September 27, 2011 at 10:10 am
Sean Lange (9/27/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (9/27/2011)
Sean Lange (9/27/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (9/27/2011)
Sean Lange (9/27/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (9/27/2011)
Sean Lange (9/27/2011)
GSquared (9/27/2011)
Sean Lange (9/26/2011)
/soapbox on...
/soapbox off
It's a pretty fair bet that some people would assume I'm a pretty rabid conservative. On the other hand, there are plenty who think I'm a radical liberal.
I disagree with the author of the article about a bunch of things, and am pretty sure it's "spun" (I'd use the word "lies", but it's not PC), but I would agree with Steve that unfettered materialism is just as much of a problem as total authoritarianism.
OK I admit I might have gone a bit overboard in my response but I also feel that the example were sensationalized to make a point. And that point is not one I agree with. I think extremism on either side is bad. That being said I don't think that I will stop shopping at Amazon any less because of this article. I don't think that companies owe their employees a comfortable work environment, that does not mean unsafe though. We have adequate laws in place to ensure the work place is not dangerous and I would assume that Amazon is in compliance.
I typically avoid online political discussion like the plague due the high frequency of rabid and nasty responses. This type of discussion it usually best over your favorite food/beverage.
"I would assume that Amazon is in compliance."
That is also dangerous.
So does that mean that you assume they are not in compliance of keeping their workplace safe?
No, I mean it is dangerous to assume anything and frequent checks are needed. When people are under pressure to improve performance by a certain set of metrics, frequently shortcuts are taken that ignore other sets of metrics. Since management rarely has direct experience with the work being done, or is removed from it by time, the shortcuts can become dangerous.
I do not disagree that frequent checks are needed. Internally, this should be handled at the supervisory level. There is no business that is going to turn a blind eye on unsafe work conditions. If for some reason they do it is up the employee to report these conditions to either their supervisor or OSHA.
My initial point was that as a consumer I will assume that Amazon is in compliance with labor regulations, which includes providing a safe working environment.
"There is no business that is going to turn a blind eye on unsafe work conditions"
If only that were the case. Sadly, this is proven wrong time and again just last year there was the coal mine explosion caused by managers telling workers to ignore safety regulations and the BP oil spill that was caused by the same thing. Those were just the two largest examples, I'm sure you can find plenty more with a cursory internet search.
Both of these examples were accidents caused by a lapse in judgment and not the result of ongoing unsafe work conditions.
No, investigations of both of these showed systemic wrongdoing on the part of management, the result of ongoing unsafe work conditions. The mine, for example, had tons of citations going back years. They weren't caused by "lapses in judgement", they were caused by deliberate actions on the part of management to forego safety.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
September 27, 2011 at 10:18 am
Stefan Krzywicki (9/27/2011)
Sean Lange (9/27/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (9/27/2011)
Sean Lange (9/27/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (9/27/2011)
Sean Lange (9/27/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (9/27/2011)
Sean Lange (9/27/2011)
GSquared (9/27/2011)
Sean Lange (9/26/2011)
/soapbox on...
/soapbox off
It's a pretty fair bet that some people would assume I'm a pretty rabid conservative. On the other hand, there are plenty who think I'm a radical liberal.
I disagree with the author of the article about a bunch of things, and am pretty sure it's "spun" (I'd use the word "lies", but it's not PC), but I would agree with Steve that unfettered materialism is just as much of a problem as total authoritarianism.
OK I admit I might have gone a bit overboard in my response but I also feel that the example were sensationalized to make a point. And that point is not one I agree with. I think extremism on either side is bad. That being said I don't think that I will stop shopping at Amazon any less because of this article. I don't think that companies owe their employees a comfortable work environment, that does not mean unsafe though. We have adequate laws in place to ensure the work place is not dangerous and I would assume that Amazon is in compliance.
I typically avoid online political discussion like the plague due the high frequency of rabid and nasty responses. This type of discussion it usually best over your favorite food/beverage.
"I would assume that Amazon is in compliance."
That is also dangerous.
So does that mean that you assume they are not in compliance of keeping their workplace safe?
No, I mean it is dangerous to assume anything and frequent checks are needed. When people are under pressure to improve performance by a certain set of metrics, frequently shortcuts are taken that ignore other sets of metrics. Since management rarely has direct experience with the work being done, or is removed from it by time, the shortcuts can become dangerous.
I do not disagree that frequent checks are needed. Internally, this should be handled at the supervisory level. There is no business that is going to turn a blind eye on unsafe work conditions. If for some reason they do it is up the employee to report these conditions to either their supervisor or OSHA.
My initial point was that as a consumer I will assume that Amazon is in compliance with labor regulations, which includes providing a safe working environment.
"There is no business that is going to turn a blind eye on unsafe work conditions"
If only that were the case. Sadly, this is proven wrong time and again just last year there was the coal mine explosion caused by managers telling workers to ignore safety regulations and the BP oil spill that was caused by the same thing. Those were just the two largest examples, I'm sure you can find plenty more with a cursory internet search.
Both of these examples were accidents caused by a lapse in judgment and not the result of ongoing unsafe work conditions.
No, investigations of both of these showed systemic wrongdoing on the part of management, the result of ongoing unsafe work conditions. The mine, for example, had tons of citations going back years. They weren't caused by "lapses in judgement", they were caused by deliberate actions on the part of management to forego safety.
And that point it is up to the worker to report that to OSHA. Yes it was a huge mistake. Just because it was a deliberate action does not mean it was not a lapse in judgment. It is the deliberate action that WAS the lapse in judgment. I could reword it and say poor judgment instead if that makes it better. The point is that at some point, the worker MUST take personal responsibility. Without the worker we are unbalanced. It takes three legs to keep a table steady. That is why we have 3 branches of government. In the workplace the worker is the 3rd branch. There are regulations about OSHA compliance reports. This government branch is there to help protect the worker. But if the employee does not blow the whistle how would anybody know there is anything wrong?
_______________________________________________________________
Need help? Help us help you.
Read the article at http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/ for best practices on asking questions.
Need to split a string? Try Jeff Modens splitter http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Tally+Table/72993/.
Cross Tabs and Pivots, Part 1 – Converting Rows to Columns - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/T-SQL/63681/
Cross Tabs and Pivots, Part 2 - Dynamic Cross Tabs - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Crosstab/65048/
Understanding and Using APPLY (Part 1) - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/APPLY/69953/
Understanding and Using APPLY (Part 2) - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/APPLY/69954/
September 27, 2011 at 10:23 am
Sean Lange (9/27/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (9/27/2011)
Sean Lange (9/27/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (9/27/2011)
Sean Lange (9/27/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (9/27/2011)
Sean Lange (9/27/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (9/27/2011)
Sean Lange (9/27/2011)
GSquared (9/27/2011)
Sean Lange (9/26/2011)
/soapbox on...
/soapbox off
It's a pretty fair bet that some people would assume I'm a pretty rabid conservative. On the other hand, there are plenty who think I'm a radical liberal.
I disagree with the author of the article about a bunch of things, and am pretty sure it's "spun" (I'd use the word "lies", but it's not PC), but I would agree with Steve that unfettered materialism is just as much of a problem as total authoritarianism.
OK I admit I might have gone a bit overboard in my response but I also feel that the example were sensationalized to make a point. And that point is not one I agree with. I think extremism on either side is bad. That being said I don't think that I will stop shopping at Amazon any less because of this article. I don't think that companies owe their employees a comfortable work environment, that does not mean unsafe though. We have adequate laws in place to ensure the work place is not dangerous and I would assume that Amazon is in compliance.
I typically avoid online political discussion like the plague due the high frequency of rabid and nasty responses. This type of discussion it usually best over your favorite food/beverage.
"I would assume that Amazon is in compliance."
That is also dangerous.
So does that mean that you assume they are not in compliance of keeping their workplace safe?
No, I mean it is dangerous to assume anything and frequent checks are needed. When people are under pressure to improve performance by a certain set of metrics, frequently shortcuts are taken that ignore other sets of metrics. Since management rarely has direct experience with the work being done, or is removed from it by time, the shortcuts can become dangerous.
I do not disagree that frequent checks are needed. Internally, this should be handled at the supervisory level. There is no business that is going to turn a blind eye on unsafe work conditions. If for some reason they do it is up the employee to report these conditions to either their supervisor or OSHA.
My initial point was that as a consumer I will assume that Amazon is in compliance with labor regulations, which includes providing a safe working environment.
"There is no business that is going to turn a blind eye on unsafe work conditions"
If only that were the case. Sadly, this is proven wrong time and again just last year there was the coal mine explosion caused by managers telling workers to ignore safety regulations and the BP oil spill that was caused by the same thing. Those were just the two largest examples, I'm sure you can find plenty more with a cursory internet search.
Both of these examples were accidents caused by a lapse in judgment and not the result of ongoing unsafe work conditions.
No, investigations of both of these showed systemic wrongdoing on the part of management, the result of ongoing unsafe work conditions. The mine, for example, had tons of citations going back years. They weren't caused by "lapses in judgement", they were caused by deliberate actions on the part of management to forego safety.
And that point it is up to the worker to report that to OSHA. Yes it was a huge mistake. Just because it was a deliberate action does not mean it was not a lapse in judgment. It is the deliberate action that WAS the lapse in judgment. I could reword it and say poor judgment instead if that makes it better. The point is that at some point, the worker MUST take personal responsibility. Without the worker we are unbalanced. It takes three legs to keep a table steady. That is why we have 3 branches of government. In the workplace the worker is the 3rd branch. There are regulations about OSHA compliance reports. This government branch is there to help protect the worker. But if the employee does not blow the whistle how would anybody know there is anything wrong?
And how is a worker supposed to blow the whistle when it could cost him or her everything? It isn't that simple and that's why we need government inspections.
BP, Transocean and Halliburton all at fault.[/url]
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
September 27, 2011 at 10:26 am
Nope, that's not what I'm claiming. I'm stating that this is one of the responsibilities of government, inspection of workplaces for safety.
If you ran into that kind of situation and you'd been told you'd be fired if you reported it to anyone, perhaps not in those words, but it was made understood that's what would happen, would you still do it? And how about if you were just making enough to make ends meet and didn't have any kind of financial cushion and weren't likely to find another job quickly in this economy?
"But expecting Sean to personally verify that Amazon is a safe place to work? That's insane. But it's what you insisted he must do in order to be 'reasonable'."
Nope, that's not what I said at all, it is entirely assumptions you made. I don't "expect" Sean to do anything and I didn't "insist" he do anything. Nor did I say he had to be reasonable. All I said was that assuming is dangerous and that companies have a long history of ignoring workplace safety in search of extra profit.
But it is exactly what you wrote.
He wrote that he considers it safe to assume Amazon is in compliance. You said it's unreasonable for him to assume that.
Let's examine these two claims. For his to be reasonable, we assume the following:
1. There are laws about workplace safety that are pretty comprehensive.
2. There are laws that make it reasonably safe to annonymously report violations of those safety laws.
3. Most humans have strong self-preservation urges.
4. There are communication systems in the US that make reporting these violations very, very easy.
5. Reports of such violations are usually followed up pretty rigorously by government officials who have a vested interest in making sure they are fixed. (Note, I said "usually", not "universally", since I know you'll have a compulsion to nitpick that point.)
Hence, if one assumes that Amazon employees are human and fall within normal self-preservation bell-curve ranges, and that they have access to fairly ubiquitous communication systems, it is more rational for Sean to assume that they will report and get handled unsafe work conditions than it is for him to assume they will not.
For your claim, that it's unreasonable for Sean to assume this:
1. There must be Amazon employees who do not care about self-preservation
or
2. There must be Amazon employees who do care about self-preservation, but who cannot write letters, write e-mails, or make phone calls.
or
3. That there are no OSHA regulations covering the unsafe conditions for Amazon employees.
or
4. That all involved personnel charged with enforcing OSHA regulations are either (a) incompetent, (b) unable to receive communications, or (c) corrupt and being paid off by equally corrupt Amazon managers/executives/shareholders.
AND
5. That Sean is aware of the condition(s) in this list that are applicable.
Under those conditions, it would be reasonable for Sean to assume that Amazon is a dangerous workplace.
So, which one of 1-4 on your list do think is the case? Keep in mind that if it's 4, your answer of there needing to be government involvement in this becomes a self-defeating argument, so please pick (1) suicidal employees, (2) incommunicado employees, or (3) lack of existing regulations.
Of course, I don't expect you to change your mind about any of this, since I don't personally consider you rational (I'm sure that's mutual), but I thought I'd write it anyway.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
September 27, 2011 at 10:30 am
Stefan Krzywicki (9/27/2011)
Sean Lange (9/27/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (9/27/2011)
Sean Lange (9/27/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (9/27/2011)
Sean Lange (9/27/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (9/27/2011)
Sean Lange (9/27/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (9/27/2011)
Sean Lange (9/27/2011)
GSquared (9/27/2011)
Sean Lange (9/26/2011)
/soapbox on...
/soapbox off
It's a pretty fair bet that some people would assume I'm a pretty rabid conservative. On the other hand, there are plenty who think I'm a radical liberal.
I disagree with the author of the article about a bunch of things, and am pretty sure it's "spun" (I'd use the word "lies", but it's not PC), but I would agree with Steve that unfettered materialism is just as much of a problem as total authoritarianism.
OK I admit I might have gone a bit overboard in my response but I also feel that the example were sensationalized to make a point. And that point is not one I agree with. I think extremism on either side is bad. That being said I don't think that I will stop shopping at Amazon any less because of this article. I don't think that companies owe their employees a comfortable work environment, that does not mean unsafe though. We have adequate laws in place to ensure the work place is not dangerous and I would assume that Amazon is in compliance.
I typically avoid online political discussion like the plague due the high frequency of rabid and nasty responses. This type of discussion it usually best over your favorite food/beverage.
"I would assume that Amazon is in compliance."
That is also dangerous.
So does that mean that you assume they are not in compliance of keeping their workplace safe?
No, I mean it is dangerous to assume anything and frequent checks are needed. When people are under pressure to improve performance by a certain set of metrics, frequently shortcuts are taken that ignore other sets of metrics. Since management rarely has direct experience with the work being done, or is removed from it by time, the shortcuts can become dangerous.
I do not disagree that frequent checks are needed. Internally, this should be handled at the supervisory level. There is no business that is going to turn a blind eye on unsafe work conditions. If for some reason they do it is up the employee to report these conditions to either their supervisor or OSHA.
My initial point was that as a consumer I will assume that Amazon is in compliance with labor regulations, which includes providing a safe working environment.
"There is no business that is going to turn a blind eye on unsafe work conditions"
If only that were the case. Sadly, this is proven wrong time and again just last year there was the coal mine explosion caused by managers telling workers to ignore safety regulations and the BP oil spill that was caused by the same thing. Those were just the two largest examples, I'm sure you can find plenty more with a cursory internet search.
Both of these examples were accidents caused by a lapse in judgment and not the result of ongoing unsafe work conditions.
No, investigations of both of these showed systemic wrongdoing on the part of management, the result of ongoing unsafe work conditions. The mine, for example, had tons of citations going back years. They weren't caused by "lapses in judgement", they were caused by deliberate actions on the part of management to forego safety.
And that point it is up to the worker to report that to OSHA. Yes it was a huge mistake. Just because it was a deliberate action does not mean it was not a lapse in judgment. It is the deliberate action that WAS the lapse in judgment. I could reword it and say poor judgment instead if that makes it better. The point is that at some point, the worker MUST take personal responsibility. Without the worker we are unbalanced. It takes three legs to keep a table steady. That is why we have 3 branches of government. In the workplace the worker is the 3rd branch. There are regulations about OSHA compliance reports. This government branch is there to help protect the worker. But if the employee does not blow the whistle how would anybody know there is anything wrong?
And how is a worker supposed to blow the whistle when it could cost him or her everything? It isn't that simple and that's why we need government inspections.
I am not trying to dispute that fear. However it is through their inaction that it cost them MORE than everything. At some point the worker has to have a voice. The worker is not a victim unless they don't say enough is enough and blow the whistle or continue to risk dying at their job. After all it it the worker, their family, and most importantly their own skin that may be at risk by not standing up for themselves. Yes I think these companies are at fault of not conduction business fairly. Yes I think these companies tend to get too caught up chasing a few dollars. Yes they should conduct themselves safely and legitimate at all times. But history has shown time and time again that these companies do not do that. Government can only do so much. It is like the citizen to the police, they need that "person on the street" to do what is right regardless of the potential cost because it is right.
_______________________________________________________________
Need help? Help us help you.
Read the article at http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/ for best practices on asking questions.
Need to split a string? Try Jeff Modens splitter http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Tally+Table/72993/.
Cross Tabs and Pivots, Part 1 – Converting Rows to Columns - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/T-SQL/63681/
Cross Tabs and Pivots, Part 2 - Dynamic Cross Tabs - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Crosstab/65048/
Understanding and Using APPLY (Part 1) - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/APPLY/69953/
Understanding and Using APPLY (Part 2) - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/APPLY/69954/
September 27, 2011 at 10:37 am
There are already strict laws in place protecting anonymous and non-anonymous safety violation reports, in the US. A worker is more likely to never need to work again if fired after reporting a safety violation, than to "lose everything". The punitive rewards for violations of whistleblower laws are usually substantial. And for good reason.
Government inspections are needed as well, of course. Why is it unreasonable to assume they aren't already happening?
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
September 27, 2011 at 10:37 am
Enough? Please?
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
September 27, 2011 at 10:37 am
GilaMonster (9/27/2011)
Enough? Please?
Sorry, I'll shut up now.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
September 27, 2011 at 10:54 am
GSquared (9/27/2011)
Nope, that's not what I'm claiming. I'm stating that this is one of the responsibilities of government, inspection of workplaces for safety.
If you ran into that kind of situation and you'd been told you'd be fired if you reported it to anyone, perhaps not in those words, but it was made understood that's what would happen, would you still do it? And how about if you were just making enough to make ends meet and didn't have any kind of financial cushion and weren't likely to find another job quickly in this economy?
"But expecting Sean to personally verify that Amazon is a safe place to work? That's insane. But it's what you insisted he must do in order to be 'reasonable'."
Nope, that's not what I said at all, it is entirely assumptions you made. I don't "expect" Sean to do anything and I didn't "insist" he do anything. Nor did I say he had to be reasonable. All I said was that assuming is dangerous and that companies have a long history of ignoring workplace safety in search of extra profit.
But it is exactly what you wrote.
He wrote that he considers it safe to assume Amazon is in compliance. You said it's unreasonable for him to assume that.
Let's examine these two claims. For his to be reasonable, we assume the following:
1. There are laws about workplace safety that are pretty comprehensive.
2. There are laws that make it reasonably safe to annonymously report violations of those safety laws.
3. Most humans have strong self-preservation urges.
4. There are communication systems in the US that make reporting these violations very, very easy.
5. Reports of such violations are usually followed up pretty rigorously by government officials who have a vested interest in making sure they are fixed. (Note, I said "usually", not "universally", since I know you'll have a compulsion to nitpick that point.)
Hence, if one assumes that Amazon employees are human and fall within normal self-preservation bell-curve ranges, and that they have access to fairly ubiquitous communication systems, it is more rational for Sean to assume that they will report and get handled unsafe work conditions than it is for him to assume they will not.
For your claim, that it's unreasonable for Sean to assume this:
1. There must be Amazon employees who do not care about self-preservation
or
2. There must be Amazon employees who do care about self-preservation, but who cannot write letters, write e-mails, or make phone calls.
or
3. That there are no OSHA regulations covering the unsafe conditions for Amazon employees.
or
4. That all involved personnel charged with enforcing OSHA regulations are either (a) incompetent, (b) unable to receive communications, or (c) corrupt and being paid off by equally corrupt Amazon managers/executives/shareholders.
AND
5. That Sean is aware of the condition(s) in this list that are applicable.
Under those conditions, it would be reasonable for Sean to assume that Amazon is a dangerous workplace.
So, which one of 1-4 on your list do think is the case? Keep in mind that if it's 4, your answer of there needing to be government involvement in this becomes a self-defeating argument, so please pick (1) suicidal employees, (2) incommunicado employees, or (3) lack of existing regulations.
Of course, I don't expect you to change your mind about any of this, since I don't personally consider you rational (I'm sure that's mutual), but I thought I'd write it anyway.
Your mistake is on #3. Most people do indeed have strong self-preservation urges, but they're notoriously bad at assessing risk/reward systems. Look at how many buy lottery tickets thinking they'll win. They think if they report, they're sure to be fired. If they don't, they probably won't be hurt or that they won't be there long enough for it to be a big deal. And if you do report, it is your word against a large and powerful corporation with lots of money and lawyers behind them.
Look at what happened to two nurses in the SW a few years ago. They reported a doctor for unsafe standards of care to the hospital they worked in. They were ignored. They then reported it to the state and were fired. A local cop with ties to the doctor charged them with some bogus charges and they found it impossible to get jobs nearby. Eventualy the cop and doctor were dealt with by larger government forces, but it took years and these nurses suffered quite a bit in the meantime.
Now consider in the Amazon case that many of these employees were temps with no recourse if they're fired. Add to that that most of them probably have no idea who in the company is responsible for OSHA compliance (common at most companies I've worked at) and that it isn't obvious how to go about reporting such things. There are more compounding factors, but it is already at a point where reporting can seem more risky than not. It shouldn't be up to individuals to stand up to powerful corporations in this way any more than you should be asked to stand up to the mob or, more lightheartedly, to run a ball into the endzone by yourself against the entire Raven's defense while wearing no padding. The governement should be doing the inspections because a conflict between government and company is more a conflict between equals than a conflict between employee and employer.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
September 27, 2011 at 10:56 am
Sean Lange (9/27/2011)
I typically avoid online political discussion like the plague due the high frequency of rabid and nasty responses.
hehe
quick, change the subject!
...
.....
Using singular table names is a Microsoft best practice!
September 27, 2011 at 10:57 am
GSquared (9/27/2011)
Nope, that's not what I'm claiming. I'm stating that this is one of the responsibilities of government, inspection of workplaces for safety.
If you ran into that kind of situation and you'd been told you'd be fired if you reported it to anyone, perhaps not in those words, but it was made understood that's what would happen, would you still do it? And how about if you were just making enough to make ends meet and didn't have any kind of financial cushion and weren't likely to find another job quickly in this economy?
"But expecting Sean to personally verify that Amazon is a safe place to work? That's insane. But it's what you insisted he must do in order to be 'reasonable'."
Nope, that's not what I said at all, it is entirely assumptions you made. I don't "expect" Sean to do anything and I didn't "insist" he do anything. Nor did I say he had to be reasonable. All I said was that assuming is dangerous and that companies have a long history of ignoring workplace safety in search of extra profit.
But it is exactly what you wrote.
He wrote that he considers it safe to assume Amazon is in compliance. You said it's unreasonable for him to assume that.
Let's examine these two claims. For his to be reasonable, we assume the following:
1. There are laws about workplace safety that are pretty comprehensive.
2. There are laws that make it reasonably safe to annonymously report violations of those safety laws.
3. Most humans have strong self-preservation urges.
4. There are communication systems in the US that make reporting these violations very, very easy.
5. Reports of such violations are usually followed up pretty rigorously by government officials who have a vested interest in making sure they are fixed. (Note, I said "usually", not "universally", since I know you'll have a compulsion to nitpick that point.)
Hence, if one assumes that Amazon employees are human and fall within normal self-preservation bell-curve ranges, and that they have access to fairly ubiquitous communication systems, it is more rational for Sean to assume that they will report and get handled unsafe work conditions than it is for him to assume they will not.
For your claim, that it's unreasonable for Sean to assume this:
1. There must be Amazon employees who do not care about self-preservation
or
2. There must be Amazon employees who do care about self-preservation, but who cannot write letters, write e-mails, or make phone calls.
or
3. That there are no OSHA regulations covering the unsafe conditions for Amazon employees.
or
4. That all involved personnel charged with enforcing OSHA regulations are either (a) incompetent, (b) unable to receive communications, or (c) corrupt and being paid off by equally corrupt Amazon managers/executives/shareholders.
AND
5. That Sean is aware of the condition(s) in this list that are applicable.
Under those conditions, it would be reasonable for Sean to assume that Amazon is a dangerous workplace.
So, which one of 1-4 on your list do think is the case? Keep in mind that if it's 4, your answer of there needing to be government involvement in this becomes a self-defeating argument, so please pick (1) suicidal employees, (2) incommunicado employees, or (3) lack of existing regulations.
Of course, I don't expect you to change your mind about any of this, since I don't personally consider you rational (I'm sure that's mutual), but I thought I'd write it anyway.
Also I like that your entire post is full of "we assume" when my comment was precisely "it is dangerous to assume". I also neglected to point out that your #2 is simply wrong and #4 is overstated. #5 can be a very slow process, exposing the whistleblower in the meantime.
Your second numbered list is simply the result of bad assumptions.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
September 27, 2011 at 10:59 am
calvo (9/27/2011)
Sean Lange (9/27/2011)
I typically avoid online political discussion like the plague due the high frequency of rabid and nasty responses.
hehe
quick, change the subject!
...
.....
Using singular table names is a Microsoft best practice!
Well on the upside this one managed to stay pretty decent despite the obvious back and forth.
So how about the upcoming Pass conference? Sure wish I could make it. Lived in Seattle for several years back in the 90s. Would love to have an excuse to go back and visit.
_______________________________________________________________
Need help? Help us help you.
Read the article at http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/ for best practices on asking questions.
Need to split a string? Try Jeff Modens splitter http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Tally+Table/72993/.
Cross Tabs and Pivots, Part 1 – Converting Rows to Columns - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/T-SQL/63681/
Cross Tabs and Pivots, Part 2 - Dynamic Cross Tabs - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Crosstab/65048/
Understanding and Using APPLY (Part 1) - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/APPLY/69953/
Understanding and Using APPLY (Part 2) - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/APPLY/69954/
September 27, 2011 at 11:00 am
Sean Lange (9/27/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (9/27/2011)
Sean Lange (9/27/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (9/27/2011)
Sean Lange (9/27/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (9/27/2011)
Sean Lange (9/27/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (9/27/2011)
Sean Lange (9/27/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (9/27/2011)
Sean Lange (9/27/2011)
GSquared (9/27/2011)
Sean Lange (9/26/2011)
/soapbox on...
/soapbox off
It's a pretty fair bet that some people would assume I'm a pretty rabid conservative. On the other hand, there are plenty who think I'm a radical liberal.
I disagree with the author of the article about a bunch of things, and am pretty sure it's "spun" (I'd use the word "lies", but it's not PC), but I would agree with Steve that unfettered materialism is just as much of a problem as total authoritarianism.
OK I admit I might have gone a bit overboard in my response but I also feel that the example were sensationalized to make a point. And that point is not one I agree with. I think extremism on either side is bad. That being said I don't think that I will stop shopping at Amazon any less because of this article. I don't think that companies owe their employees a comfortable work environment, that does not mean unsafe though. We have adequate laws in place to ensure the work place is not dangerous and I would assume that Amazon is in compliance.
I typically avoid online political discussion like the plague due the high frequency of rabid and nasty responses. This type of discussion it usually best over your favorite food/beverage.
"I would assume that Amazon is in compliance."
That is also dangerous.
So does that mean that you assume they are not in compliance of keeping their workplace safe?
No, I mean it is dangerous to assume anything and frequent checks are needed. When people are under pressure to improve performance by a certain set of metrics, frequently shortcuts are taken that ignore other sets of metrics. Since management rarely has direct experience with the work being done, or is removed from it by time, the shortcuts can become dangerous.
I do not disagree that frequent checks are needed. Internally, this should be handled at the supervisory level. There is no business that is going to turn a blind eye on unsafe work conditions. If for some reason they do it is up the employee to report these conditions to either their supervisor or OSHA.
My initial point was that as a consumer I will assume that Amazon is in compliance with labor regulations, which includes providing a safe working environment.
"There is no business that is going to turn a blind eye on unsafe work conditions"
If only that were the case. Sadly, this is proven wrong time and again just last year there was the coal mine explosion caused by managers telling workers to ignore safety regulations and the BP oil spill that was caused by the same thing. Those were just the two largest examples, I'm sure you can find plenty more with a cursory internet search.
Both of these examples were accidents caused by a lapse in judgment and not the result of ongoing unsafe work conditions.
No, investigations of both of these showed systemic wrongdoing on the part of management, the result of ongoing unsafe work conditions. The mine, for example, had tons of citations going back years. They weren't caused by "lapses in judgement", they were caused by deliberate actions on the part of management to forego safety.
And that point it is up to the worker to report that to OSHA. Yes it was a huge mistake. Just because it was a deliberate action does not mean it was not a lapse in judgment. It is the deliberate action that WAS the lapse in judgment. I could reword it and say poor judgment instead if that makes it better. The point is that at some point, the worker MUST take personal responsibility. Without the worker we are unbalanced. It takes three legs to keep a table steady. That is why we have 3 branches of government. In the workplace the worker is the 3rd branch. There are regulations about OSHA compliance reports. This government branch is there to help protect the worker. But if the employee does not blow the whistle how would anybody know there is anything wrong?
And how is a worker supposed to blow the whistle when it could cost him or her everything? It isn't that simple and that's why we need government inspections.
I am not trying to dispute that fear. However it is through their inaction that it cost them MORE than everything. At some point the worker has to have a voice. The worker is not a victim unless they don't say enough is enough and blow the whistle or continue to risk dying at their job. After all it it the worker, their family, and most importantly their own skin that may be at risk by not standing up for themselves. Yes I think these companies are at fault of not conduction business fairly. Yes I think these companies tend to get too caught up chasing a few dollars. Yes they should conduct themselves safely and legitimate at all times. But history has shown time and time again that these companies do not do that. Government can only do so much. It is like the citizen to the police, they need that "person on the street" to do what is right regardless of the potential cost because it is right.
That's a lovely sentiment, but when the potential cost is everything you have, including your future employability, many people will convince themselves it won't happen to them. Somtimes they'll even justify it by thinking "surely no company would risk the lives of its employees or violate clear government laws". When you feel you have no power in a given situation, it is very hard to act.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
September 27, 2011 at 11:04 am
Enough? Please????
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
September 27, 2011 at 11:06 am
GSquared (9/27/2011)
There are already strict laws in place protecting anonymous and non-anonymous safety violation reports, in the US. A worker is more likely to never need to work again if fired after reporting a safety violation, than to "lose everything". The punitive rewards for violations of whistleblower laws are usually substantial. And for good reason.Government inspections are needed as well, of course. Why is it unreasonable to assume they aren't already happening?
Sorry, that's simply wrong. Workers aren't given millions of dollars to report safety violations. Far more frequently they face retalliation and years of limbo while the case proceeds. Most punitive damage awards are knocked down to trivial amounts on appeal and are often not paid at all until the case works its way through the courts. That's if it ever gets to court.
"Why is it unreasonable to assume they aren't already happening?"
The story we're commenting on, for one. And the knowledge of how strapped for resources most agencies are.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
Viewing 15 posts - 30,346 through 30,360 (of 66,712 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply