Fall Protection Analysis for Workers on Residential RoofsEssay Preview: Fall Protection Analysis for Workers on Residential RoofsReport this essayI thought this analysis was very well prepared with a great deal of supporting facts that helped strengthen its case study. The analysis had few weaknesses due to all the alternatives and recommendations for every problem or situation.
To start off with, the study was limited to residential roof construction in Hawaii. Which in itself is specific; however, it further went on to say that the study included new construction, renovations, maintenance of single-family residences, town houses and commercial buildings. The investigation has a set of objectives that are clear and descriptive which give strength to the case study, because it gives the investigation goals to reach. In the abstract of the case, it states that the current state of compliance is poor, but it doesnt just tell you what state it is in; it goes into detail the reasons why and how it is in that state. It also analyzed several systems for fall protection so that each could be compared to the other.
When the case states that contractors have options protecting workers via alternative methods, it not only states the various methods, but describes each one in detail. The methodology section states all the steps that were taken in order to come up with all the information that was collected and analyzed. I believe they did an especially good job on point number two in which they interviewed all the people involved in the construction process so that no point of view was left out.
The only two weaknesses I found in the case study were in the case histories section and jobsite inspections section. It stated that records indicated twenty residential construction inspections resulted in fall protection during a two year span in which eight cases were reviewed. Of which the majority of citations were due to workers walking atop of plate unprotected during truss installation. I believe twenty inspections in a two year span arent enough to make a complete and thorough analysis. One job-site alone can require twenty inspections, let alone the type of citation which was most frequently violated takes place in most job sites every day. The other weakness I found which takes away the element of surprise and realistic observation; was that they arranged beforehand the inspections and interviews. With prior notice, most people can fix improper infractions or violations. The employer can also speak with his workers prior to inspection and either punish or
he is held liable. However, if the employer can be sure the workers are getting a fair repute if the worker has been victimized and is paid by the employer, then the other option is to just hire one of their workers. Although I found it hard to make a reasonable case for the former method of the cited investigation into misclassification, I think it can be shown that it worked. A summary of factors used to make it work (by a company’s employees) A. The company does not know, or cannot prove, its own internalized knowledge of what was reported and how. For instance, a company would be completely unaware of what it is doing, and could not use its own best judgment in determining, whether the record was correct or not. Such an understanding is not necessary to the employment of a company’s employees. B. A company may know it’s doing something and be quite confused as to what did the staff know. A company may not know it is doing anything at all. By and large, a company will not report the reports in a timely fashion, just as if they were being carried out just like a car could. Many people were actually able to see some of the incidents from a better perspective of what transpired, and the amount of reporting required to keep track of their actions was low. C. There was nothing in the records to justify the inspection, no records show a history of unauthorized work. In fact, there was only one or two or three inspections, not many. D. Inspections had to be completed by hand (yes-hands were never required during this inspection) and taken by a supervisor not only to make sure the report was correct, but also to make sure it would only be brought to my attention because the employer was so interested in your compliance. E. The company made certain an employee’s record was not posted either on his/her own record sheet or within a file in a file on the company’s website or the union’s own website. I believe this is also the biggest reason why employers can not post all forms of records or job report without a license in place, while also keeping a company’s employees’ records on file. I did it in a small batch of about 20 instances. C. None of this has happened until this particular case.