given the scrutiny around Tesla, it’s interesting this story doesn’t seem to have come out sooner since this is a fairly novel workplace accident

  • ryan@the.coolest.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    11 months ago

    Important context autotldr missed:

    The incident happened when the engineer was programming the software that controls the robots, which cut car parts from aluminium, The Information reported.

    Two of the robots were disabled, but a third was inadvertently left on. As it went through its normal motions, it caught the worker in its claws.

    Yikes, that should be checked multiple times before someone gets close to the clawed aluminum cutting robot. Failure of process, I suspect.

    • PlasterAnalyst@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      11 months ago

      Lock out procedure wasn’t followed properly. You’re supposed to check that equipment is in a safe state before you go into a dangerous area like that.

      • mars296@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yes but if for example management is pressuring employees to make repairs in X amount of time that causes them to have to rush, its the company’s fault. Similar to Norfolk Southern giving train engineers 45 seconds per train car to do safety inspections.

        • helenslunch@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          This is absolute nonsense. Every worker is and should be pressured and monitored to ensure they’re working efficiently. That doesn’t give them carte blanche to disregard safety protocols.

          • alyaza [they/she]@beehaw.orgOPM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            11 months ago

            Every worker is and should be pressured and monitored to ensure they’re working efficiently. That doesn’t give them carte blanche to disregard safety protocols.

            the latter will necessarily follow from the former in almost every situation, because “inefficient workers” often get fired or are led to believe they will be fired and they have to make up the difference in that perception somewhere. this is still the company’s fault

            • helenslunch@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              the latter will necessarily follow from the former in almost every situation

              no, it will not and does not.

              • alyaza [they/she]@beehaw.orgOPM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                11 months ago

                “over-stressing workers and pressing them to be as efficient as possible, causing them to cut corners with safety” is such a universal point of failure that it’s frequent in every modern industry and a contributing factor in a huge number of workplace incidents and industrial disasters. respectfully, you would have to actively ignore reality to hold the position you currently do, and if you think that’s the worker’s fault and not the company incentivizing them to do unsafe things to keep their jobs, i can really only describe you as a corporate apologist or bootlicker

                • helenslunch@feddit.nl
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  Keyword in your statement is “over”.

                  the company incentivizing them to do unsafe things

                  I presume you have evidence that you’d like to present to back up the idea that this is indeed what’s happening? Or are we just assuming that’s what happened?

                  Trust me, they don’t want you to get hurt. It costs them a whole lot more than any perceived increase in productivity when you get hurt. I’ve worked at corps that were on my back all day long about safety, to an annoying degree, and it wasn’t out of genuine concern, I promise.

                  i can really only describe you as a corporate apologist or bootlicker

                  Well that’s incredibly rude and unnecessary. Is this how you treat everyone you have disagreements with?

                  • explodicle@local106.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    FWIW I’ve been a mechanical engineer for decades and they are right about this. Trust me instead. They’re probably reacting with hostility because you’re way out of line here; what you’re arguing is anti-labor.

                    There is a profitable balance between productivity and safety, and they’ll say one thing while firing people who are too unproductive.

          • mars296@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            11 months ago

            Yes but sometimes an employer’s idea of efficiency and the real world do not line up. They won’t tell employees to disregard safety protocols or urinate in bottles explicitly. It becomes the only way for the employee to meet their quota and keep their job.

      • Welt@lazysoci.al
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 months ago

        Occupational hazard. Doesn’t mean said engineer isn’t owed compensation though. On the contrary.

    • nebirus@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      11 months ago

      Considering the subject matter, perhaps the auto-TLDR bot has a conflict of interest!