Apparently, quite a few people thought my piece on comment spam was disrespectful to Milton Friedman… which kind of surprised me because I didn’t really think the post was about Milton Friedman. It was about comment spam, and those free market ideologues who would oppose nearly all government regulation. (And who happen to look to Friedman as some sort of hero, whether they’ve actually read him or not.)
In any case, I’m guessing the free market folk might be displeased as well by the following editorial in Tuesday’s Seattle P-I:
In all the shock surrounding the Bellevue crane collapse, there’s one aspect for lawmakers to remember. The public seemed deeply surprised that no special effort is made to oversee the huge equipment that daily operates above construction sites and nearby traffic, pedestrians and office and housing complexes.
[…] With construction booming, the region is seeing more cranes. But the state has no license for crane operators and no training or testing requirements. A group formed to improve standards statewide in the aftermath of a 1994 accident at the Kingdome fell into inactivity.
[…] State certification of crane operators ought to be enacted quickly. With so many construction projects under way, the public deserves reassurance the state is exercising serious oversight, not waiting for more deadly surprises.
I’m curious to hear the arguments against inspections and certification of construction cranes, but my knee-jerk reaction is to come out in support of such legislation, if only to piss off the BIAW.
UPDATE:
The Seattle Times chimes in:
Self-regulation is perfectly adequate if the public is willing to accept the risk, or, if not, the concentric rings of expense if tougher governmental requirements are imposed.
[…] Beyond the ultimate lessons learned from this fatal accident, the Legislature might wonder if exhaustive investigations after the fact are sufficient.
That’s a reasonable analysis. Regulations cost money, and society needs to make a cost benefit analysis of whether the money saved (by industry and/or taxpayers) in not requiring licensing and inspection is worth the risk of having a giant crane fall on your head.
Yeah, but you also piss off your brothers in crime (unions).
that said, i’d want, or hope that matters of public safety have proper inspection/certification.
Of course you all will use this to mandate some large training effort. Maybe you can slip in some PC coursework; i’ve heard those guys can be real animals..
I think they also ought to license the people who (a) design, (b) set up these things, too.
That crane reminds me of an engine rebuild I had done once. I noticed oil leaking under the vehicle, and found all the bolts in the crankcase pan loose. Then I checked the head covers, and all those bolts were loose, too. So were the bolts that mounted the engine to the frame, which explained why the vehicle shook like a clothes dryer. That garage doesn’t get my business anymore.
What the free marketers don’t get is …
(a) Legitimate businesses want government to put the crooks out of business, and
(b) Under a totally laissez faire system, we would have a much smaller economy because consumers would be afraid to buy anything, and
(c) Our society would grind to a halt because nothing would work.
PELOSI RULES OUT DRAFT
Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Monday the Democratic leadership does not support Rep. Charles Rangel’s call for military conscription.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITI.....index.html
1 What’s this got to do with unions?
1 (continued) I know what Wrong One will say, of course — he’ll say the drugged-up crane operator tipped over the crane. My understanding is the crane supports and bolts failed at the base during a heavy windstorm. But suppose the crane operator did something wrong … I would simply ask, why can’t engineers design cranes so careless operators can’t tip them over? Is that too hard to do?
No doubt. If one crane operator, no matter what he may or may not have in his system, can bring down something like that and cause damage like that, then we damn well do need to apply some regulation.
Having said that, I suspect the wind damaged the crane the day before, when there were some very strong gusts.
Maybe the operator was supposed to notice damage from wind, guess we’ll hear all about it. Maybe the whole thing was just poorly put together. Guess we’ll hear about that too.
1 & 8…Perhaps if the crane operator had paid his dues in a union-sponsored apprenticeship like in the old days, he’d have known more about signs of potential trouble with his machine.
9
Yeah, we need to keep the cheap labor conservatives from hiring incompetent non-union idiots for important jobs like this.
Look, with deregulation you’re going to crush a few eggs. Luckily, you got a two-fer this time since the victim was working for Microsoft Legal AND a breeder (or so I hear).
11 Hey you insensitive prick, how about if we give that fellow’s relatives 15 minutes in a locked room with you.
I’m one of the people who was offended by the Friedman post, and I don’t think regulating cranes is an obviously bad idea. That said, “because it pisses off the BIAW” doesn’t seem like a very good reason. Also, from an economist’s perspective, there are a number of important points to ponder when considering a new regulation:
1. What is the market failure? If building firms are responsible for the damage that their crane failures cause, they have an incentive to invest in crane safety. Advocates of regulation should be able to identify the market failure that causes them to under-invest. (And no, the appropriate level of investment isn’t one that results in no crane accidents; it’s when the marginal cost of more safety is less than the marginal reduction in damages it buys.)
Perhaps bankruptcy law causes an under-investment. If builders can escape paying the cost of a crane failure by declaring bankruptcy, they could choose to not invest in crane safety, make bigger profits until an accident occurs, then declare bankruptcy to avoid paying. There could be other mechanisms for market failure, too.
2. What is the cost of regulation? Suppose under-investment in crane safety causes $1 million/year in damages. A regulatory program that costs $10 million/year is not an appropriate response.
A big problem in this regard is that regulators don’t have strong incentives to find the right level of regulation. Politicians’ incentives are getting re-elected and not getting re-elected, and there are are lot of factors affecting that besides the quality of their crane regulation. Bureaucrats have some incentive to maximize their budgets. And even if the cost of the regulation is appropriate, that doesn’t guarantee that the kind of regulation is optimal. For instance: even if a technological fix could provide the same level of safety at a lower cost than an army of inspectors, but there may little incentive and even some dis-incentive for the regulatory agency to change its approach.
To avoid the problems of the incentives of regulators, economists generally prefer straight-up dollar incentives and dis-incentives to a detailed regulator framework. (For example: to reduce CO2 emissions, economists generally prefer a CO2 tax or cap-and-trade system to a regulatory regieme that requires specific technologies.) That allows the market to search for the lowest-cost way to reach the goal.
3. What is the risk of regulatory capture? In areas where regulation requires some technical expertise, governments often turn to boards of current market participants. In many cases, after public attention has faded, these requlatory boards have used their powers more to keep new competitors out of the market than to improve public safety. The most famous case of regulatory capture, which I don’t think anyone disputes anymore, was the ICC. There have also been several studies suggesting that physicians, engineers, and realtors use accreditation to discourage new entrants, keeping the earnings of the existing practicioners high.
David Wright says: I’m one of the people who was offended by the Friedman post … 11/21/2006 at 2:09 am
Boo-hooo … what do you think this blog is, a gentlemen’s club? Reading HorsesAss is a voluntary activity.
“1. What is the market failure? … (And no, the appropriate level of investment isn’t one that results in no crane accidents; it’s when the marginal cost of more safety is less than the marginal reduction in damages it buys.) … Perhaps bankruptcy law causes an under-investment.”
a) Market failure #1 is when people see crane safety in terms of “the marginal cost of more safety” instead of the human lives that are lost. Perhaps this failure could be overcome by revaluing human life as an infinite dollar amount, which still doesn’t bring back the guy who was crushed, but is a good start in terms of deterring others who think someone else’s life is merely an economic “cost.”
b) Market failure #2 is when crane owners/operators underinsure (or uninsure) figuring that if their negligence causes an accident resulting in, say, several destroyed buildings and a couple hundred million dollars of damage, they’ll just declare bankruptcy and go back into business next week under a different corporate structure and company name. This is variously referring to as “risk shifting,” “cost shifting,” and “freeloading.”
“2. What is the cost of regulation? Suppose under-investment in crane safety causes $1 million/year in damages. A regulatory program that costs $10 million/year is not an appropriate response.”
If regulation saves lives, it’s worth $10 million/year, and anyway regulatory costs usually are passed to the industry being regulated through licensing fees; but if the cost of regulation is too great, we can just ban the damn things.
“A big problem in this regard is that regulators don’t have strong incentives to find the right level of regulation.”
Inability to achieve perfect regulation is never a sound argument for no regulation.
“3. What is the risk of regulatory capture?”
See answer to (2) above.
The problem with these economic arguments against regulation is they fail to take into account subjective, qualitative factors such as the irreplaceability of human lives, public fear that unregulated cranes may pose an unacceptable safety risk to people in the vicinity, and so on. Following an incident of this nature, if the industry trots out charts and graphs explaining why they shouldn’t be regulated, the public reaction is likely to be “then let’s ban the damn things.”
There are enough crane accidents to earn its own website:
http://www.craneaccidents.com/
roger et al
How come bigtime Seattle Dems are owners (not workers) of that construction company…
Maybe it was evil Democratic owners?
When I read your Friedman post I realized (with some embarassment on your behalf, much as you might reject that) that someone should suggest that you avoid substance and stick to “inside politics” i.e. who has more votes, who is ahead etc etc.
Your Friedman post was a bundle of willful misinterpretations…the sort of thing that Rush Limbaugh would do on the other side.
I am glad to read that others also thought the same.
Sorry, David, but you’re comment is as off the mark as you allege Goldy’s post to be; perhaps even further. As Goldy points out, his post wasn’t about Friedman’s ideas so much as it’s about people who have misread Friedman.
Now, we can probably spend some time arguing about whether or not people have misread Friedman, but the very existence of that controversy turns your “willfull misinterpretations” accusation into little more than lip-flapping.
I pointed this out in the original thread, but it’s pretty clear that Friedman was pedantic about upholding the distinction between normative and positive Economics in his academic writings, while never making that distinction clear in his popular writings. As a consequence, far too many people have taken Friedman’s success in positive Economics as license to approach his normative suggestions with the same amount of reverence. Friedman went from social scientist to high priest, and Friedman deserves at least some of the blame for that.
I should point out that this misreading of Friedman is not the exclusive purview of right-wing thinkers (though the elevation of Friedman to the role of high priest is), and this often leads people to talk past each other. The key problem is that there are really two different kinds of competition: competition on price and competition on features.
The former tends to have a destrctive component, and often results in reduced wages and recessions as firms unable to lower costs competitively go out of business
The latter is more commonly referred to as “product differentiation,” and often leads to increased wages as the price premiums allowed by differentiated products allow for higher profits. Also, the process of “product differentiation” often requires more skilled labor.
Those who see more feature competition than price competition are likely to value freer markets, and this is pretty much Friedman’s view in Free to Choose. Those who see more price competition than feature competition are likely to favor more government participation in the Economy to help offset some of the destructive effects of this form of competition.
The ideological righties disdain accountability. On the one hand, they scream against regulation. On the other, when an unregulated industry inevitably produces personal injury as a result of negligence, the righties bemoan a legal system that permits jurors to set the value at which an injured party should be compensated. Rather, they argue for caps on damages, arbitration systems, etc. Does anyone truly doubt that righties value corporate profit over public safety?
David Wright:
Are you saying that the limited liability corporation system causes underinvestment in safety? That’s what you mean by bankruptcy laws leading to underinvestment in safety, right? I assume you aren’t dropping a load of ideological *#$%^ and saying that the personal bankruptcy laws cause underinvestment in crane safety. Or are you meaning to state as fact that the majority of companies operating cranes are full liability sole proprietorships or partnerships?
David Sucher @19,
If I wrote anything definitive about Friedman, it was that he is an icon, and the fact that so many people like you have your undies in a knot over some perceived insult to your hero just proves my point. And I repeat:
I’m not sure how I could have been any clearer. I used Friedman “the symbol” as a springboard to a larger discussion. To accuse me of misreading or misrepresenting his work, when I specifically pointed out that I wasn’t reading or representing it at all, strikes me as a little silly.
And if you find my analysis so wanting, I have to wonder why you continue to read it?
If we could only convince Dick Cheney that cranes could be used by terrorists they’d be regulated, inspected, injected, detected, neglected and see-lected.
If we could only convince Dick Cheney that cranes could be used by terrorists they’d be regulated, inspected, injected, detected, neglected and see-lected.
Are you stalking me? If so, you’re busted. I was just listening to “Alice’s Restaurant” yesterday morning. :-)
Hey Goldy,
Would apply that same thought to say the teachers? Maybe they should be inspected and reviewed to ensure they are not wavering. If they are, then bye bye. No wait, you probably are against it because when a student fails, it has to be the student not the teacher. So when a crane falls, it has to be big business and not the operator or just an accident.
In a previous thread, someone stated they’d lost respect for Milton Friedman because he was on public assistance for several years before he died.
I find that hard to believe. Does anyone have a source supporting that allegation so we can all check it out?
25
Our only Thanksgiving Day tradition (aside from rooting for the Cowboys to lose) is to gather ’round and listen to Arlo tell the tale of the unfortunate Thanksgiving Day garbage dumping massacree. Always timely, and still funny. Ah, I can hear the chorus coming around right now . . .
Is there even a shred of fucking evidence that the crane operator had anything to do with the accident? Seems like the fact that EVERY FUCKING BOLT and EVERY FUCKING WELD was broken might have something to do with it.
Hey Goldy – Why don’t you challenge the credentials of Tamara Hardy who was director of safety at the site? Seems to me that people in that position should be required to have a PE license. She had absolutely no business being in that position since she has no technical credentials.
Why doesn’t this state have measureable qualification standards for house inspectors? Any damn body can claim they are a house inspector, set up a business, conduct shabby useless inspections and the new homeowners will pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to replace broken items that any well trained inspector would have found.
Our only Thanksgiving Day tradition (aside from rooting for the Cowboys to lose) is to gather ’round and listen to Arlo tell the tale of the unfortunate Thanksgiving Day garbage dumping massacree. Always timely, and still funny. Ah, I can hear the chorus coming around right now . . .
With feelin’.
Union Fireman @ 26
Equating a failing student to a failed crane is a leap that is hard to follow. The cause of the crane’s failure at issue will be identified, I suspect, in fairly objective terms. Forensic science is good at providing answers in such situations. I suspect we will find that what happened was not “just an accident,” whatever that might mean. Someone fucked up–this tragedy almost surely was preventable. Figuring out why a student fails involves a far more complex set of variables. Parents, teachers, social factors, the student himself or herself–all of these and other factors play a role. Your attempt to take a shot at the teachers’ union fails completely.
26 Union Fireman
“…teachers? Maybe they should be inspected and reviewed to ensure they are not wavering. If they are, then bye bye. No wait, you probably are against it because when a student fails, it has to be the student not the teacher.”
First, there’s a difference between “who’s at fault” and “who’s responsible.” If a construction company’s crane falls on a building and destroys the building and kill someone, then one of more entities are responsible: the company itself, insurers, etc. It may be that no one is “at fault” in the sense that it may be that no negligence of commission of omission may have occurred. So when a student fails, the student may be at fault but the teacher is also responsible.
Second, teachers SHOULD “be inspected and reviewed.” That’s an area where charter school proposals are often weak.
26
and echoing 32, parents are also responsible for student performance, as is all too often often our stratified society.
RE: Proud Leftist #21–“Does anyone truly doubt that righties value corporate profit over public safety?”
It is timely that I point out that you are full of more shit than a Christmas goose!
John425 @ 35
“It is timely that I point out that you are full of more shit than a Christmas goose!”
Given that you surely believe that federal food inspection laws constitute an unwarranted limitation upon the free market, may I wish for you that your Christmas goose be uninspected and, as a consequence, full of actual shit. Otherwise, I wish you the best for the holidays.
25 et seq
Nope, not stalking. Arlo is just one of my favorites, and to be honest I hadn’t even thought of the tie-in between the phrase I used and the upcoming holiday. I’m glad you pointed it out to me. Now I’ll have to remember to grab my CD of “Alice’s Restaurant” and take it to Thanksgiving dinner with me on Thursday. One of my relatives (who is an even bigger moonbat than I am) is putting on a Thanksgiving dinner that couldn’t be beat, and I’m sure they’ll appreciate having the story of the Alice’s Restaurant Anti-Massacree Movement With Full Orchestration And Five Part Harmony available for everyone’s dining and dancing pleasure.
Speaking of economics (not my specialty), there’s a post on Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/storyo...../95248/391) that says that the Fed is rapidly expanding the money supply (using repurchase agreements, or “repos”) to prevent a meltdown from national and individual debt (by driving down the dollar), while implementing tight-money restrictions elsewhere. I don’t know if this makes sense or what its effect might be, but those discussing it seem to find it worrisome.
Here’s the graph of M2 versus M3: “While the Federal Reserve has been reporting rather flat money supply growth in M2 (blue line), in reality they have been dramatically increasing the cash (red and blue line) available for speculation.” (quote and graph on http://bigpicture.typepad.com/ )
I don’t know the economic significance of all this, but I know when the government is concealing something, and when THESE guys (in the administration) conceal something, they’re usually up to no good.
I really doubt that crane inspection wold piss off the BIAW- it isn’t BIAW members that are running those cranes.
David- you, the racist rodent, and others really ought to go educate yourselves before mouthing off so unintelligently. Figure out which interests have blocked crane inspection, crane operator certification, etc. Of course, that would take you into the uncharted territories of holding Democratic interests responsible for a failure in society…
Mr. King,
The certainty which produces your arrogance reflects a closed mind. Your expressions are no more intelligible than air passing through an asshole, and, unlike such air, serve no purpose at all.
18
righton says: Maybe it was evil Democratic owners? 11/21/2006 at 7:05 am
Republican owners, Democratic owners … makes no dif … they should fill out the same licensing forms and be regulated under the same laws.
19 David Sucher says: … Your Friedman post was a bundle of willful misinterpretations…the sort of thing that Rush Limbaugh would do on the other side.”
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Why should Republicans be the only people allowed to spin things beyond recognition? Have you ever criticized THEM for doing that? If not, aren’t you being partisanly selective in your criticism? Hey dude, this is a LIBERAL blog, get over it!
26 How can a crane falling be “just an accident?” Do cranes sometimes decide to take a departure from the laws of physics and mathematics? Have I been wrong in believing that when a crane topples, human error is involved — either in design, assembly, operation, or all three?
29 Mark The Redneck says: Is there even a shred of fucking evidence that the crane operator had anything to do with the accident? Seems like the fact that EVERY FUCKING BOLT and EVERY FUCKING WELD was broken might have something to do with it.
A pilot is supposed to inspect his airplane before he takes off, even though he didn’t design or manufacture the airplane. Why should the safety procedures for crane operators be different? Pay your fucking gambling debt.
39 Jim King says: … the racist rodent … 11/21/2006 at 12:57 pm
I’m not racist — I discriminate against all stoopid humans equally.
When did I ever post anything racist, you lying dweeb?
Link please, liar.
Here are the statistics from http://www.craneaccidents.com:
Accident Reports Received for year 2005: 231
Deaths for 2005: 127 (reported to this site)
Accident Reports Received for year 2004: 287
Deaths for 2004: 142 (reported to this site)
Accident Reports Received for year 2003: 269
Deaths for 2003: 138 (reported to this site)
Accident Reports Received for year 2002: 171
Deaths for 2002: 96 (reported to this site)
Accident Reports Received for year 2001: 161
Deaths for 2001: 107 (reported to this site)
Accident Reports Received for year 2000: 184
Deaths for 2000: 74 (reported to this site)
Seems to me that the crane industry has a lot of lethal accidents, and that a lot of people die because of this every year.
I would think these numbers are comparable to — if not higher than — the number of people killed each year in the United States in commercial aviation accidents or mining accidents.
Mining and commercial aviation are both heavily regulated, with special licenses required for airline pilots. Both of those industries have a lot more people participating in their activities (especially when you include the airline passengers) than do crane operations.
It would seem that more regulation of crane operation is appropriate, including licensing and screening for crane operators, and engineering review and certification of crane operation installations.
re 27: It was a joke. “My aim is true.” Don’t waste your time researching it.
re 37: Just don’t end up sittin’ on the group W bench with all the mother stabbers and father rapers.
As a former law man and the man who personally caught Gary Ridgeway, I’m sure Congressman Dave Reichert will get ight on the case. You can expect some action in about twenty years.
Noam Chomsky says that economics is not a science because you can’t replicate your theories with experimentally.
Maybe you could test macro-economic theories at a swap meet?
Noam Chomsky says that economics is not a science because you can’t replicate your theories experimentally.
Maybe you could test macro-economic theories at a swap meet?
“The construction crane that toppled in downtown Bellevue on Thursday sat on a base with a ‘very unusual design,’ according to an official with a Tukwila company that erected the crane for the general contractor.
“It was the first time … that Northwest Tower Crane Service has installed a crane on steel beams instead of a concrete foundation that is normally used, said Tamara Hardy, Northwest’s safety director. … Hardy said the most common method of securing cranes is to attach them to bolts buried in a concrete foundation. ‘That’s about the only way we ever do it,’ she said ….
“This crane was secured to four steel beams, configured in an H-pattern, in the parking garage of an office building under construction. Hardy said the general contractor … designed the base, with the approval of an outside engineering firm … on the site of an existing foundation, after a previous developer was unable to continue an earlier project. …
“Dozens of bolts and welds ripped or sheared from the base when the crane collapsed Thursday evening, possibly weakened by high winds last week, a state official said. …”
Quoted under the Fair Use doctrine; for complete story and/or copyright info see http://tinyurl.com/y7mvbx
Roger Rabbit Commentary: This smells like a market failure. Instead of using the proven conventional method of securing the crane to the ground, the contractor probably opted for an experimental one because it would have cost more money to rip out the existing foundation. Adequate government regulation could have prevented this disaster; market forces failed to do so.
53 One might be referred to the “Junkin” series on TurnerSouth Cablevision.
Guy Spencer of Normandy Park wrote this sensible letter about charter schools:
“I think Bill Gates has discovered his next big profit center: charter schools …. He whines that in his experience, school systems that excel have high standards, clear accountability, flexible personnel practices and a climate that encourages innovation. Actually, we have most of those tools already in Washington’s public schools.
“What else do those excelling schools, such as the New Jersey charter academy Gates trumpets, have? Motivated students from supportive families, cherry-picked from the public-school population? Students who have signed a contract, agreeing they can be expelled to the lesser public schools if they don’t meet the high behavior and work expectations of the charter school’s rules? …
“In the public schools, we don’t educate the ideal students we might want to have, unlike the charter-school academies that skim the cream from the public-school population. We educate the kids we have.”
http://tinyurl.com/y8uwcl
One of the surest ways to have children fail is school is to have them born out of wedlock or be in the infortunate situation of parents divorcing. These occurrences do not help children achieve academic excellence.
Coming soon to a theater near you: “Adventures in Crane Experiments,” rated R due to graphic scenes of blood and gore.
57 We have to educate all our kids, including the ones from less-than-perfect homes.
59 – I never said anything to the contrary. I just commented that a good way to lessen his or her chances for a decent life is to have a the child out of wedlock.
Can any of you amateur engineers out there provide even the flimsiest theory as to how the crane operator caused the accident?
No? Didn’t think so.
The crane operator’s job is to comply with the usage instructions for the crane and operate the crane in an efficient manner to support construction schedules. That’s it. He didn’t design the foundation. He didn’t install the crane. He didn’t do the welding. He didn’t torque the bolts. No one involved in the investigation has even hinted that he did anything wrong.
Instead, how ’bout we go after the person who’s in charge of site safety? Tamara Hardy who was director of safety at the site. Ms. Hardy is in a technical job, yet she does not possess a PE license. Why isn’t someone asking why the fuck she was on the job when she doesn’t have any technical credentials?
Let’s make it mandatory that anybody anywhere doing anything technical MUST have a PE license or have every aspect of their work checked by a PE.
Re: numerous “Alice’s Restaurant” posts:
Last year they played the song on the radio around Thanksgiving weekend. My son (a college student) was in the car, and when I realized he had never heard it, I insisted that we listen to the entire song, even though it meant staying in the car with the radio on for about ten minutes after we arrived at the store. He listened politely, and then asked if it was “finally over”.
Later, I heard him complain to my wife “Mom, you wouldn’t believe what Dad made me listen to in the car! That song just went on FOREVER”!
Mark the Redneck said:
I see you’re still at it. “Seems to me” is a good argument to make with the licensing board, but has no bearing on the individual in the position. Essentially, you don’t have any idea what qualifications or credentials she may have. For all you know, she has a PhD in Occupational Safety and years of practical experience in the field. (Several schools offer degrees in occupational safety or similar fields.)
You do know that no professional engineer license is required for that position.
You’ve claimed to be a licensed PE. Assuming that you are a member of the Washington Society of Professional Engineers, why don’t you put a proposal through them to the state Department of Licensing, that gives a minimum level of education and experience for the position of Safety Director?
Apparently, you would rather complain about women in the workplace than actually help develop some standards for that position.
Just like you would rather spout off than pay your gambling debts.
Oh, and MTR. Assuming for a moment that you actually want to do more than try to keep women from working outside the home, the address for the Washington Society of Professional Engineers is:
While I doubt that your tirades are anything more than a thinly disguised hatred of women in jobs that you consider “man’s work”, there is always that faint glimmer of hope that you might not be quite the neanderthal that you seem.
Now pay your gambling debts.
Barelli – No, it’s a tirade against having unqualified people in positions of responsibility of protecting public safety. Just so happens in this case that the person who fucked up is a woman.
I’m just saying that people who are in a position of performing a technical job should have to prove that they know what the fuck they are doing.
If the girl who gives you a lap dance at Rick’s needs a license, don’t you think the person who’s in charge of safety at a construction site should too? Is that asking too much?
Barelli – Tell me your theory on why the operator is the bad guy here.
C’mon smart guy… tell me….
Barelli – BTW, WSPE doesn’t set the laws on licensing. Department of Licensing in Olympia manages the licensing process per the laws passed by the legislature.
You knew that. Right?
Hmmm???? Didn’t think so.
Dumass…
@40- proud leftist- the inanity of those such as you that mistake experience, knowledge, and refusal to accept the uninformed voicings of the idiot left for a “closed mind” simply prove my point. What experience, you damn fool, do you have with any certification or registration in the construction industry?
All of you idiots that think BIAW has any interest in cranes betray your complete lack of knowledge of who’s doing what in construction. Look to the unions and the signatory contractors, the AGC, and such. Look to who has actually blocked efforts to certify crane operators and inspect and regulat crane operations.
Proud leftist- you are the consummate, uninformed fool who thinks that because your lips are flapping no one will recognize that your farts make more sense than your words.
Mark the Redneck spewed:
Do you know how most of the licensing regulations got started? Most of them were originially proposed by people working in the industry, proposing standards to the Department of Licensing.
If you actually worked in a licensed profession for any length of time, you would know that the various trade organizations often propose licensing standards. The DOL doesn’t just go out and arbitrarily set standards for industries.
You knew that, Right?
I am rather surprised that apparently nobody hiring Safety Directors seems to require any sort of license, but I do not work in that industry. Since you claim that you do, then again, get your professional organization, in this case the Washington Society of Professional Engineers, to propose some sort of education and experience standards to DOL. You folks are supposedly the experts. Why are you waiting for the state to take action? Propose a standard, and lobby for its approval. Where do you think the standards come from, anyway?
I work in a field that requires a state license (real estate). My professional association, the Washington Association of Realtors, routinely proposes changes to the state licensing laws for real estate agents. Some upcoming changes that we proposed will increase the training requirements for to get a license, and require increased supervision for new agents.
Are you telling me that the Realtors can manage to do that, but that professional engineers cannot?
As to whatever mistakes the crane operator may have made, my only opinion on the matter is that people that understand cranes and crane operation should look into it. I have no idea if the operator is the “bad guy”. I’ve never operated a crane.
But… I do know how the licensing system works for most trades (however I’ll have to take your word about the lap dancers).
“Hey. My God. What would you do if somebody were saying that while you’re working? What if somebody were heckling you when you working? What would your reaction be? How come the two black guys get off scot-free?” Anyway, I’m telling you, I’ve read all about this. Here is the tape.
(Playing of Michael Richards tape.)
Okay. Could you hear that well enough to hear the bleeps to know what he was saying? Did you hear it well enough? (interruption) Oh, come on! I can’t explain what he said. I’m not going to do that. (interruption) All right. (summarizing without profanity) “Shut up! Fifty years ago they’d have you upside down with an F-word fork up your butt. You can talk, you can talk, you can talk, you’re brave now, MF-er, throw his ass out! He’s a N-word! N-word! He’s a N-word. Look, there’s an N-word. Uh-oh! Oh! You see? This shocks you. It shocks you to see what’s buried beneath, you stupid MFers.”
And this liberal wasnt even drunk.
John, you’re feeding the troll. Tamara Hardy is the director of safety. The only place where that position requires specific engineering knowledge is in MtWR’s own twisted mind. There are plenty of places where one can find job descriptions on the internet, and you won’t find one “safety director” description that lists any form of engineering expertise.
Commonly, safety directors are responsible for ensuring that a safety plan is in place. Their expertise is in risk management and assessment. Where safety circumstances require specific expertise, such as hazardous materials, a safety director would be responsible for hiring people with the appropriate expertise.
In Tamara Hardy’s case, she would be hiring the engineer to do the safety inspections. The only reason anyone would expect Tamara Hardy to actually conduct the safety inspections herself is for the purposes of creating a straw man. I have very little doubt that MtWR wouldn’t be ranting at all if the particular safety director in this case were a man.
In short, MtWR is, again, demonstrating his ignorance of how things are actually done in the real world. There’s nothing to refute in his argument, because it has no factual basis outside his misogynistic fantasies.
Don Joe said:
Sorry, I had a slim hope that perhaps if MTR actually had some sort of expertise in the area, it would be possible to get real dialog started.
A waste of time, as I now realize. MTR doesn’t want to discuss the issue and try to find a solution, he just feels that women don’t belong in any job that doesn’t involve cutting hair or giving lap dances.
Just an aside, regarding the issue of qualifications, degrees, and licences. I’m reminded of an experience I had a few years back. An engineer was working in environmental consulting work, and some government type questioned if he was qualified to work on a project, as he didn’t have an M.S. or PhD. behind his name.
His answer: “When I started in this field, there was no such thing as environmental remediation. I’ve spent the last forty years creating environmental remediation proceedures and technology. The things they teach now in the Environmental Masters and Doctorate degree programs are the same technologies I and my colleagues created. If I went back to school ten years from now, I would be studying the projects I am working on today.”
I think I understand Mark’s point, although I don’t know whether it was essential that Tamara Hardy had a PE license or that simply that she, as the person officially responsible for project safety, have the appropriately qualified people making the appropriate inspections and assuring that the right procedures were published and followed.
In the airline business, when a plane experiences severe tubulence or other abnormal stress, it’s customary for it to be pulled from service until it can be inspected for structural problems. Seems that after the severe storm the day before, something similar should have happened not only to this crane, but to all the others in the area. The operator no doubt had a wild ride in the cab, and should have spoken of that….and the higher-ups should have listened.
Since then, we’ve had an even more severe windstorm. At this point, I’m not all that eager to go anywhere near one of those damned things.