161–170 of 542 posts
Software devs are notoriously anti-union. Software companies notoriously have huge cash reserves that didn't go into the pockets of those devs.
Join your union.
If you're in Australia you can start the process, here: https://www.australianunions.org.au/join/begin-join/#/
[flagged]
I'm not sure why I'm getting these downvotes, but my point is that concrete is far more of a silica containing building material than engineered stone but for which there is probably far less political gumption to meaningfully regulate.
Is there any such evidence in Australia associating such a thing with concrete at the same high risk levels?
This is a data driven decision.
You appear to have made a quip unsupported by medical data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many hours a day do you typically spend wearing your respirator? Have you had a professional fit test to see whether your respirator is making an adequate seal? Many folks wear these things far too loosely to pass a basic fitment test. How many hours a day do you spend moving objects that weight >20lbs while wearing your respirator? How often do you work on days >30C while decked out in your respirator? Do you ke…
Full disclosure, this is going back to a job I had over 7 years ago, and did for about 2 years. >How many hours a day do you typically spend wearing your respirator? Minimum 6, as much as 14. >Have you had a professional fit test to see whether your respirator is making an adequate seal? Absolutely. >How many hours a day do you spend moving objects that weight >20lbs while wearing your respirator? ~75% of any given s…
To me, saying "I work too many hours to wear PPE the entire time" is akin to saying "I drive too many hours to be sober the entire time."
I don't understand how banning it does anything to address the underlying problem of people wilfully ignoring PPE/safe working practices. One of the "Suggested safer alternatives" is Granite which can have silica content up to 45% (Engineered stone being 95%+) So instead of 2 years to develop silicosis it will instead take 4 years of working with the "safe alternatives"? All the people who were cutting engineered sto…
> All the people who were cutting engineered stone with unsafe methods, are now just going to be cutting granite and other natural stone with the same safety practices that led to this being banned. > I really don't get it. Before engineered stone took off like crazy people were already cutting natural stone, working as stone masons, working at BGC quarries (stone mining, crushing, grading, delivery). After engineere…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Due to lack of tech work I've been installing stone countertops. I can confirm we cut on site around half the time, microplastics galore (you can smell the polyester in the air).
Would love to know your opinion on this then - is there any way onsite cutting could be eliminated, semi or fully automated with wet cutting? Or is the onus always on the contractor to use PPE?
Not only is it stupidly messy, it's less precise, dangerous, and often the crews are too careless to protect the inside of the cabinet boxes (where the slug of stone that's being cut from the top will drop and bounce around).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with “always wear a p100” is that they’re not comfortable in an unventilated uncooled house which is where a lot of construction happens. If everyone is wearing one you also need to take more breaks which eats into time to do the job. The industry is set up so you only get paid for doing the job. If doing it unsafely means doing it faster or being more comfortable then a lot of small time contractors will…
> The problem with “always wear a p100” is that they’re not comfortable in an unventilated uncooled house which is where a lot of construction happens. If everyone is wearing one you also need to take more breaks which eats into time to do the job. Also, solutions that require people to consistently do uncomfortable things are not realistic; we know they will fail to comply - just like we would - and they will get si…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure why I'm getting these downvotes, but my point is that concrete is far more of a silica containing building material than engineered stone but for which there is probably far less political gumption to meaningfully regulate.
There is solid evidence in Australia associating a sharp rise in silicosis in tradesmen with the use of engineered stone. Is there any such evidence in Australia associating such a thing with concrete at the same high risk levels? This is a data driven decision. You appear to have made a quip unsupported by medical data.
In the United States, OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) has implemented strict guidelines regarding silica (https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/2018-12/fy16_sh-296...). Silica is highly present in things like concrete, so it is weird to me that something other than concrete would be singled out.
> You appear to have made a quip unsupported by medical data.
No, I have not. The "quip" is ignoring the other sources of silica while singling out this one particular one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was considered but the problem is it’s very difficult to enforce in practice The product is generally installed onsite in a fast paced building industry that doesn’t have time/room to do it properly and often no supervision (1-2 often independent trades doing the installs) to ensure the appropriate measures are actually taken. The risk has already been known for a while and in practice still lots of “YOLO” onsit…
So hold the people intentionally violating safety practices accountable. This reeks of unnecessary heavy-handedness that hurts everyone. The specified natural alternative (granite) is nearly half silica and is a known health hazard. All this regulation does is allow sloppy work that'll kill people a little more slowly.
There's already an automatic process for this. They get silicosis.
https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/202...
SafeWork's view is that the industry is too much of a non-compliant mess to recommend any other option apart from a complete ban.
> Earlier this year workplace ministers tasked Safe Work Australia, a government WHS agency, with investigating how a ban could work and whether low-silica engineered stone could remain on the market safely. > The report found there was no safe level of silica, concluding: "The use of all engineered stone should be prohibited." I don't understand this logic. Silica is also present in natural stone too! If they are no…
Possibly the issue is more to do with the lower cost of the engineered material? Like, when tobacco cost a megabuck per oz in Queen Elizabeth times people smoked a pipe once in a while and in the context of their high exposure to fireplace smoke it was no big deal. Fast forward to when cigarettes cost 10c/pack and the marketing guys are selling them to 8 year olds...now it's a huge health problem.