Project 5: Problem analysis and critical thinking
Author
Affiliation
Course
Instructor
Due Date
Workplace safety is critical in any organization because it protects all employees from harm. Companies that prioritize employee safety and well-being create a more productive work environment. Many organizations exist to assist businesses in developing procedures because it is such an important practice in the workplace. One of the most well-known government agencies is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Organizations such as OSHA help to monitor businesses and provide safety regulations to ensure that they are in compliance.
In its shop, Truss Construction Shop recently performed a quality assurance load test. The truss under test fractured along a horizontal axis during the truss load test. As a result, a large section of the truss snapped and fell on the hoist operator who was assisting with the test. As a result of the failed load test, a number of incidents have occurred, prompting an investigation into the incidents.
Explanation of the Issue
The hoist operator’s head injury has put him into a medically induced coma. Because of this, it is unclear why the operator was allowed to go under the truss while conducting a load test, despite a statement issued by the Truss Construction Shop. As a result of a lack of information and accountability, the company is at risk of being held liable and potentially putting its employees at risk in this case.
An engineer from Truss Construction Shop’s engineering department confirmed that the truss had passed its load-bearing high threshold during testing, indicating that it was strong enough to carry out the project. The test was allowed because it was assumed that the truss would hold up. Because no one expected the roof to collapse, there were insufficient safeguards in place to protect the workers from harm. One of the most important reasons why businesses should always err on the side of caution when making business decisions is because of this.
As a result of poor performance, Faruch Habib, a production line worker at Truss Construction Shop, was terminated. In an effort to limit the company’s liability and order cancellations, the public relations department released a statement about the incident. Nevertheless, despite this, Truss Construction Shop has urged its employees to maintain a level of focus on production and testing. It’s still not clear whether Truss Construction Shop’s operations are safe despite the company’s efforts to keep damages under control. Confidence in safety is a concern for workers in the Truss Construction Shop. In order for employees to feel safe and confident while doing their jobs, they must have the impression that their workplace is secure.
Analysis of the Information
There are a few points that must be evaluated in order to get a clearer perspective on the incident in order to prevent it from occurring again. The lack of safety precautions in place is the first thing that stands out at Truss Construction Shop. On the surface, the incident appears to be an anomaly, and this is what many people thought when they heard about it.
Human error, specifically the misjudgment of those responsible for making decisions about the safety of others, is one of the most common causes of workplace accidents (Reason, 2013). This creates concern for those who work under the auspicious of someone else’s judgment in relation to their day-to-day tasks. There are times when the judgment of others does not play out as anticipated and causes other employees to be at risk for injury. When such times prevail, it increases risks for lawsuits.
When an employee is terminated for revealing information about an accident, the company reduces its legal liability for appearing guilty. The company reaps the benefits of determining whether or not to terminate the employee at the right time.. A leak of confidential information is more likely than poor performance to account for the dismissal. One could suggest that if Faruch Habib had such poor performance than he should have been terminated prior to the leaking of information. Legally speaking, this makes Truss Construction Shop seem guilty. Furthermore, it makes Truss Construction Shop seem as if they are punishing him for the information being leaked rather than poor performance. This could potentially leave Truss Construction Shop open for a lawsuit for terminating him after the information was leaked.
Lastly, the sales department’s focus on preventing customers from canceling their orders shows a lack of concern for the incident. They appear to be more concerned with making money than keeping people safe at the Truss Construction Shop. In this case, Truss Construction Shop should be concerned about the safety of their employees as much as they are concerned about sales. Though a company with a high level of business must sustain sales in order to continue, there must be a balance of importance with regard to these issues.
Alternate Viewpoints
In order to come to a sound conclusion and conduct a thorough investigation, it is possible to examine multiple perspectives on any given incident. The viewpoints that should also be considered are of those involved; the injured hoist operator, the engineers and the QA manager. The injured hoist operator had to have a level of confidence in those working alongside him in order to trust them to do the test. He also must have trusted the equipment to put his self in the situation, especially standing right under the truss. If there was any doubt in his mind about those he was working with or the equipment he would have taken more safety measures to ensure that he would not get hurt. Though his trust led him the wrong way, he obviously was confident in his team and the equipment. It is also suspected that this was not his first time in this situation.
Several product-related questions were put forth by the engineers, which suggests that they were somewhat skeptical of the apparatus. Their lack of trust in the product’s manufacture suggests that they believed it lacked a track record of successful use. There were many questions, but few answers for the engineers. This can be a problem when it comes to testing equipment. Besides that, the Truss Construction Shop sent out memos asking for tests to be done at lower limits as well. It is the job of the engineers to make sure the product is error-free at all times.
Finally, the QA manager’s viewpoint should also be examined. There are several probing questions that should be employed. The questions are as follows: Was the QA manager made aware of the test being conducted? Did the QA manager give any safety instructions to the employees conducting the test? The truss exceeded the load limits, but did the QA manager know the test was still going on? Because the QA manager was confident in the load limits, he or she gave the test the green light. The unassuming employee stood beneath the truss for no apparent reason. There are two ways to look at this: either he didn’t notice an employee standing under one of the trusses during the test, or he was unconcerned because this happens during tests all the time. These are some of the perspectives that should be considered as part of the investigation into how an employee was injured during testing.
Recommendations and Conclusion
Truss Construction Shop failed a load test two weeks ago(truss brokedown during the test), which was caused by several occurrences in the organization. Despite the fact that Truss Construction Shop had invested heavily in new engineering and manufacturing processes, the accident occurred. According to authorities, the hoist operator was seriously injured and is currently in a medically induced coma. The testing procedure made the workplace unsafe for all employees, not just the one who was injured as a result of the procedure. The injured employee is inconvenienced, but it also causes fear among the other employees who work in the same building as him or her. The accident also jeopardizes the safety of all employees who participated in the test. These are significant liabilities for a company because they expose the company to a high level of lawsuits and insurance-related issues.
There should be some concentration placed on Truss Construction Shop’s previous incident reports in order to discover if there are other safety-related issues that have occurred. Additionally, an employee survey would be useful in determining whether or not employees believe that their workplace is a safe environment for them to work. The desire of this Truss Construction Shop moving forward should be to reduce its exposure to such risks and create a safe environment for all employees. Furthermore, it should examine its system of responding to such incidents as they occur and how to properly execute damage control to eliminate potential information leaking. It’s also important to keep in mind that firing employees after certain events, such as leaking information, can raise questions about the true reason for the dismissal.
REFERENCES
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. (2022). Federal OSHA coverage.Professional Development Conference and Exposition.Retrieved February 26, 2018, from HYPERLINK "https://www.osha.gov/oshstats/commonstats.html" https://www.osha.gov/oshstats/commonstats.html
Truss (2018). PRO600 Project 5, Winter 2018: Truss Construction Shop, retrieved from HYPERLINK "https://content.umuc.edu/file/e47bc737-daef43488e990f4d5a027315/1/ApplyCriticalThinking_Transcript.pdf" https://content.umuc.edu/file/e47bc737-daef43488e990f4d5a027315/1/ApplyCriticalThinking_Transcript.pdf
Workplace Accidents and Human Error. (2013, August 02). Retrieved February 26, 2018, from HYPERLINK "https://safetygator.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/workplace-accidents-and-human-error/" https://safetygator.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/workplace-accidents-and-human-error/
