New "safety" vests pose serious safety hazard

[Sherman]

Safety rule 4.34, on page 73 of the MSRPH states:

"Clothing shall not be torn or loose fitting".

The new safety vests are clearly way too big for most employees. I'm
6'2", 230 lbs, and mine flops around and falls off my shoulders even
when I'm wearing a heavy winter coat.

The sleeves seriously restrict vertical arm movement -- for example,
the 'proceed' hand signal motion.

In addition, the Velcro that runs the entire length of the sleeve is
_extremely_ strong. There is no way that these vests can be
considered 'break-away'.

It is only a matter of time before an employee's vest is snagged by a
train or some equipment and they are seriously injured or killed.

IMO, these vests are dangerous and should not be worn on the wayside,
if at all.

I would like to hear the union's position on the new vests.
Currently, some employees are wearing them (primarily out of fear of
disciplinary action) and some are not (out of concern for their own
personal safety).

[Christopher Jerry]

I agree with you on this Sherman. I dont use of a vest much but had to use one when I worked during the Inauguration detail. When I saw the new ones for the first time, my thoughts mirror yours. In fact I wondered which Metro exec had a relative getting a kickback for purchasing them as I hear they are very expensive.  I am glad that I used the old one on the days I worked, even though I was issued one of the new ones after the Inaugural.

I am a member of the safety committee at Pennsy Drive for CTF and will bring this point up at next weeks meeting though I have a sense that with Metro spending so much money on them, it might be hard to get people to change 

Christopher Jerry

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
www.atulocal689.org

[mrnat...@comcast.net]

Thank you for offering to bring this up at the safety meeting
Christopher.

It is a shame that whoever ordered these vests did not get input from
employees in the field. We risk our lives every day and have enough
hazards to worry about without this.

These vests may be appropriate for some occupations/work environments,
but not ours.

If Metro is _truly_ concerned about our safety they will continue to
allow us to wear the existing (previous design) vests. The marginally
increased visibility of the new vests is outweighed by the greatly
increased risk of being dragged to death by a train.

I understand that these vests are expensive and that the person/people
responsible for ordering them are trying to save face but hopefully
Metro has its priorities straight and will do the right thing here,
regardless of who may be embarrassed. Better to loose some money than
to risk injury or death. One wrongful death lawsuit would make the
cost of these vests look pretty cheap in comparison.

Sherman

On Mar 4, 10:59 pm, Christopher Jerry <cjerr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with you on this Sherman. I dont use of a vest much but had to use
> one when I worked during the Inauguration detail. When I saw the new ones
> for the first time, my thoughts mirror yours. In fact I wondered which Metro
> exec had a relative getting a kickback for purchasing them as I hear they
> are very expensive.  I am glad that I used the old one on the days I worked,
> even though I was issued one of the new ones after the Inaugural.
> I am a member of the safety committee at Pennsy Drive for CTF and will bring
> this point up at next weeks meeting though I have a sense that with Metro
> spending so much money on them, it might be hard to get people to change
>
> Christopher Jerry
>

[Christopher Jerry]

I have only been added to safety committee since January 30, ---which is a Pennsy CTF based safety committee, not a Rail/Bus safety committee----so it possible that there actually was a conversation that took place with a safety person or committee and they saw the new vests and did sign off on it. 

Unfortunately, the way our company works many times, is those making the decisions don't actually confer with the grassroots people that are out there everyday. Instead they ask those who sit in offices supervising or managing, who themselves rarely, if ever, are actually having to work while wearing one everyday, what is a good idea and what is not.

Again, I will ask about the vests in our meeting on Tuesday. I should get some feedback at least about how they were selected.

Christopher Jerry

[mrnat...@comcast.net]

I received the following email from Jacques (Jocko). He gave me
permission to post it here on the Local 689 forum:

----- Original Message -----
From: jacqu...@aol.com
To: mrnat...@comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Local 689] New "safety" vests pose serious safety hazard


Sherman, this is the typical "can't lose face" scenario. We already
had reported incidents of employees getting hurt because the sleeves
did not break away. It has been reported by both, employees and
supervisors, but, it always seems to fall on deaf ears. I got the
impression that the individual(s) responsible for pushing and
purchasing the vest is/are scared and in denial of a huge "blooper".

Where's the big, bad, DuPont consultants in all of this? In all of my
safety experiences, the lasting systems have always come out of joint
decisions between the rank and file and management. Have you run this
issue by President Jeter? (FYI) There's a contractual agreement
calling for a "Joint Labor Management Safety Committee" and I'm sure
that she would bring it up if the issue was well documented. Also, I
really think that the employees would appreciate to hear management
show some leadership and put out a memo to remove the sleeves.

So much for these jokers being in touch with their employees, I say,
lay off 50% of the dead weight down town and really save tax money,
blue collar jobs and lives!

Jocko

#####

On Mar 5, 8:05 am, Christopher Jerry <cjerr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have only been added to safety committee since January 30, ---which is a
> Pennsy CTF based safety committee, not a Rail/Bus safety committee----so it
> possible that there actually was a conversation that took place with a
> safety person or committee and they saw the new vests and did sign off on
> it.
> Unfortunately, the way our company works many times, is those making the
> decisions don't actually confer with the grassroots people that are out
> there everyday. Instead they ask those who sit in offices supervising or
> managing, who themselves rarely, if ever, are actually having to work while
> wearing one everyday, what is a good idea and what is not.
>
> Again, I will ask about the vests in our meeting on Tuesday. I should get
> some feedback at least about how they were selected.
>
> Christopher Jerry
>

[William Roach]

This is a copy of the e-mail I sent to my Superintendent, Gary Reynolds at Brentwood 4 weeks ago and I have not received a reply. I have worked here for 29 years and I have never seen such mismanagement.   William Roach Rail Road Mechanic       Gary Reynolds,   The new safety vest is a safety hazard because of the long, loose fitting sleeves. The long sleeves can get caught on moving equipment. Since safety is now a priority with WMATA, some one should have paid more attention to how all the employees interact with  the areas of  individual responsibility. WMATA Safety Rules and Operating Procedure, Section 4 Safety Rules; Subsection E, Suitable Clothing and Personal Protective Equipment:         4.32 Employees shall wear suitable clothing for work being performed.         4.33 Employees shall wear and/or use the prescribed safety equipment required for the type of work being performed.         4.34 Clothing shall not be torn or loose fitting.         4.35 Short sleeves shall not be worn when arm protection is required. In addition, the safety vests will be extremely hot in the summer. What was wrong with the old vests we use?   William Roach --- On Thu, 3/5/09, mrnat...@comcast.net <mrnat...@comcast.net> wrote:

[mrnat...@comcast.net]

Excellent letter William, thank you for posting!

I'm not surprised that you haven't received a reply, that seems to be
SOP at Metro. My guess would be that Mr. Reynolds doesn't want to
step on any toes. There is less risk in simply ignoring your letter.

Hopefully more people will follow your example and make their concerns
known to management, as well as warning their coworkers about the
safety hazards of the new vests.

Sherman
(TSSM, ATC Tech)

On Mar 5, 2:58 pm, William Roach <mup...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is a copy of the e-mail I sent to my Superintendent, Gary Reynolds at Brentwood 4 weeks ago and I have not received a reply. I have worked here for 29 years and I have never seen such mismanagement.
>  
> William Roach
> Rail Road Mechanic
>  
>  
>  
> Gary Reynolds,
>  
> The new safety vest is a safety hazard because of the long, loose fitting sleeves. The long sleeves can get caught on moving equipment. Since safety is now a priority with WMATA, some one should have paid more attention to how all the employees interact with  the areas of  individual responsibility.
> WMATA Safety Rules and Operating Procedure, Section 4 Safety Rules; Subsection E, Suitable Clothing and Personal Protective Equipment:
>         4.32 Employees shall wear suitable clothing for work being performed.
>         4.33 Employees shall wear and/or use the prescribed safety equipment required for the type of work being performed.
>         4.34 Clothing shall not be torn or loose fitting.
>         4.35 Short sleeves shall not be worn when arm protection is required.
> In addition, the safety vests will be extremely hot in the summer. What was wrong with the old vests we use?
>  
> William Roach
>

> --- On Thu, 3/5/09, mrnatur...@comcast.net <mrnatur...@comcast.net> wrote:

[chuck]

I work in BMNT doing a lot a towing. I have never had a problem with
the new safety vests. The thing you have to do is get one that fits
right. they are adjustable. I had to bother my supervisor to get one
that fits right. What really bothers me is that I had to pay out of
pocket to get some safety pants. When we go out to tow a bus that
safety vest doesn't count for nothing. technically, just wearing the
vest is still a class 2. to be a class 3 (what we were told it was)
you have to have safety pants the meet the ANSI 107-2004 spec. wich
Metro won't provide. When you really want something you have to harass
you supervisors for it.

[mrnat...@comcast.net]

Earlier today, an Operations superintendent told me that seven (7)
operators were written up by someone in the Safety department for
wearing the old style (safer) safety vests.

Any employee who does not feel safe wearing the new vest should refuse
to wear it. If you are written up, file a grievance. WMATA may be
the 51rst state but they cannot force you to do anything that is
illegal, immoral, or unsafe. The burden of proof is on the Authority
to show that the new vests are safer than the old ones.

It is a shame that whoever ordered the new vests did not get input
from employees in the field first, but for Metro to force employees to
wear a "safety" vest that is clearly unsafe, just to save face, is
wrong and exposes the Authority to the possibility of lawsuits if
employees are injured or killed as a result.