall. The Union has no managerial rights.

It took me awhile to get back to this one, what I meant by going to the Union first is if you have Foremen who are unsafe, cutting corners etc. Call your Business manager for advice. Take the Foremen’s actions before the E-Board the E-Board can punish him or even boot his unsafe ass out of the union. Police ourselves and maybe the Union will gain more respect from our employers. ;)

[Bull Dog]

HI all-anyone who has a interest in this accident should click on the link in my last post you should find it interesting. It is a article from Iowa newspaper about this horrible accident. Cant help but notice alliant has no comment on this. Wonder why?

[shaun]

HI all-anyone who has a interest in this accident should click on the link in my last post you should find it interesting. It is a article from Iowa newspaper about this horrible accident. Cant help but notice alliant has no comment on this. Wonder why?


Probably because the contractor has to carry thier own insurance and there is some sort of dispute going on. They'll never comment on anything which might "include" themselves with any type of liability, even if they KNOW they are arseholes.

[tramp67]

Didn't see anything about what physically caused the accident in the article. It sounds like maybe someone forgot to put a pin in the jib, or maybe the basket was overloaded?? As vague as the OSHA citations were in the article, I can see Hooper getting the fines greatly reduced, if not dropped completely. Has anyone heard what actually caused the basket to fall off the jib?:confused:

[Ghostrider]

Our safety man told us that another crew set the crane up and installed the jib pin in the wrong hole. When the operator boomed up the jib slid into the main boom and sheared the basket off killing the young man. There must be some one that knows if this is true.

We have three different types of cranes on the project I am on and they all have a different procedure to deploy the jib. Every one needs to read the operators manual.

[skylifter]

Depending on the type of basket, how it was attached to the crane, and whether or not the crane was approved to use a manbasket, the use of a crane-suspended basket is strictly regulated by OSHA, and in many instances, it is not legal.

The Standard is 1926.550-Cranes & derricks, and many conditions must be met in order to legally use a crane-suspended manbasket, especially one that is suspended from the hoising cable.

This standard has a section (1926.550 (g) (2)) that has been called the "exception to the rule" clause, which states," General requirements. The use of a crane or derrick to hoist employees on a personnel platform is prohibited, except when the erection, use, and dismantling of conventional means of reaching the worksite, such as a personnel hoist, ladder, stairway, aerial lift, elevating work platform or scaffold, would be more hazardous or is not possible because of structural design or worksite conditions."

A real bucket truck or aerial lift is much safer for personnel lifting than any crane. The entire machine has been designed for one primary purpose; to lift people. That is a major reason why OSHA made the above standard.

[tramp67]

I've never worked on a job where a basket suspended from the load line was used. My experience has pretty much been working with aerial platforms designed by the crane manufacturer that are pinned solidly to the end of the boom, all telescopic cranes. For the most part, that's what Hooper uses as well. They have, or at least have in the past, used some one man fiberglass "barrels" that attached to the boom tip as well. Whether or not those barrels were made by the crane manufacturer can't be answered by me. Worst thing about those was that if you dropped something inside, you had to climb out and dive in head first, they were that small.:eek: I'm not sure where the lanyard was attached in this accident, the preferred point of attachment is onto the boom or the adapter the basket connects to. I've worked out of some crane baskets with factory lanyard attachment points on them, but I always opt for the boom attachment point for the specific reason of what happens if the basket were to fall off?
Man baskets on cranes are becoming very commonplace, especially on large highline projects. As unfortunate as this accident was, hopefully we will all be more diligent in our inspections and setups to keep something like this from happening again.