Proposed Two-Person Crew Mandates

[Anthony Maffia]

What is this about? More than half the private work survey crews I know about, construction, topo & boundary, are 1 man crews. Many companies are 1 man companies. ????

[Mark Molini, LS]

If safety is really the concern, I would like to see the proof that two man crews are safer than a one man crew. It's bad enough that we get shaken down by this department with their annual fee, now we are going to be told how many people need to be on our crew? What's next?.....a specification on what kind of hammer we must use?..Good Grief.

[E_Page]

CLSA Leg Comm has representatives on the committee that is discussing the matter and trying to arrive at language that addresses safety concerns for when a one-person crew is inherently unsafe while allowing a one-person crew when those safety concerns are not significant or applicable.

To help with this process, please post your thoughts about conditions when you feel a one-person crew is acceptable and when you feel that safety concerns should mandate a minimum 2-person field crew.

Although I appreciate any feelings that the government should just leave well enough alone, this proposal is going to happen in some form or other. It would be better if it properly accounted for those circumstances where a 1-person crew does not raise safety concerns.

The primary safety concerns raised are when surveying occurs:

1) In traffic zones where one or more crew members would be working in traffic lanes, along curbs or shoulders of roadways with heavy or moderate traffic.

2) On active construction sites where construction equipment is moving around the site.

3) In "remote" areas where the surveyor would not be noticed when injured, or would not reasonably be able to extract oneself or summon help on their own.

Helpful input would be along the lines of (but not limited to):

1) What level of traffic, on-road, in parking lots, side streets, etc., do you consider the threshold for one person to work alone safely?

2) What level of activity on a construction site do you consider the threshold for one person to work safely? Heavy equipment operating (Scrapers, backhoes, dozers)? Light construction equipment (small loader/hoe combo, bobcats, other equipment for moving dirt & materials)? Small trucks and essentially any activity on a construction site?

3) What constitutes inherently risky work and what does not for more rural or "remote" sites? What constitutes "remote"? What level of communication should be required between field personnel and the office? Between field personnel and emergency services?

4) For areas where there is very limited or no cell phone service, what methods of communication are you aware of that field personnel could use to communicate with the office or summon emergency help? Do you have experience with the hikers'/skiers' beacons that some outdoor retailers are now selling? Do you have experience with other satellite communications technology?


One of the concerns is that there are employers that are essentially mandating that field employees work as a one-person crew in inherently unsafe conditions. The committee is struggling with how to protect those employees while allowing for assignment as a one-person crew under appropriate conditions and also leaving greater leeway for those who do not feel unsafe in certain "marginal conditions" to have the freedom to make the decision whether a one-person crew or larger crew will be sent to do the work.

The licensed owner/operator would have that authority in practically all situations as long as his or her presence does not pose an undue safety hazard to others. But beyond that, what qualification, or combination of qualifications should a person have to be able to responsibly make the decision?

Bear in mind that if you set that bar too low, you remove the ability of an employee with any other real leverage by position to be able to say "no" to unsafe conditions without fear of it affecting their employment. Set the bar too high, and you make essentially every set of circumstances fall under the two-person minimum which can cause significant scheduling and cost difficulties for smaller firms.

Ideas discussed along these lines so far include 1) only licensed surveyors can make the call for themselves, 2) the person with that authority must be in a management position, 3) the person must be both licensed and in a management position, 3) only an owner can make that call for themselves.

The various ideas have brought up additional concerns, some reasonable, some downright silly about how companies might play fast-n-loose as to the definitions of classifying employees.

Please give us your thoughts.

[Mark Molini, LS]

I don't know if this will help, but , in the past, when I deemed a site to be unsafe as far as traffic, I've always had the contractor provide traffic control. Most contractors I work with would understand and help. I'm not sure the solution for safety is simply adding a chainman to the crew. If I have a chainman on site, he's going to be pounding hubs, setting lath, etc. and won't be acting specifically as traffic control or a safety lookout and be just as exposed to hazards as I or any other laborer on site. If a site warrants additional safety measures, perhaps the contracting agency should hire additional safety people to watch things or be available for such things as traffic control. How does one determine if a site needs additional safety measures?....Good question. I would venture to say that most of us ( Surveyors ) are quite aware of unsafe conditions and typically act accordingly. Every site has its hazards and it's not something that I believe one can quantify to the degree where one is required (or not) to have an additional field crew member. I would still like to see some statistics that prove out that a two person crew is safer than a one person crew.

[pls5702]

I think that there is a 99.99% chance that this is a union driven mandate. Local 12 in southern California has required 2-man crews on construction sites for years. If you are a non-union shop on a public job, you have to pay prevailing wages, but you can still under bid a union shop by putting a one-man crew on the job at a reduced hourly rate. This is all about the Union creating a level playing field so that non-union firms don't have an advantage on public works projects.

Years ago, I went to a prevailing wage seminar the bay area. The head of DIR was there giving the presentation. When the question and answer period began, the head of DIR would refer the questions to the union reps to answer questions from the audience. It was at that point that I realized that the DIR is merely an enforcement unit for the union.
Mike

[RAM]

please, for those of us that don't know what this is about, please provide more info. What triggered this? Who is mandating? Sorry but Im in the dark about this topic.

[Administrator]

Hello everyone,

For those that might not understand the context of this post on the CLSA Forum: CLSA will be conducting a webinar regarding potential two-person survey crew safety mandates from the California Department of Industrial Relations. More information is available on the webinar announcement which can be viewed here: http://conta.cc/2548LJY

To register for the webinar, please click this link: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/regist ... 0376612100

Thank you.

[Peter Ehlert]

Evan, thanks for your input. Valuable as always.
Obviously, concern for workers safety is not a new thing. The California State Department of Industrial Relations must have visited this issue many times in many industries. How has it been addressed in the past?
How does a worker in any other industry refuse unsafe assignments without repercussions?

this is actually insulting... field Surveyors are being singled out as less aware of their surroundings and personal safety, and our employers being considered as unconcerned for us.


Guide to Giving Up.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy ... =w506-h751

[LS7773]

Evan

Thanks for the info; however most of these issues seem to be very subjective. What I may deem safe, you may say that it is not and vice versa. The other side of this issue - who is going to enforce these new rules (laws)? For construction projects doesn't OSHA address many of these concerns?

[btaylor]

Fortunately all the stories of surveyors getting killed have been those that are operating solo
/sarcasm

But seriously, this is one of those silly ideas that seem good, but make very little difference. In my 20 years of doing this, the two closest calls involved 2 man crews where the 2nd person would have done nothing but go "oh no!" had something happened. One instance was simply at a crosswalk before we took any equipment out, and in the other case, the chainman was setting up a tripod down the street and never knew anything happened.

Regardless, I do not think I can come up with a specific example, except if you are surveying a very busy street and you need to excavate, or get water out of a handhole and you want the other person standing as guard. But then again I am not going to do that solo.

[Jim Frame]

This is a complex matter, and trying to define conditions under which a two-person crew is required without either imposing an unreasonable burden on the employer or exposing employees to unreasonable risk is daunting. However, the one thing I believe must be in the final rules is an exemption for owner-operators. There's no power imbalance to deal with (as there can be between employer and employee), and owner-operators are typically experienced enough to manage their own personal risk in a reasonable manner (and if they choose to compete for a Darwin Award, well...).

Can anyone provide a link to the draft proposal and timeline? I nosed around the DIR site but came up empty.

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

1. My experience with Land Surveyors is they are risk takers/don't care or think about danger. The inmate weed eater crew has better traffic control and safety than the average land surveyor. I think it stems from our independent nature.

2. Why on earth would you bid low on construction? Construction staking is aggravating, stressful, and dangerous. The surveying fees are such a miniscule part of the overall construction cost that some contractors will pay a premium just to get the surveyor they like because the surveyor can have a big adverse impact on the project vs the relatively small fee.

[Frank Romano PLS]

I would like to see hard data on why this needed and, if it is justifiable, I agree with Mr. Frame that there should be an exemption for owner-operators.

[Johnston]

Right, Frank. Where are the statistics on complaints from employees, reports of close calls, injuries, etc?

[Mr. Smith]

We use a 2 person crew for saftey and productivity but having the DIR
mandate anything is un American. I can see more paperwork and forms
in the future and more Union paybacks.


Brian

[David Kendall]

Right, Frank. Where are the statistics on complaints from employees, reports of close calls, injuries, etc?

Right, Chris. All of us private practice surveyors report every close call to the Bureau of Statistics in writing

[goodgps]

This proposal seems like another socialistic way to "big brother" protection/ control in the disguise of "safety"

The current government has mandates for employees, (healthcare, taxes, SDI etc etc. The industry created instrumentation to facilitate the one-man crew in efforts to cut cost and still provide our much needed service.

Should a law pass, then it MUST bleed over to Cable TV installers, electricians, how about Postal delivery persons who are walking the streets, ALL delivery persons. you name it !

Another point going back to survey equipment. Our modern equipment GREATLY reduces our street occupation time.
We add common sense when working around equipment, HOWEVER, that being said, NOW there should be TWO grade setters and spotters for every back hoe, instead of one.
A law like this will force small companies to close. People who need services will be forced to pay large companies or go without the service they need.

This is indeed another thoughtless idea, from some paranoid "mama wanna be"

What is next ? his only / her only and transgender Truck doors for that "necessary" moment ??

Steaming Mad (but still "good" )

[Johnston]

Right, Frank. Where are the statistics on complaints from employees, reports of close calls, injuries, etc?

Right, Chris. All of us private practice surveyors report every close call to the Bureau of Statistics in writing

No need to report, they're watching you....

[E_Page]

I have not seen any statistics specific to surveying correlating crew size and safety. The closest is an article that was included in a newsletter of the OC Chapter about 15 months ago. It has some good general statistics about traffic and work site safety, distracted drivers, etc., and correlates that to survey crew safety in the types of situations targeted by the statistics. They polled the membership of their own chapter and several neighboring chapters for the local statistics, and I believe that the pie charts near the end of the article are probably pretty reasonable representations of how surveyors across the state would answer the questions. They appear to have done a pretty good job with the limited data that is available.


I share the concerns and views many of you have expressed, but also recognize that this rule is almost certainly going to happen whether or not I think it's needed. For that reason, I am one of 3 surveyors representing CLSA on the interested parties committee led by DIR. If it's going to happen, someone from our profession needs to be involved to try to ensure that it is not something that places an unreasonable burden on employers or employees, and that it is not mandated in circumstances where it's not needed. I prefer to think of my participation as protecting the interests of the profession than a form of giving up.

Sometimes it rains. It's not giving up to accept that, but it is smart to get a rain jacket or umbrella to deal with it.



It is still very much a work in progress, but I can make a few statements with confidence that the final version will reflect those statements.

Solo owner-operators will be exempted.

A two-person crew minimum will be mandated for heavy traffic situations (highway, primary surface streets) and construction sites where heavy equipment is active. The mandate will likely encompass all or nearly all projects for which prevailing wage is mandated. The threshold of minimum traffic volume or construction site activity at which the mandate will apply has not yet been fully defined.

Some manner of reliable means of contacting help will be mandated for work in "remote" areas.

There will be some level of organization personnel who will have the authority & responsibility to determine whether they, themselves may act as a one-person crew in most situations. There will be some level of organization personnel who will have the authority & responsibility to assess the viability of a one-person crew for working conditions not specifically addressed by the rule for purposes of assigning subordinate personnel. We are having difficulty defining that level of employee/manager for these cases.

As of the most recent version and communications I've been provided, there are no reporting requirements tied to the proposed rule, although there is probably already reporting requirements elsewhere in the code for workplace accidents & injuries.

Also as of the most recent version, this mandate does not address situations where it would be wise to have more than two, or where personnel for the sole purpose of performing a safety function, such as traffic control would apply. There are already sections of the code that apply to street & highway work where lane closures or other traffic control measures are required. This one is not intended to duplicate those.



The upcoming webinar will be informative. I was hoping to participate as one of the presenters, but am overextended up through mid-June. The other scheduled presenter has a lot of good info and good motives, but he and I see certain aspects fairly differently. I understand that they have someone tentatively lined up to take my place and that he commonly runs 1-person crews on some projects.

I'm sure that those involved in putting the webinar together will be monitoring this thread, and the parallel one on Surveyor Connect that Peter started so that they can address the concerns that are presented in those threads.

Thanks for your comments so far. Suggestions that would help make the final version of the rule as workable as possible are most appreciated.

[William Magee]

The Operating Engineers Local 3 brought this request to OSHA. This is the same OE3 who recently tried to ramrod major changes to the definition of land surveying in their failed attempt with SB 1099.

I can understand the resistance to sending out employees as one man survey crews. I can also understand those outfits who utilize 2 or 3 man crews would be paying more to compete against companies who utilize 1 man crews.

I am of the belief it is this later, competition component, that is the driving force behind the proposed regulations. I am of the understanding that it was not OSHA that dreamed this up, but was instead borne by survey firms who are being underbid.

I also note there are quite a number of professions that use and aren't restricted from using single person crews. Foresters, Utility repairmen, Police, Timber fellers, etc, etc, etc.

Myself, I have a robot and gps equipment. There are some jobs where it would be nice to have a 2nd person. There are some jobs where it is really a necessity. However, by and far, the majority of work I do, I do by myself and have as little risk of injury doing said work as I do in all the other day to day aspects of life.

If I was forced to hire a 2nd person for most of my work, I likely wouldn't hire someone to survey with me, being as I don't really need another surveyor or chainperson or whatever. No, just might hire the cheapest person I could find, give them a folding chair and tell them to sit there and stay out of the way.

Even if I was to go back and start hiring out my field work, I would hire a good qualified field person and the 2nd person just might be some minimum wage earner with a folding chair. His or her duty would be to sit there out of the way with the primary responsibility of not get hurt doing so.






.

[David Kendall]

If I was forced to hire a 2nd person for most of my work, I likely wouldn't hire someone to survey with me, being as I don't really need another surveyor or chainperson or whatever. No, just might hire the cheapest person I could find, give them a folding chair and tell them to sit there and stay out of the way.

Mr. Magee, I would like to apply for that position whenever you get to that point. I'm a pretty fair sitter and I can call for help as needed

[Gary Schenk]

On one thread you guys are complaining that the one man crew means that that skills are not being passed to the next generation, in this thread all y'all are complaining that there will be two man crews. Make up your minds. Sheesh! :-)

[E_Page]

If I had my druthers, I would always run a 3-person crew. For one, I think 2 skilled field people are more efficient than one in nearly all situations, and the 3rd slot allows for training a newer person. However, I also understand the realities that for some, hiring a 2nd person is not economically feasible and that quality part time help is so hard to find as to make that 2nd person much more likely to be a hindrance to production & safety as to improve either. There are also times when a task can be readily and safely done by one person and it seems senseless to put it off until a 2-person crew can be scheduled to do it.

On the other side, there are a few employers who could readily hire enough people to run 2-person crews and can keep them busy enough to attract and keep quality people, but choose to run 1-person crews regardless of field conditions as a purely economic decision. These are the same organizations who added surveying just to keep the work in-house but seem to resent having surveyors around. They are the same outfits who will hire an LSIT to be in charge of all the survey work because they don't want to spend the $ to hire an LS, and they have a pre-82 CE who hasn't done any surveying since running a level loop in college back in the mid-70s sign & stamp whatever needs it. They are the same firms who run a dozen or more field crews, perhaps out of several offices, but only have one licensee to be in responsible charge of all that work. So for this (what I think is probably a) fairly small minority of our ranks, something more than good sense and good conscience is needed to help ensure worker safety in some circumstances. Unfortunately, there aren't many options other than a government regulation to get that group in line. Just as unfortunately, a regulation has to apply to all.

I don't particularly like the idea of the government stepping in to tell professionals how many people they must assign to particular tasks, but if it's going to happen, I don't want to leave the process of writing the regulation up to a group of people who, for the most part, don't have any experience doing the work of those they seek to protect. I'm involved to interject that experience.

I'm asking all of you to lend the benefit of your experience to help us shape this proposal into something the profession can live with. I understand some amount of complaining about another rule coming down the pike that arguably is not needed, and certainly should not be needed. But if this thread devolves to having nothing but complaints, or worse, bashing one another because some run one man crews and others think there is no place for one-man crews, then it will not only be unhelpful, it will only serve to cause ill feelings between members. Actually, that would be worse than useless.

If you look at the results of the sampling taken by the OC chapter in their article, you will see that nearly half of the respondents field one-person crews for at least some of the work they do. Most do not do that with a lack of concern for safety, because they are too cheap to hire a 2nd field person, or because they have no concern for the training of the next generation of surveyors. Many are sole practitioners or very small firms for whom hiring another person carries with it a much greater cost as a percentage of revenue, and a whole host of hiring difficulties that larger firms don't have, and perhaps a whole new layer of employer costs and record keeping responsibilities that they don't already have.

Helpful input would be that which might help identify:

- what level of responsibility/authority within a company would be appropriate to identify as the minimum level to be able to have responsibility for making the decision to field a one-person crew vs a multiple person crew for purposes of this regulation?

- What circumstances are appropriate for a one-person crew, having no appreciable risk to safety for not having additional people?

- What thresholds of traffic and/or of construction activity would be appropriate minimums for this regulation to target?

- What constitutes "remote" - is it determined by the level of cell coverage, population density, time it takes to get to a location where reliable communication is possible, or some other criteria?

- What feasible forms of alternate communication methods are there for field crews in remote areas, how do they work, what are the costs, and do you have experience with them?

If you can provide the reasoning for your opinions on any of these, it will help me and the other CLSA representatives shape the regulation into something useful where it's really needed, but not placing a burden where it's not needed.

Thanks again.

[Jim Frame]

what level of responsibility/authority within a company would be appropriate to identify as the minimum level to be able to have responsibility for making the decision to field a one-person crew vs a multiple person crew for purposes of this regulation?

The only practical way of specifying this is to link to some existing vetted category, which effectively means someone licensed to practice land surveying. The decision is generally going to be made by the survey supervisor, and the survey supervisor is typically a licensee. Requiring licensure will forestall a marginal firm from assigning some random person the title of "survey supervisor" just to meet the letter of the law.

What circumstances are appropriate for a one-person crew, having no appreciable risk to safety for not having additional people?

This is going to be very difficult to define in a workable manner. The fact is that many two-person crews operate with so much distance between the crew members that there's no appreciable safety benefit over a 1-man operation. Rather than try to define acceptable circumstances for a 1-man crew, it might be more practical to define circumstances under which a 2-man crew is always required, e.g. an access-controlled construction site on which construction vehicles are active. (If there's no access control, like a fence, then members of the public are able to wander onto the site and would be exposed to as much danger as would a one-man crew.)

What thresholds of traffic and/or of construction activity would be appropriate minimums for this regulation to target?

Construction activity is easy: when the survey work is in an area accessible to active construction vehicles on an access-controlled site. Passenger vehicle traffic on a public road is much harder to consider for this purpose. Assuming that the surveyor is in compliance with existing laws regulating traffic control, I think this should be left to the discretion of the responsible person.

What constitutes "remote" - is it determined by the level of cell coverage, population density, time it takes to get to a location where reliable communication is possible, or some other criteria?

A "remote site" is one at which a solo operator is unable to establish communication with emergency service personnel should the need arise. Cell coverage and an operational cell phone renders a site not remote; an operational emergency locator (e.g., SPOT, inReach) renders a site not remote; the presence of bystanders within voice communication distance renders a site not remote.

[subman]

Lone Worker Safety is an emerging issue and crosses over into other professions and trades. For example, electricians. My opinion is surveyors are not being singled out. At my public agency, the unions are raising the issue for inspectors who work in rural and remote locations where cell phone coverage is spotty at best and asking what policies are in place to monitor the safety of their members throughout the workday.

http://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com/ ... ker-safety