From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Why do Americans get so little vacation time?
Keywords: work vacation
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 09:33:26 GMT

In article <13AUG199210425981@rover.uchicago.edu>,
frank@rover.uchicago.edu (Frank - Hardware Hacker - Borger) writes:

|>In article <Bsw5Lq.C2I@world.std.com>, ttraub@world.std.com (Terry
|>Traub) writes...
|>>Tell that to: OSHA - a body which imposes expensive regulations on
|>the
|>>                     workplace (you kow the computer industry is now
|>mature. 
|>>...
|>>              ETC. - Name your favorite govnerment regulatory
|>body...
|>
|>	There's the rub. Last month, our Hospital department prepared for
|>the
|>	fourth major government inspection since last December. Many many
|>	people hours of work went into the preparation, etc.
|>
|>	One $%^&*( architect spent 5 minutes going thru the department and
|>	noted that a door had an opening over the top, and was not a fire
|>	barrier. (The door was in one of those barriers that are put up
|>	quickly to turn a large room into office space, and as such only was
|>	there for security.)

The rules are designed to be easily interpreted. It is much easier to
apply a rule that states the *every* door must be a fire barrier than
have a situation where some doors are barriers and others are not. It
should be possible for any worker to enter an office and imediately
determine whether the working environment is safe, creating arbitrary
exceptions to rules is a safety hazzard in itself.


|>	Ten years ago I did Physics and Engineering. Today I spend more and
|>	more of my time dealing with various agencies. I just got off the
|>	phone with one bureaucrat who wanted to know everything about a
|>	a minor electronic mod installed on one of our Radiation Therapy
|>	machine, but said bureaucrat obviously didn't know electronics. It
|>	was like talking to my 13 year old daugher. (Actually worse, my daughter
|>	can learn.)

It is not his job to prove that the modification fails it is your job to
prove that it works. The original designers of the machine will have to
have gone through a complex procedure to prove that the machine is safe.
Any modification is a potential hazzard, unless you have expert
knowelege you can easily cause some unexpected effect, even with expert
knowlege this is possible. At the very least you are quite probably
voiding warranties, insurance policies and claims against the
manufacturer for negligence.


|>	The situation is often ludicrous. The state of Illinois has state
|>	inspectors who inspect diagnostic X-ray machines. The hospitals are
|>	paying good money to hire MS or PHD physicists, (who usually have
|>	several years of post degree training before they can work,) to insure
|>	that their machines are operating properly. The state, however, takes
|>	diagnostic x-ray technicians, gives them a crash course in meters, etc,
|>	and then says, "you are now qualified inspectors."

"Experts who use the machine every day" are often very serious safety
hazards. They are the ones that are likely to cut corners and introduce
risks. Compare the driving behaviour of taxi cab drivers with that of
other drivers.


|>	It isn't so much the amount of supervision and regulation that the
|>	various agencies impose, but the quality and training of the "inspectors
|>	that makes my job such a pain. If the government doesn't realize that
|>	this is a major reason why the US is not competitive, then we need some-
|>	one on the hill with an IQ larger than their chest size.

Try Germany. The rules and regulations here are infinitely worse.

This sort of attitude makes me glad that I am never likely to need
treatment at Chicago.


Phill Hallam-Baker