| Author |
 Topic  |
|
trader
USA
236 Posts |
 Posted - 11/29/2003 : 15:08:28
|
| Maybe next time the single adjuster program will work ALSO. |
 |
|
|
goose
57 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2003 : 19:38:56
|
I see that no one has answered my questions yet, about how an association and government regulations will make me more money.
As far as safety goes, if the roof is too dangerous, you already know you do not have to do it. I have never been pressured when I have turned one back in. And I have turned in several. I have sometimes been told to adjust the claim without getting on it- without the steep and high fees, of course. But ya'll alrerady know that, don't you? This is a great job, so good that anybody that is consistently working usually doesn't complain. |
|
|
|
Steve_One
USA
22 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2003 : 23:02:02
|
| I'm sorry, I didn't know that this thread was about how goose could make more money......did I miss something? |
|
|
|
ChezCache
4 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2003 : 23:57:46
|
| Now what was that line about the goose and the golden egg. |
Edited by - Tom Toll on 12/01/2003 13:14:15 |
|
|
|
catmanager
USA
102 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2003 : 00:37:21
|
Ghost, with all due respect, I think also buried somewhere in the OSHA language is a section that excludes inspections....the safety requirements for roofs are designed for "work" on the roofs....(Work apparently excludes inspections, even though our work IS inspecting)....
See if you can find the language I'm referring to, it has been a few years since I looked it up for the same concerns you have. |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2003 : 08:45:13
|
Marc, you have raised a fundamental point, that was raised before, and that I feel the answer is not clear on.
As mentioned previously in this thread, in the "OSHA - roofs - adjusters?" thread, now on page 4 of this general forum; I raised that specific issue as my opening post.
I identified the OSHA section relevant to your question, quoted the language, gave my thought on it; and asked - as the intent of that thread - if "we" should consult OSHA for a clear understanding of that sections applicability to adjusters.
It seemed clear from the majority of responses to my opening post in that thread, that very few people wanted any OSHA involvement and less wanted to explore the issue I raised then which is the same point you are bringing forward now. |
|
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2003 : 11:09:30
|
That's true, Clayton. It is a natural human response to be resistant to the concept of change. And, as you illiterated, 'change' has already been forced upon us by the governments in a variety of ways, tho we choose to ignore it as much as possible. Item, our conversion into employees of Temp services by the IRS. Item, safe work practices forced apon us by OSHA. Item, claims settlement methods forced apon us by the various state governments. To long for the 'days of ore' is a wide spread phenomynom, but, when ones head is buried in the sand, ones buttocks is hanging out in the wind.
And guess who's hindquarters are ripe for the swat? Our pals who employ our services and report our income with a W-2 for not complying with those sections of 29CFR1910 that pertain to providing us with a safe work place, that's who.
If the arctitects and developers want to create impressive tho unsafe to access roof structures, the traditional means to perform our investigative job functions must change to comply with the law of the land so that our widows won't be able to live high on the hog off our life insurance policies.
Goose is whining about his money, while I'm worried about his being alive and well to be able to whine. Goose, for that sin, you get to buy the next gallon of Blue Bell ice cream for us. |
|
|
|
fkj
USA
17 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 11:33:08
|
OSHA compliance is expensive. I worked in industrial maintenance for years, and when our plant started the move to China last year, safety costs were one of managments reasons for the move. I believe that the safety equipment, loss of production, and additional manpower cost about 15-20% of the maintenance budget. It will probably be more for adjusting. The time to plan and then rig the safety lines at every new site will slow things down.
A lot of the safety requirements didn't make sense to me. Why wear a harness and lifeline in a fully enclosed boom lift. Then one day a forklift hit my lift HARD and I was 45' in the air hanging from the harness. Hope to be in a harness if I ever fall off a roof.
Isabel was my first storm and I had a lot of questions about which roofs were safe to climb. Somebody should have made me have some training on roofs. What I had was working with an adjuster for 5 days and told to ask if I needed to know anything. Every question was answered, but the questions about roofs were answered with "I'd have to see it".
Required training for newcomers and meeting safety requirements will not be all bad.
Thanks Chuck Deaton for the knowledge you passed on when we met in rural Virginia. That hour doubled what I knew. I had just about worked myself up to get on that roof when you drove up. |
|
|
|
goose
57 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 13:36:44
|
| It will be Blue Bell if you yankees don't mess up a good thing and I have to buy generic vanilla. My golden egg is not going to get cracked by getting on an unsafe roof. I know how to line up test squares on a "safe" slope for a photo op as well as anybody, but I also know how to inspect a roof properly with a harness. Especially if it is a comp over wood with enough damage.( That is a joke, son, step slowly away from the keyboard and nobody gets hurt). And steve one, yes this job is about making money, the most possible and still be healthy, of course. I am not an ape, but I also am not wanting any change that will make any of us less money. Do you? And to beat a dead horse, what is in it for me, and you, to have increased govt. regs and an active organization with member imposed tests? |
|
|
|
okclarryd
USA
106 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2003 : 07:42:16
|
One of the issues of this thread is that the "employer" has to provide all the safety gear required to be OSHA compliant. The employer's costs have risen just like ours. If the employer has to provide all the safety equipment, would the employer have to provide transportation to and from the "job site?" We might be able to price ourselves out of a job if we're lucky. One of the reasons why the Insurance Companies use independents is because they can't afford the support for the staff adjusters. The support, the benefits package, the company car, etc, often exceed the staff adjuster's pay package.
And you want them to do all that for us independents??
When I worked as a staff adjuster, the safety equipment issue was addressed and the answer was "get a roofer to do it." We, of course, can't do that as IA's, but we can get a roofer to "provide access."
When you expect the government (Employer) to provide everything.........you will end up with nothing. I still contend that if I really feel I shouldn't get on that particular roof, someone else will. And they should be paid for their efforts just as I am for mine.
The independent/employee issue should be addressed in another thread (which should end up being rather voluminous, I would suspect). |
LARRY D HARDIN |
|
|
|
okclarryd
USA
106 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2003 : 07:47:36
|
By the way............Steve_One, what do you have against Pilot??
Sour grapes won't make sweet wine. |
LARRY D HARDIN |
|
|
|
olderthendirt
USA
370 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2003 : 08:03:09
|
| It seems to me the ideal situation would be for the companies to have to provide equipement for empolyees and those of us who are 1099 contractors could continue to work. That would result in an increase in our value, more work and maybe more $$$. Ghost you might be on the right track. |
|
|
|
Steve_One
USA
22 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2003 : 09:12:43
|
Larry,
No sour anything regarding Pilot, just didn't want ot get off into issues regarding specific vendors, when the subject wasn't about any company or vendor, but of the work being done for all of them. |
|
|
|
goose
57 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2003 : 10:26:16
|
That would be good on paper. Only the steep and high roofs go to staff adjusters and we see an increase in our work. Who wouldn't be for that?
But, what would be "steep"? Anything over 3:12, as mentioned in a previous post about OSHA? Some people are uncomfortable with anything over 6. Others 8,. Most of us have no problem walking on steep roofs that are at the break point for the fee. And most roofers and many younger adjusters do 10s and 12s with relative ease- (they scare me, though.) With the govt. involved, where would the ball stop rolling? When there is a storm with a large number of barely steep, 2 story houses, like we had in VA, I do not want to see those referred. And, you saw few reinspects on those roofs, because the staff adjuster would rather get on an easier roof and who can blame them?
|
|
|
|
goose
57 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2003 : 10:28:03
|
| Our best safety tool is experience and education. Not OSHA. I learned many of my safety skills by being an apprentice and asking questions- not at a class. I learned things like how to use a fishing pole with a very heavy line and a tennis ball on the end. I cast it over the roof to attach my rope that is anchored to a tree or bumper of my pickup. I then reel the rope back over the roof and attach it to that side to whatever is available. That is sometimes harder to do than I made it sound. Those that use a rope, how do you do it? There are always better ways to do things. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Safety and roofs
Forum Locked
