Another scaffold death in New York City

Another worker has died in a scaffold-related incident on a New York City jobsite.

The victim was 25-year-old Klever Jara (aka "Ramiro Jara") of Brooklyn. In case you're wondering who not to hire for your next high-level facade washing job, he worked for Town Restoration Services of Flushing:

The city's Buildings Department says Jara was walking from one scaffolding to another while working on the facade of the Fifth Avenue building when he fell. He had been wearing a safety harness but it was not attached to the building. [Radio 1010 Wins]

I wasn't going to vote for Alan Hevesi for reelection as New York State comptroller. The guy made state employees drive his wife around for 3 years and didn't pay the full amount he owed the state for his unethical use of state resources, even after his opponent exposed Hevesi on the waste and fraud line he set up!

That is, I wasn't going to vote for him until someone at my office building died today in yet another one of these fly-by-night scaffold and rigging accidents. Hevesi's one incontrovertible achievement is his audit of scaffolds, cranes, and rigging. On average, two workers die every day from falls in the US, and New York construction accounts for a disproportionate share of the carnage. According to the audit 39% of audited New York scaffolds didn't even have permits.

Here are some of my pictures of another rigging accident involving a crane that occurred nearby, just a few weeks earlier. (Luckily, no one died in that incident, but a cab was crushed by a falling piece of metal and several workers were smashed against the inside of the cab of their crane and had to be rescued.)

There's a safety crisis in New York City regarding fall protection and comptroller Hevesi took serious action to address it when other officials weren't stepping up prominently. For that alone he gets my vote at a time when employers in New York are bitching about being held strictly liable for scaffold accidents on their jobsites.

Comments

[The Phantom]

Well, "bitching" about strict liability is appropriate. You'd not know walking around the NYC construction boomtown but anti-employer laws such NY's Strict Liability have been a deathblow to jobs north of the NYC suburbs.

One reason is that insurance costs in NY State are far higher than in other states. Some insurers won't cover a risk here no matter how much you offer them.

And by your own words/stats, don't do a thing for safety.

The laws should be enforced more strictly and more consistently. Those who erect scaffolds without permits should be nailed to the cross--and maybe they should be subject to strict liability, which automatically presumes the employer to be at fault when there is an accident. But the majority of good employers should not.

Hevesi is a thief who will be the subject of an impeachment if he is elected. Spitzer, who I dislike, did the ethical thing by withdrawing his endorsement for Hevesi when this came out.

The fact that Hevesi did his job in this instance does not make him less of a thief. He belongs behind bars, and its not impossible that he'll be there before long.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Phantom, it's called a control group, look into it. Can you imagine what these contractors would do if they couldn't get sued?

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Employers need a bottom-line incentive to enforce safety rules on the job. I.e., if you let your guys and gals slack off, it's YOUR PROBLEM when bad things happen. Otherwise, every worker is at the mercy of the unscrupulous foreman or their own lack of training, or just plain pressure to get the job done.

Safety rules are so good that if they're followed consistently, any rational insurer will offer protection at affordable rates. We've got better personal protective equipment, better protocols, better scaffolding technology, and better continuing education than we've had at any point in our nation's history. There's absolutely no reason this profession should be riskier than most. It's like saying "if you lean into the conveyor belt, we're not responsible if the machine takes your arm off." Bullshit, machines should be designed that ordinary people without death wishes shouldn't be able to casually insert their arms into the works.

[Guest]

"strictly liable" is a bad link.

[Guest]

I had several years in a related field and IMHO the only ones in a position to do anything about scaffolding deaths are the employers - workers all think they're the exception to the rule, end-users just want cheap work done, OSHA is a joke for the most part (unless you're trying to get a competitor in trouble, of course), and unions have limited control. If the boss's kids aren't going to get Christmas presents if you're not wearing your harness, then you're gonna wear that goddamn harness. Whether strict liability is necessary, as opposed to some other loss-allocation scheme, I couldn't say.

[The Phantom]

Contractors in the other 49 states do not have these laws and have better safety records.

The fear of lawsuits doesn't stop bad contractors--they pass along the insurance costs. No sweat off their back.

Not saying that they should be immune from lawsuits--they should not. But strict liability is really stupid. An employee could literally commit suicide by jumping off a scaffold and the employer is deemed liable, no questions asked. An employee could drink many Budweiser tall boys ( 16 oz cans )for breakfast -not an unusual thing BTW- and if he slips from any height the employer is liable, no questions asked. That does not happen in other states.

These laws do not promote safety, as today's reality shows. They promote high costs and lawsuits and ambulance chasing.

The answer to the problem is relentless enforcement and an attitude that a safe workplace is the only kind that can be accepted.

The lawsuit culture of this state adds zero to the safety of NY's Construction workers.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

The link's fixed. Thanks for letting me know.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

If you profit by dangling people 20 stories above the pavement, it's your business to make sure that their strapping in, showing up sober, and whatever else they need to do. It's not just about the individual, it's about the safety of the entire team. You can't let one fuckup or one cowboy potentially endanger everyone on the crew, emergency workers, pedestrians, and anyone else in falling range.

If you're in charge of the jobsite, then you're IN CHARGE. It's that simple. Buck stops with you, or your shareholders, and/or your insurers depending on how much foresight y'all had. That's the beauty and the curse of limited liability. Nobody goes to jail, but nobody gets off scott free. The market needs to know how you conduct yourself with your most valuable assets: your people and your reputation for quality work.

Suicide and murder are legally different from accidents. An employer isn't liable under the scaffold law if an gun-toting employee shoots others or himself. Likewise, if an employee has a heart attack on the job. It's not the same as falling off a scaffold.

[The Phantom]

--unions have limited control.--

But good unions like the Electricians take safety really seriously and drill it into the membership from day one.

I have seen high iron workers buy cases of Budweiser to bring to the job at 7am, and have seen them pound 'em back at the Blarney Stone or whereever at lunch. A union that gave a rats ass about its members is absolutely in a position to stop that. But they don't.

What's the contractor supposed to do-give a breathalyzer to enter a worksite? The union would oppose that as a rights enfringement, not allowed in the contract.

Booze on the job would I think be a factor in these accidents, because boozing on the job happens, and if you're very observant around certain sites, you'll see it.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

So, where are the foremen, if there's so much breakfast drinking going on? The concerned coworkers? The managers? Are all these people so stupid and inept that they all want to kill themselves, EMTs, firefighters, and pedestrians while bankrupting the company the work for? I mean, come on. There may be problems with substance abuse on the job. Many of the jobsites in my neighborhoods advertise their rigorously-enforced sobriety policies in spray-painted stencils on the plywood enclosures. They claim they have the authority to submit anyone who seems impaired to drug testing on the spot. If employers have these tools at their disposal, they should be legally liable for the consequences of failing to deploy them.

[The Phantom]

Didn't say that breakfast drinking goes on all the time, or that it takes place on the job either.

Yeah, you'd have to be an idiot to do it, but there are those who do. And its the high iron guys who are often the worst. And the foreman won't be able to see it if you sneak some in the lunchbox and pop one back when you're in a secluded area.

I doubt that there been any companies bankrupted by workers compensation or other liability claims. These costs are passed through. You and I pay these costs and they add zero to safety.

The kind of guy who drinks on the job will not be visibly drunk because he does it every day, and there's nothing visible to detect. And if you pull him aside for a drug test, unless he's staggering, expect a world of bullshit from the union.

I'd never work with a drunk, esp in a risky job like construction, but there are idiots everywhere. I don't understand why anyone would tolerate it, or would enter a car driven by someone who has been drinking, etc.

Employers are liable in all 50 states, but its only NY State that assumes that the employer is always at fault, with almost no exception. That's bullshit, and it absolutely does not promote any safety.

[suzib]

Phantom,
You are beginning to read like a bleeding heart liberal.

[architect66]

Under Federal, State, and NY City law, it is the Contractor's responsibility to provide a safe workplace. Construction safety is a practical concern - it seems pretty clear from Phantom's comments that she has not spent much time on a job site, much less one on a high building. Lindsay is correct about jobsite responsibility. Every job site in NY where work is done from a scaffold must have several permits, including sidewalk shed and rigging permits. Scaffolds must be rigged by a licensed rigger, and workers are required to be properly equipped and trained to operate the scaffold. Safety lines are required, and must be separately tied back to the building structure from the scaffold. A competent person - this is a legal term - must be responsible for safety on the site.

If there is an accident on a site, it is likely that someone messed up - the site safety supervisor, the foreman, the owner of the contracting company, or even the worker. In the end, though, it is the worker who is the most vulnerable, since her life is on the line.

The NYC Department of Buildings, ironically, has recently been circulating safety reminders related to operation of cranes and derricks. Enforcement of safety regulations is in the public interest, and I would also think - and this is just a guess - that a better funded and more intense enforcement of public safety laws, would have the effect of reducing insurance costs in NY.

[The Phantom]

architect

Don't presume. Nothing you say contradicts a single thing that I have said or adds much to what Lindsay has said.

The points I was making were that strict liability is bullshit since it presumes fault of one party, though often that party is not at fault, a good reason why no ohter state has adopted this system.

And I am very militant on the subject of safety, but think that insufficient diligence on the part of all--employers, managers, regulators,workers and unions has led to an unacceptable level of accidents in NY.

Plus, in small jobs widespread and growing use of unskilled illegal alien labor, an issue in itself.

--

The answer to the problem is relentless enforcement and an attitude that a safe workplace is the only kind that can be accepted. Phantom 927

that a better funded and more intense enforcement of public safety laws, would have the effect of reducing insurance costs in NY. architect66 1101 ( give me a hat tip, please! )

[architect66]

Don't be so upset phantom. It's just that your stories of drunk union construction workers invite a kind of skepticism. That's a stereotype used by anti-union activists, much like the famed 80's welfare queen shibboleth employed by St. Ronald Reagan.

Safety is one of those Mom and Apple Pie fundamentals - How can you be against safety? Everyone agrees - you, me, Lindsay, and probably just about anyone that you could think of asking.

Phantom, where we differ is in the assessment of responsibility for safety on the jobsite. Where you are quick to cite "drunken workers" and "illegal aliens," I locate jobsite responsibility in the hands of the contractor, who is legally responsible for josite safety. It is the contractor who is responsible for providing a safe job site, and for providing trained and qualified workers.

Anyway, while I know construction well, especially in NY, I don't know so much about insurance and safety rates nationally. Could you direct me to a web site which validates your claims about insurance costs and accident rates? In the spirit of cooperation, here is a link to Jordan Barab's Safety Blog.

Safely yours,
- 66-

[The Phantom]

I'm not even close to being upset.

As respects ironworkers buying tall boys at 7am, I saw it over the period of a year, when a major tower just west of 1185 Sixth Avenue was built years ago. I have many friends in construction who tell me what they might not tell an architect. I called one just now, and he burst out laughing when I read your comment implying that what I say is in any way exaggerated.

Where did I say that a contractor that hires illegal aliens should not be punished? I think anyone who hires an illegal is by definition doing something wrong, and should be punished severely. The fact is that these illegals often have zero skills for the jobs they are assigned to do. There have been a number of incidents right here in Brooklyn where illegal Mexican workers from rural areas were killed in falls--I can think of two off the top of my head--at the Century 21 in Bay Ridge, and at a residential construction site in Williamsburg.

--

I'll try to find a public website with accident frequency/severity and cost information but I suspect that most of that information is not publicly available, and is locked in password protected sites of the Insurance Information Institute or the insurance companies, or is to be found in textbooks.

There are a number of liability insurers that will not "write" NY contractors at all, while others will only write the risk if there is a very large deductible, say $1,000,000 or more. Other states have lower loss rates and pay less premium with lower deductibles. The -only- reason this would happen is bad loss experience, because any insurance company could collect a fortune (until the losses came in ) if they chose to write NY Contractors with the same low deductibles and rates that their clients in NJ, PA, all the states around us enjoy. Its a real problem all right.

But if I see something I will pass it on.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

>it seems pretty clear from Phantom's comments that she

Um, and just because I've been calling you and treating you like a guy for the last year and a half--Phantom, you are a guy, right?

[The Phantom]

1984

Yes, sir.

[architect 66]

Phantom - It's clear that you are using stereotypes about the construction industry to make your case - which appears to be that a poor safety record is all the fault of the insurance industry and insurance regulations. Your stereotypes - about people who work in construction, people who own construction companies, about unions, and building owners, and especially about architects are a distraction to your point.

[The Phantom]

No, I'm extremely observant, and I have a number of lifelong friends in the industry. And blue collar tribes like ironworkers, whose unwritten rules are more important than the written ones, are most unlikely to confide in an architect about certain things.

Its not stereotypes--its direct observation, and its a couple of decades of speaking with blue collar ironworker and carpenters who tell me what really goes down. These guys don't even regard electricians as "real" construction workers, and there is only so much that they will tell a "paper-pusher" ( a term I hear a lot ) architect or manager.

And its not the fault of the insurance companies-- I did not say that. They are neither heroes nor villains here--they deal with a high-loss environment by either charging more or by staying out of NY State. Which is pretty much all they can do.

We agree on one thing, but its the only important thing. That there is an insufficient safety enforcement regime. I blame everyone for that. Noone has clean hands in this industry, where corruption among managers and unions hasn't exactly stopped and is yet another problem as respects safety. Pretending that its only the fault of "the bosses" is extremely counterproductive.

The buck does stop with the contractors and the government--they should pick the state with the lowest loss rate and set a goal of getting there in three years. That might wake some people up.

[zuzu]

The kind of guy who drinks on the job will not be visibly drunk because he does it every day, and there's nothing visible to detect.

Have foremen no sense of smell?

[The Phantom]

--Have foremen no sense of smell?--

Not talking about whiskey. Speaking about beer, from people working out of doors. Kind of hard to smell that.

[zuzu]

You don't spend much time around beer drinkers, do you?

[The Phantom]

Beer is not easy to smell, to me any way and certainly not out of doors.

I not only spend time around them, I'm a client myself!

[architect 66]

Because I care, Mr. Phantom, I suggest you ask your blue collar pals about their safety training on the job. I am sure that since they put their lives on the line every day, it is something they take seriously.

Now back to the guys who were killed in Brooklyn - The point is not that they died because they were "Mexicans" - as you suggest. They were killed because the jobsites where they worked were unsafe.