| Author |
 Topic  |
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
 Posted - 09/11/2003 : 09:26:45
|
In the "Cougar Paw Problems" thread, Ric Vitiello said, ".... OSHA says 8/12 is the limit ....". Tom Toll said, ".... often wondered why the OSHA rule does not seem to apply to adjusters ...." and that they (OSHA) seemingly ignored him up on a 10/12 roof.
A rather cumbersome Google search centered around OSHA, leads to an unbelievably verbose pile of OSHA literature.
However, according to the National Safety Council, just ladder accidents lead to 300 deaths and 130,000 injuries each year.
The OSHA Construction Standard Subpart X (1926 1053) specifically covers regulations for ladders. It clearly mandates employer-provided training for every employee who may potentially use a ladder to perform their job.
An interesting link with good information on this is the trade journal magazine for roofers as follows;
http://www.roofingcontractor.com
OSHA Regulations (Standards - 29 CFR), is the Scope, Application and Definitions applicable to 1926.500 "Safety & Health regulations for Construction".
First, perhaps part of the answer for Tom, is that this Scope & Application has an exception; ".... the provisions of this part do not apply when employees are making an inspection, investigation, or assessment of workplace conditions prior to the actual start of construction work or after all the construction work has been completed".
It goes on to talk about the workplace, conditions, operations and circumstances for which fall protection shall be provided.
The "Defintions" provide an excellent glossary of terms, two of which are interesting to note.
"Low-slope roof" - means a roof having a slope less than or equal to 4 in 12.
"Steep roof" - means a roof having a slope greater than 4 in 12.
One should also carefully note OSHA Regulation 1926.501 (b)(11) "Fall Protection, Steep Roofs": "Each employee on a steep roof with unprotected sides and edges 6 feet or more above lower levels shall be protected from falling by guardrail systems with toeboards, safety net systems, or personal fall arrest systems".
The fall protection requirement for "low slope" roofs, with an unprotected side and edge 6 feet or more above lower levels, is only slightly less stringent than "steep roof" fall protection requirements.
I did note that the use of a "body belt" for fall arrest has been prohibited since January 1998.
A good synopsis of the OSHA "Fall Protection" regulations can be found at the following link;
http://www.osha-slc.gov/doc/outreachtraining/htmlfiles/subpartm.html
So, going back to the beginning with Ric and Tom's comments, it is clear what OSHA considers as "Low" or "Steep". And, perhaps, the "exception" noted to the application of the regulation, ".... do not apply .... making an inspection, investigation, or assessment ...."; but I note it qualifies that "exception" to say ".... OF workplace conditions ....".
I do not tend to think that an adjuster on a roof to do an "inspection, investigation or assessment" is doing those things in consideration ".... OF workplace conditions".
Therefore, my thought of OSHA people seeing Tom on a steep roof and ignoring him (given that he was not wearing tights), was likely due to their belief or conjecture that he was performing the functions noted in the "exception" and it was not set in their mind that he was an insurance adjuster.
I could find no specific reference in my wandering through OSHA literature of an insurance adjuster, relative to ladders or fall protection.
I did note in several areas that commercial or industrial contractors had written OSHA providing specific scenarios and asked for and received guidance and interpretation of Standards or Regulations.
Is this worth exploring to get the definitive "answer" from OSHA concerning the function of an adjuster on a roof in relation to fall protection? It would / could, at least, make the requirements clear to "all". At most, it could have wide ranging affects to each of you, vendors and carriers.
Dare I say, that a professional trade association of adjusters would pursue this on behalf of its membership; if it was an approved topic to explore.
It is easy to do, I would do it myself if I had American based letterhead. Alternatively, if CADO had letterhead, or any independent contractor acting as an I/A had letterhead, or even a vendor that may be concerned for their contractual relationship to this safety issue could carry an exploratory letter on their letterhead to OSHA.
If this was done, I can see two distinct lines forming on each side of a wide canyon.
On the left, those that feel some benefit would come from the inquiry to OSHA, at least a clarification of how OSHA may see the roof pursuits of an adjuster relative to their Standards & Regulations. Benefits derived along the full spectrum of issues can be speculated upon, but likely would be best considered after hearing from OSHA.
On the right, the naysayers, those that don't want to sacrifice the present for any change that may be considered later; those that fear the old applecart may be tilted.
Anyway, I leave it with you for discussion and consideration. |
|
|
olderthendirt
USA
370 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2003 : 10:19:00
|
| Now if we could only get OSHA to lump staff adjusters under there safety regulations and ignore us foolhardy independents. |
 |
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2003 : 10:55:12
|
| Mark, can you explain what you mean and why? |
|
|
|
goose
57 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2003 : 11:07:34
|
| Mark means that our, (I/A), stock would go up if there were more restrictions on staff than on us. Carriers would use us as a cheaper alternative to staff. And THAT would be a welcome switch from recent events. |
|
|
|
TedPasan
82 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2003 : 12:32:19
|
I can't speak for anyone else, but I would prefer to keep the OSHA bureaucrats as far away from IA's and our business as is humanly possible. I could see nothing but more regulation, more paperwork, perhaps less work, and nothing but a great deal of aggravation.
What is that old saying: "Hi, I'm here from the "government and I'm here to help you?" (yeah right)
I hope some of you come to your senses before you go too far down this road and stir up a hornet's nest that needs to be left alone. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
My vote is THUMBS DOWN on OSHA for cat adjusters.
|
Edited by - TedPasan on 09/11/2003 17:59:28 |
|
|
|
fivedaily
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2003 : 13:41:22
|
Apart from my position as an adjuster... just my political views... I agree with Ted Parson. I think the more we keep government out of what we do, the better.
As an adjuster, from a staff perspective, I am not sure if would make too much difference to my job security, maybe a little to my job function.
Imagining an independent's perspective, well, if rules are made, you would be responsible to comply... which could mean turning down jobs or expensive equipment and longer scope times... all of which equal less money and possibly increased safety.
Just my 2 cents...
Jennifer |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2003 : 14:49:20
|
| NO MORE GOVERNMENT!!! They've screwed up the country enough as it is. Tell them to go away and we'll keep paying our taxes if they leave us alone. |
|
|
|
catmanager
USA
102 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2003 : 20:08:47
|
I agree with the less bureaucracy, the better........but isn't hidden in a post above a hint that such a ruling would force a dramatically enhanced fee schedule?? I'm sure that as with all things, there would be both good and bad. Or more likely, more work for IA's as a measure of risk transferrance as is the general direction our society has been going.....
We probably would get stuck with the same fee schedule and would be exposed to the OSHA fines imposed for walking a 6:12 as opposed to being strapped to something.....oh and by the way, I do lean more to right... |
Edited by - catmanager on 09/12/2003 10:23:17 |
|
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2003 : 23:03:24
|
Funny this being brought up...I was just conferring with the OSHA teacher at the Safety Classes I am taking at San Antonio College at nights.
Here is what he said...OSHA cannot act UNLESS they get a complaint from someone. They then launch an investigation to determine the merit of the complaint. If they agree, then hefty citations can be levied and persuasions made to correct an immenint danger situation.
Now...since everyone who is an employee of a carrier is subject to having a federally mandated safe working environment, and all the so-called independents who, in actuality, are really employees of a temporary employment agency, (i.e., a vendor like Pilot, or Worley, or Eberls, or Crawford, or etal), if you recieve a paycheck with taxes and FICA deducted, are also subject to the OSH Act of 1970.
So...tell me exactly WHY I should not make a phone call so as to protect your Rhino Butts from unsafe ladder use on the job as YOU are an employee? |
Edited by - Ghostbuster on 09/11/2003 23:08:23 |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2003 : 07:52:32
|
| Ghost, if you do that I'll tell the revenuers about your still. |
|
|
|
Linda
USA
127 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2003 : 08:26:52
|
Ghost, if you do that I'll tell the whole world who you are!
|
|
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2003 : 08:54:33
|
Ya know, I'm to the point where if altering the traditional unsafe industry practices of roof investigations can keep YOU, Humpty Dumpty, from being broken into pieces that all the King's horses and all the King's men can't put your tokus back together again due to NOT being trained and equipped with proper tools and techniques...then that's the price I must pay!
When was the last time you checked into a storm office and were required to display your ANSI approved ladder, or shoes/boots, or climbing harness, or, for that matter, ANY kind of safety gear??? The other thread talks about Cougar Paws and Chukkas, these are the kind of critical safety issues that should have been addressed by the entire industry DECADES ago! That we, as individuals, must, (for our own survival), root around the marketplace for effective safety equipment while being ignored by our employers is an abomination.
Kile, you ponder, what can CADO as a professional association do for you? This is it! We, as an organized group, can work to keep your widow from enjoying your life insurance proceeds when you, Humpty Dumpty, have a great fall. And, ready Teddy from Colorado, this includes your delicate noggin, too.
|
Edited by - Ghostbuster on 09/12/2003 08:56:50 |
|
|
|
catmanager
USA
102 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2003 : 09:25:31
|
| Good points, Ghost! I would like to know more about the safety classes of which you speak. While I, too am hesitant to lead the charge into the bureaucratic abyss, you do have an undeniable point that safety measures and or adequate recognition (compensation)are needed due to this issue that has in my experience, has always been largely ignored by the carriers....I personally have never had anyone state anything more than be careful; never have I encountered a situation where steep roof claims that are unsafe without safety equipment were not simply handed to someone else that was willing to take the risk. I can tell you that the common viewpoint I've encountered is that it is "take the good with the bad", as there are many carriers that do not allow adequate additional billing for the extensive time and resources required to safely perform that type of inspection. In addition, while it goes unsaid, individuals smart enough not to make that kind of claim his last are often labeled as scared or a problem. (Some have been more than willing to allow an assessment with photos from the edge of the ladder and measuring using SF times pitch factor, although rare)I do know that some carriers have rope and harness teams and/or agreements incorporated into the fee schedule for those inspections, I just have never worked for them, so please note that my experience with this matter is limited in regards to the industry as a whole. You mention a direct link in regards to those who work in a temporary employee capacity, and I take from that in combination of my limited knowledge of the ramifications of the 1099 status that those individuals are by contract exposed to and therefore assume all liability. Can you elaborate on what you know of that type of employment situation? |
|
|
|
TedPasan
82 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2003 : 09:29:40
|
Ghostbuster why do you think they call us "IA's"? Is it perhaps because most of us are independent old codgers and codgeresses?
And what in tarnations do a professional association and OSHA have to do with one another. I swear you and Clayton are beating a dead horse and just pure T simple beating that poor dead fool into the ground.
As someone else said here a while back, Lord please give us a hurricane and soon and save us from ourselves.
Where in tarnation do all of you out of work adjusters come up with some of these strange and senseless ideas? Most of the rest of us just simple don't have time to dream up nor dwell on such tomfoolery.
Thanks for the offer, but I still want no part of OSHA and your recent suggestions convince me even further of why I don't need or want to participate in a trade association.
I am after all an I.A. and I am more than that, as are most here, an independent soul. And I want and plan to keep it that way. |
Edited by - TedPasan on 09/12/2003 09:31:18 |
|
|
|
goose
57 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2003 : 10:06:33
|
| Amen. My $.02 is that I AM working, have been steadily for the last few years, and like everybody, enroute to the east coast next week to make even more $$. Please do not mess with this. It was too hard to get into it and earn my spurs. I like it here. I will be responsible for my own actions and decisions. |
|
|
|
catmanager
USA
102 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2003 : 10:19:12
|
| Although I cannot speak for anyone, I don't think that anyone is advocating anything, isn't important to explore the betterment of the industry? Is safety no concern? This is just a forum, after all. I do not not enough about everything to simply assume what would or could happen, open your minds and just talk about it! As I stated before, there, as with most everything, would probably be both good and bad that would com of it. This is a TOPIC for discussion and exploration, lighten up! I do not think that a trade assoc would be the end all answer, but this is A DISCUSSION. Can't we just all get along? LOL |
Edited by - catmanager on 09/12/2003 10:29:50 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
OSHA - roofs - adjusters?
Forum Locked
