Safety regulations need to be put in place with the cheapest being a good quality respirator.
As a musician, it especially kills me to watch people destroy their ears. These workers are often too young to appreciate good health.
I think it's more than what you've described. I think it's that a lot of folks actually prefer dangerously loud volumes, and this contributes to a positive feedback loop of expectations for loud concerts. I wish most concerts were quieter, but I may be in a minority.
Anyway, the solution for "it's quiet at the back" isn't "turn it up at the front". It's line arrays, distributed speakers etc.
I support everyone's right to destroy themselves if they choose to do so.
If we don't have the right to destroy ourselves, how can we also have rights to build and better ourselves? How can we be said to own ourselves at all if we can't choose to destroy ourselves?
The idea that we can't be allowed to choose to harm or destroy ourselves is the most fundamental violation of the most basic of human rights.
"I used to, but the acid kept dissolving them."
The next time you're driving around and you see someone getting work done on their roof, take note if the roofers are using anchors/ropes/harnesses. IME it's about 50-50.
Complacency. When you have done something a hundred times and nothing has hit you in the eye (some things might have gotten close) then the statistics go to favor 'I won't get hit in the eye this time'. What is usually not factored in 'if I continue to do this constantly I will get hit in the eye eventually'.
This is the nature of complacency and is kind of a flip of the gambler's fallacy.
Firing skilled laborers harms both the employer and the employee.
> Workers must wear it or be let go.
Firing skilled laborers harms both the employer and the employee.
> This is not hard.
It seems very hard.
Yes, and it's mandatory to drive the speed limit. And yet, here we are.
No, I'm saying fine the company out of business for not enforcing the wearing of PPE and then actually do it.
Its not. From a most basic level you (whatever position you're in, I've been the laborer myself, later the foreman and more recently the superintendent, now the field engineer) must keep an eye out and do your part to first, instill the safety culture, secondly to enforce it and hit any lapses as soon as they happen (sit someone out, send them home, write them up) and third, show everyone that you fucking mean it and its not a bunch of empty words, typically, by pushing back against higher management when they're trying to push schedules and work loads down onto the field crews that aren't realistic.
Whether you're using emotional appeals with your field crews, pointing out that no one comes to work not to go home at the end of the day, and how harrowing it is to watch a friend get hurt or killed, how it'll effect their partners and families; or a hard nosed impersonal business logic to explain to schedulers that pushing the team won't make them any more productive, or to accountants that cutting the budget for cheaper PPE will only instill a bad taste, I can't deny it takes work. But again it isn't hard, in the end no one wants to get hurt. You have to get past that teenaged sense of invulnerability and get it into their heads that it can and will happen to them unless they're careful.
> Firing skilled laborers harms both the employer and the employee.
Crews come and go, grow and shrink. Firing a troublesome employee brings a lot less harm to both parties than someone getting hurt or killed.
"what if I bend incorrectly whilst picking up this gum wrapper that blew into my yard?!?!".
technically they're not saying anything that's untrue, and yet...
and yes, I get it, a full on back support belt to pick up a gum wrapper is probably overkill, but walking around a construction site without steel toed boots sure as shit isn't. You may disagree with exactly where that line sits, but there is a line, and when it's crossed "it aint hard".
People can destroy their health for all I care, but the society should care a lot about enforcing certain things on employers because I don't really believe that those employers are voluntarily paying the medical bills of their victims.
But in this case I believe things should be easier since IMO a violation of this level of safety standard should risk bankrupting your company.
So your choice become to keep employing someone who can't follow basic regulation to save his life and risk the job of everyone else or just fire him (not as hard no ?). And I might be a bit optimistic but in this scenario I would expect that the union might not support him as much.
And I made only a quick search but the scenario where union would protect safety violation appear to be less probable. Since at least regarding OSHA violations : https://blog.dol.gov/2022/05/11/the-connection-between-union...
> based on publicly reported OSHA data found that union worksites are 19% less likely to have an OSHA violation and had 34% fewer violations per OSHA inspection than non-union worksites.
People make their own decisions how to behave and need to own them. Allowing important things to slide like health and safety matters is unacceptable.
> What about when the employees are unionized, and the union takes the side of the non-compliant laborers?
Start a new company and wind down the old one, transferring over existing customers.
Use a mask and cut it using water for dust management
If people were getting shocked while working with electricity we'd be calling the ridiculousness of it. This is basically the same thing, over a longer timeframe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicosis#Regulation_in_the_US
TL;DR: it's already regulated (by OSHA). Total number of deaths annually by silicosis in the US is low (~15/year). The workers need to file an OSHA complaint if they haven't already.
the OSHA page (https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/19...) mention "the employer shall fully and properly implement the engineering controls, work practices, and respiratory protection specified for the task on Table 1" which one could read as more than just need to provide but I have idea if it's true.
As for the death tool which seem low it's not so good when take into account the number of worker (from the article):
> In California, workplace safety regulators have estimated that out of roughly 4,000 workers in the industry across the state, silicosis will afflict between 485 and 848 — and that as many as 161 could ultimately die