Life saving rules

[old lineman]

Now that I have sparked interest let me explain the whole senerio. First these rules are not a result of collective barganing.They are rules put in place by the company. The setting goes like this. A new radial feed line was biult, how many sections I don't know. A slack span off of the main line was to feed the new tap. The new conductor ( 556) was connected to the main line pole with the tails taped back. The main line was rubbered up,the slack span is three feet below the main line. This is where the problem comes into play. The other end of the slack span was picked up off the ground to be tied on a hand line to be pulled up to lineman in the bucket. The groundman was wearing rubber gloves and die-electric overshoes when he touched the conductor, bucket man had gloves, sleeves on also. These men had clean saftey records. Our saftey people said the new wire being picked up from the ground needed to be grounded before putting it on a handline. For this they received the infraction I mentioned in the earlier e-mail. Does this seem extreme to any of you?

According to my take on this circumstance this is extreme because, right or wrong some linemen do work on isolated equipment while wearing PPE in place of installing grounds. We used to call it,"treating it as alive", it's not the first choice but these guys seem to have decided it was the best course of action. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water and disallow the workers to make any decisions on their own, they're not robots. The reasoning is that they don't like grounded equipment in the vicinity of energized equipment.
One thing that really plays a big role is the number of sections the radial was. If it went out of sight or under another circuit the whole situation changes.
If the structure to which they were planning to secure the slack span to had been completely made safe with the use of coverup and they doubled up by being faithful to the PPE requirement I'd say they had evaluated the hazard and guarded against it.
These are the kinds of things that make knowledgeable linemen resent safety persons and management.
A good onsite discussion probably would have resolved the whole thing right then and there and nobody would have felt threatened or pissed off.
The Old Lineman

[old lineman]

I agree that being disciplined when caught is the right thing to do. But.... what should a foreman do when the Line Supt. wont back him up on these problems?
Its the wild west here when it comes to safety with some guys. You have the tailgate and tell them what to do and as soon as you are out of sight or not watching they quit wearing rubber gloves and you have apprentices complaining the next day why they should have to answer to a journeyman who breaks safety rules and then tells the apprentice the Foreman doesnt know what he is talking about . If the Foreman jumps over the Line Supt. to try and solve the problem then the Supt. goes into defensive mode covering his ass with management and tells them everything will be taken care of which of course never happens. Thats what I call a Cluster F**k. Anybody else seen these kind of problems?? And then of course the apprentices lose all respect for the Journeymen and refuse to take orders from any of them. What a circus !!
The Union says its a management problem , management avoids the problem and the Foreman is left with the problem. How do I deal with this? ---HELP---

HELP! I guess you need it.
It's more common than not when the work force doesn't think the super's know shit, but sometimes it's true.
I thought that the union was for the worker.
It seems to me that this is an issue that should be dealt with ASAP. Are they waiting for an accident to occur then, "say I told you so".
That's reactive---why wouldn't they want to be proactive and get to the bottom of the problem.
Already you can see the results of weak management. The journeymen linemen aren't being role models and are inviting disaster by not caring about the new comers.
When no one cares about their brother the wheels are falling off.
That's why I like the idea of documentation cc'd to the Mgr. so they know what's going on in the field. When that happens there should be a response within 10-15 working days or whatever. E-mails seem to have a good response record as well.
Pre-occupied management can't see the forest for the trees. Perhaps it's time to bail.
The Old Lineman

[old lineman]

My question was in 2 parts, one was asking about the specific violation with regards to boogs question about grounded conductors on or adjacent to energized poles. I dont understand the question. I asked if he could clarify in order to attempt to provided some insight to Boog if possible.

The 2nd dealt with asking if there was specific language in the CBA that made an infraction of a rule automatically a terminitable offense. The key word in the question was agregious. As for Dr. Phil, I'm not sure he is party to any Collective Bargaining Agreement. The advise he dispenses certainly is not rooted in labor law or the employee/employer relationship.

Now, as far as infractions or violations of rules go, specifically safety rules where violations rise to the level of what is implied in Boogs statement, certainly those types of violations deserve discipline comensurate with the violation. Boog states that a rule was "supposedly" broken. Who was of the opinion that the rule was broken? Were there mitigating circumstances? Were the employees long term with clean safety records? Ultimately, would an arbitrator sustain a termination in this case. Not enough information was posted for me to be able to makes the statement that automatic termination was warranted.

Your analogy of copper theft being equal to a safety violation is not proper. You get caught stealing, your gone!

Do not miscontrue my post, safety rules are to be followed. Most safety rules specific to gloving are there for good reason, break those rules you deserve discipline.

Organizdbr don't take the Dr. Phil thing to seriously it was just an a reference point.
I too think we need more info. Maybe we got it.
I believe that there are a couple of rules though that there is no wiggle room on. If the action could cause instant injury or death it qualifies and stealing from the employer does too.
I mentioned that the worker has to have been made perfectly clear on the rule and the consequence before any action can be taken. To me the first step is always to inform, the next has to be agreed upon by labor and management, there's no doubt.
It seems as though it was but as you said and I agree the linemen had analysed the situation and made choices. It wasn't willy nilly.
The Old Lineman

[graybeard]

Booger
What did your safty people do before this job? Seems to me that that grew had a job plan that THEY were comfortable with and thought they were working safe. If its like here the SAFTY people came from outside the industry and only seem to focus on a few rules that seem easy to spot but can be open to sum interpitation.

[Orgnizdlbr]

Now that I have sparked interest let me explain the whole senerio. First these rules are not a result of collective barganing.They are rules put in place by the company. The setting goes like this. A new radial feed line was biult, how many sections I don't know. A slack span off of the main line was to feed the new tap. The new conductor ( 556) was connected to the main line pole with the tails taped back. The main line was rubbered up,the slack span is three feet below the main line. This is where the problem comes into play. The other end of the slack span was picked up off the ground to be tied on a hand line to be pulled up to lineman in the bucket. The groundman was wearing rubber gloves and die-electric overshoes when he touched the conductor, bucket man had gloves, sleeves on also. These men had clean saftey records. Our saftey people said the new wire being picked up from the ground needed to be grounded before putting it on a handline. For this they received the infraction I mentioned in the earlier e-mail. Does this seem extreme to any of you?

IMHO, with the conductor not being grounded, the groundman acted properly by wearing rubber gloves. The man in the air had gloves and sleeves on, both were terminated, extreme discipline for the alleged infraction. The sad part is the Union will have to arbitrate, it will take months to get there, and these guys will be unemployed until an arbitrator renders a decision.

[Chester]

I work for Allegheny and was not aware of this incident. The practice of raising a grounded conductor up into the energized area has been a very heated topic in my division. No matter how many times you tell management or the saftey man that it is more dangerous in most cases than being ungrounded, they say that is the stance we have decided to take. So I guess when a tail gets away or some other unforeseen event occurs they may re-think their position, but it will be to late then. Someone asked about the position of the safety man prior to his current one. Well the last one was straight out of collage. The guy we have now was a lineman, and seems to have some common sense, but I think upper management has his hands tied real good. To boogerman, did you notice that the lifesaving rules showed up about the same time Du Pont took over the saftey program? My dad worked for Du Pont for 40 yrs. . When I told him this he said " welcome to the circus ".

[dbrown20]

Now that I have sparked interest let me explain the whole senerio. First these rules are not a result of collective barganing.They are rules put in place by the company. The setting goes like this. A new radial feed line was biult, how many sections I don't know. A slack span off of the main line was to feed the new tap. The new conductor ( 556) was connected to the main line pole with the tails taped back. The main line was rubbered up,the slack span is three feet below the main line. This is where the problem comes into play. The other end of the slack span was picked up off the ground to be tied on a hand line to be pulled up to lineman in the bucket. The groundman was wearing rubber gloves and die-electric overshoes when he touched the conductor, bucket man had gloves, sleeves on also. These men had clean saftey records. Our saftey people said the new wire being picked up from the ground needed to be grounded before putting it on a handline. For this they received the infraction I mentioned in the earlier e-mail. Does this seem extreme to any of you?

This would not even be noticed anywhere I have been employed. The companies reaction is not only extreme, but stupid. Would be interested to find out if these folks get their jobs back. dbrown20

[boogerman]

The So called Du pont safety program could never be farther from a safety program but a strictly compliance program as you do as we say or else your gone. Ever since this was enacted we have had less safety meetings than ever before. We had them religously every month with other trainings as needed. All the company cares is that the numbers seem to have gone down, but who really knows, we used to see a report of every accident no matter of degree.We see nothing but their bar graph. After that they show us the earnings chart. As for working with grounded conductors, today I worked a job re-conductoring. We pulled in the first phase, our manual says it must grounded after it is secured in the deadend clamp and before pulling the next phase. To get to my point, all said and done when finished you have 3 new wires grounded, 3 wires still hot laid out in lay-out arms, with the spacing between a hot one and a grounded one being about 8 inches. Now go tie it in with preforms that can easily span that gap. What do you want to get together, a grounded wire, or one just laying in blocks. You have gloves and sleeves on anyway. Don't get me wrong, I beleive in grounding for protection not making more of a problem.

[Chester]

That is exactly what we have argued! They can't see the forest for the trees on this issue. I've asked around and none of the other linemen in the division have heard of this incident either, but that really doesn't suprise me as information is never passed down, and when found out it seems to be just as big of a surprise to management. It's all a numbers game and it seems that all that really matters is the size of the bonus! It's really no better with AEP either.

[tramp67]

I would have to agree with the method the crew used to install the conductors on the slack span. Three feet of clearance between the hot phases and the conductors of the slack span is good, but the tails taped back more than likely were left long enough to connect to the energized conductors. Sure, the tails were taped back, but are you willing to bet your life that the tape will hold?
The crew apparently decided they weren't willing to take the bet, and wanted instead to treat the slack span conductors as being energized. The groundman had the proper PPE, as did the linemen in the air. How can that be a safety violation? To ground the conductors would be much easier to consider a safety violation, if you want to split hairs. They had a visual open as long as the tape held the tails, but does company policy say a piece of tape can be considered a method to prevent accidental contact/closure? What if it was a GOAB switch? Does company policy allow you to open a switch and use a piece of tape to secure the operating handle in position if the switch was in a location accessible to unauthorized personnel? I would be very uncomfortable having grounds on such a situation. If the conductors were grounded, that would mean nobody, including the groundman, would need to wear rubber gloves, wouldn't it? What would happen to the groundman if the tails got away and into the energized conductors? He wouldn't be in an equipotential zone, he would be a parallel path to ground, not to mention more than likely no longer alive. The safety guys made a very serious mistake in this situation, and their mistake will be putting everyone else at risk. This is something that needs to be addressed and corrected before someone gets hurt.