Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: Andy Jorgensen said: All you guys that allow them, how can you ignore the fact that they are not OSHA approved?
Probably because OSHA is ignored all the time on everything anyway?
Really? I hope that isn't the attitude everyone takes. We try to be OSHA compliant with everything we do. We have an ex-OSHA inspector as our workmans comp representative. He works very closely with us as he knows what they expect. He says it time and time again that if OSHA were to do an inspection, playing dumb or ignorant on why you aren't following the law doesn't fly.
Why is it that Superintendents follow the letter of the law to a "T" when applying pesticides, but not when it comes to follow OSHA rules and regulations?
Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: Andy, I thought it was great that your company does the hearing test and all, my question if I can ask is how does your company justify the cost? Do you get breaks from your workman's comp insurance? Are there other cost benefits? I can figure that you pick up productivity with good morale. Just wondering as your setting an example that I doubt many in our industry follow.
Thanks, Mel
Yes, there is a cost associated with all of it. But it's not much. I think we pay $15/employee.
We do get a break for doing pre-employment and random drug screens. Does the break offset the cost, I can't answer that question. Does employing a drug free workforce save us money in accidents, I'm willing to bet it does.
I'd like to see the proof that the added productivity offsets the risk for accidents by allowing to use headphones. Trust me, I'd much rather be listening to some good music rather than the humm of the engine while mowing fairways. But I'd also like to go 90-95 while driving down the interstate. Unfortunately though, neither is safe and I couldn't afford any tickets or fines associated with doing so, therefore I don't.