Will you just do what you should

HugalHugal Shipmate
edited January 11 in Hell
I work in catering currently in customer facing role. Why do people have to do things they know they shouldn’t and make a hash of everything. If you have not been trained to use a machine don’t touch it. The rules are there for a reason, normally a legal reason to do with health regulations. Don’t use a set of tongs designated for meat to take veg and most of all don’t use equipment designated for nuts with anything else.

Comments

  • Because they're fucking stupid? Because they don't know their head from their arse?
  • I've experienced enough stupidity to believe it is a pattern; that managers give bad examples due to being pressurised from above, staff do dumb things because they believe nobody notices or really gives a shit.

    Things go on fine. And then suddenly everyone realises the rules were there for a reason because it all falls down.

    Just do the things you are meant to do, idiots. Wtf is wrong with you?
  • "Health and Safety" has been characatured as pointless redtape. Thank you Daily Mail and your pals. That accounts for a lot of carelessness, as people tell themselves "It's just Elf n' Safety Bollocks" trying to tell themselves it doesn't matter.

    Until they trip over some insignificant object, react to a foodstuff or get in the way of something falling off a roof. If you want your mates to clear up the mess after you do something stupid, possibly fatal and probably very messy, keep on taking no care.
  • Complaints about 'elf n safety gorn mad are not new. A campaign to reduce TB by disinfecting classrooms and banning the cleaning of slates by spitting on them produced the following letter to the editor from a teacher in 1904:

    “A few foolish rules to observe, a whole lot of hygienic quirks to adjust to, a schedule of superstitious sanitary notions diligently followed by day dreamed of by night, is a malady which begins as a mental derangement and ends in a complete physical “fizzle” No room is left for a spontaneous life.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Well, quite.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    Things go on fine. And then suddenly everyone realises the rules were there for a reason because it all falls down.

    This. People do what is easy, and make do with the tool that is to hand rather than going to collect the correct tool. It's just one little thing - it's not worth going all the way to X to get the proper tool when you can probably bodge it with the thing that you have in your hand.

    A significant fraction of the safety incidents at work over the years have been things of this nature - people just doing something quickly, and so didn't bother to get the correct equipment, strap everything down properly or whatever, because "it was just a quick thing".

    And most of the time it works out OK, nobody gets hurt, and it really is quicker than doing it right. And so people do it again, because it was easier taking the shortcut last time and it worked out OK. And then someone gets hurt.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    "All your body parts behind the blade."
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    In fairness, there is a huge gulf between calculated risks and habituated risks. But objectively calculating risk is so uncommon as to be functionally impossible for humans.

    Whups, just realized that I've rolled up in my personal hobby horse. Apologies.
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    That's fascinating - thanks RooK,

    My youngest brother trained as a Woodsman (that was the job title and I think they were all male then). He told me of some of the trainees who drop started their chain saws, which is really dangerous. I had seen some work photos of chainsaw injuries, and said 'You can't do that!' .

    His response was a classic - 'You can do anything if you're stupid'



  • Schroedingers CatSchroedingers Cat Shipmate, Waving not Drowning Host, 8th Day Host
    I think - as so often - the issue is that something may be against the guidlines/laws, but people take the view that "I will be fine".

    So often, what they fail to realise is that it will be fine 99% of the time. It is just that the other 1% may be fatal, and you won't ever repeat that.

    You only have to get it wrong once to die. You have to get is right every time to live. And we are really bad (as humans) at judging that.

    This is why we need the rules and regulations. So that we rule out that 1%. Because people are stupid.
  • RooK wrote: »
    On the basis of that list, it looks as if you suffer from attentional bias :naughty:

  • AravisAravis Shipmate
    The principles of risk assessment aren’t difficult. You estimate the severity of the risk and the likelihood of something bad happening if you carry out a certain action. What is more often omitted is that, in some situations, you should also assess the risk of not carrying out the action.
    In the case of using food tongs to handle nut and non-nut products, the likelihood of injury is fairly low but the consequences could be fatal. Using separate tongs uses minimal extra time and incurs minimal expense. It’s a no-brainer. You use the separate tongs.
    However...it drives me mad that frequently, on hospital wards, elderly people are not allowed to walk at all, for weeks, because of a risk of falls, even if they were walking fairly well before. If they’re supervised, the risk of a fall may be moderate, but the risk of serious injury is often low. If they’re discharged home, having not walked for weeks, they’re either at risk of falling at home unsupervised, or they stop walking altogether, and their health has a very high chance of deteriorating rapidly. So the hospital’s statistics about patient falls look great, but the long-term outcome for the patient is crap.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Eutychus wrote: »
    RooK wrote: »
    On the basis of that list, it looks as if you suffer from attentional bias

    To be clear, that list of cognitive biases are things that are bugs features relevant to all humans. Though we all suffer their effects to different degrees, and recognition of them massively reduces the difficulties they might inflict.
  • This is leading me to wonder all kinds of things about the value of bias, the benefits of risk, and AI. But then I remembered I was in Hell.
  • GalilitGalilit Shipmate
    The phrase where I live is : Safety regulations, protocols, etc were written in blood

    Having been on the receiving end of a tractor accident described in an actual court of law as "an act by the village idiot that noone could ever have anticipated and therefore noone can be held responsible" ...there is a limit to how much you can prevent by regulations of their various sorts.

    Nothing helps some days ... but at least I am still here to be post-traumatised every now and then
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    edited January 12
    Yes, there is a limit inasmuch as you can't prevent 100% of accidents. Which is 100% irrelevant to whether or not there should be safety rules.

    There is a breed of argument used by American Republicans that runs like this... "We should abolish federal anti-poverty programs because we've had them for decades and there are still poor people, so obviously they don't work."
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    Well, Jesus did say the poor will be with us always so no use doing anything about it either.
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    Well, nothing like biblically sanctioned justification Climacus, Shows how holy they are.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    RooK wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    RooK wrote: »
    On the basis of that list, it looks as if you suffer from attentional bias

    To be clear, that list of cognitive biases are things that are bugs features relevant to all humans. Though we all suffer their effects to different degrees, and recognition of them massively reduces the difficulties they might inflict.

    THIS. We're ALL in the gutter here. We privileged few are looking up at the stars.
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    RooK wrote: »
    In fairness, there is a huge gulf between calculated risks and habituated risks. But objectively calculating risk is so uncommon as to be functionally impossible for humans.

    Whups, just realized that I've rolled up in my personal hobby horse. Apologies.

    Well, that covers most of the conversations on the Ship.
  • Bloke a few doors up from me was using a chainsaw on a ladder. His wife was out. He sliced through his arm and bled out. (Please note that the facts of this story may be embellished). I am shit scared of chainsaws and consequently use a dinky battery powered one that is only slightly better than a pruning saw.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    But which works very well - as does the hedge trimmer, leaf blower and edger in the same bright lemon-yellow range. Suitable for those of us of advancing years.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    I have been terrified of chain saws since I read Robert Frost's poem "'Out, Out--'" in high school.
  • Let me let you into a secret even RooK does not live by weighing rational risks. At least a lot of the time we accept our previous risk assessment and get on with life rather than trying to work out a new one in this situation. Otherwise, we would never do very much.

    It is true that the risk and consequence assessment in a simple binary situation, with a single risk where there is constancy of circumstances, is relatively easy to calculate. However we are rarely given a binary choice, normally there is a range of actions, we are never under constant circumstances, too many other idiots around and there is rarely a single risk. How do you weight a big risk of losing thousands of dollars against a small risk of losing your sight? How do you weight reducing carbon footprint against long term health risks? Those are the sort of factors we are trying to resolve every day. That second is not arbitrary, in fact, it is a decision everyone who is either participating in or decided not to participate in Veganuary has effectively come to a conclusion and guess what there is evidence that those most at risk of malnutrition if they cut out meat (i.e. young women) are also those most likely to be moved to become vegan. So constant context is not a good assumption.

    The problem is that these levels of difficulty in the calculation tend to be multiplicative rather than additive. Then there is the fact that all these decisions need to be put to every decision we make. We would soon run out of computing power in the world if we let computers do this for a single person.

    Therefore we use shortcuts, techniques that synthesize data not through the mathematical models of risk but through emotions and experience. This is certainly not as good but it works pretty well and gets a lot more done. The art is really to get the balance right between the two methods. For that, you need to learn to how far you can make the calculations of risk required and how far you can trust the background assumptions made by them.

    By the way, this is personal. My father was superb at predicting how people would act both individually and as groups. He has become with old age wanting more and more certainty. Therefore he thinks things through more and more and does less and less
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Well, quite.

    Hey, thanks for that. It's really rare for a resin-bonded disk to blow up, but you've shared a picture which will help me be a little more PPE-diligent :smile:
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, 8th Day Host
    Ruth wrote: »
    I have been terrified of chain saws since I read Robert Frost's poem "'Out, Out--'" in high school.
    I had somehow missed that one; it's chilling. I have, however, always regarded a fear of chain saws as being entirely rational.


  • Fear of anything that can rob of life and limb is rational, to be sure. You should also be afraid of the electricity that courses through the walls of your home, and every stream, lake, river, and sea.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    edited January 14
    Jengi Jon
    That is a great explanation. I suspect though there is a further explanation people just can’t be bothered. Take my OP. People just use what they have to hand. If someone were to go use a set of tongs for meat and then use it say for carrots they don’t think much of it, but if we see it we have to throw that dish of carrots as it is contaminated. Vegetarians can’t use it. Nuts and Peanuts are even worse. The product is now contaminated and must be thrown away and the surfaces cleaned. People don’t think.
  • And similarly with gluten - you really can't buy gluten free pasta and then cook it in the same pan as ordinary pasta, then expect it to remain GF. Or put gluten free bread in the same toaster as any other bread. It's surprising how few cafés / coffee shops follow procedure with gluten free and/or dairy free products. Well, I suppose with the example of Pret it's not that surprising, but it does mean eating out isn't safe for many with allergies.

    If I'm producing gluten free and gluten containing food at the same meal, I prepare all the gluten free first, then the food with gluten to ensure I don't cross-contaminate. Then scrub down properly.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    Jengi Jon
    That is a great explanation. I suspect though there is a further explanation people just can’t be bothered. Take my OP. People just use what they have to hand. If someone were to go use a set of tongs for meat and then use it say for carrots they don’t think much of it, but if we see it we have to throw that dish of carrots as it is contaminated. Vegetarians can’t use it. Nuts and Peanuts are even worse. The product is now contaminated and must be thrown away and the surfaces cleaned. People don’t think.

    It's a form of privilege. People who don't have these needs don't have to think about it.
  • GalilitGalilit Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Yes, there is a limit inasmuch as you can't prevent 100% of accidents. Which is 100% irrelevant to whether or not there should be safety rules.

    Speaking of percentages...I always think re both accidents and allergies ... the number of people potentially endangered or the likelihood of some event or action (or inaction) might well be 0.00001% i.e. of extremely low probability ... but if it does happen it falls on you 100%
  • Right, which brings the convo back around to weighing potential outcomes: probability versus severity versus results of not choosing that option.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    edited January 15
    We do have to regulate for the worst out come because the worst out come can happen.
    Which brings us back to breaking regulations. There are places I will not set foot in again because I saw a member of staff in the kitchen using the same board for raw and cooked. So it is not just the public but the workers as well. Fines are big for breaking regulations and can mean a jail sentence in some cases
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Right, which brings the convo back around to weighing potential outcomes: probability versus severity versus results of not choosing that option.

    As far as I can understand the (British) law in this context, the test is whether the risks can reasonably be assessed. There will always be highly unlikely incidents that are not taken into consideration but most accidents are caused by a lack of consideration of the obvious stuff.

    To the extent that when we were doing only moderately dangerous things, my employer insisted on verbal reminders about how to use the tools.

    It was considered that this pause and reminder in and of itself reduced the risks from the most common accidents, although obviously was of no help against an unpredictable occurance.
  • But to paraphrase some American diplomat, there's predictable unpredictables, and unpredictable unpredictables.
  • ...somehow I doubt that Donald Rumsfeld has ever been considered diplomatic...
    ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.