Proposed Two-Person Crew Mandates

[subman]

Technological solutions are also emerging to address the need to monitor the Lone Worker throughout the workday.

http://www.loneworkersolutions.com/
http://www.blacklinesafety.com/

[pbchief2]

Amazing from here to this thread.

[Mr. Smith]

pbchief2, the point is mandates are bad, the practice of 2-3 man crew should be
encouraged and it is sound for business reasons, the job gets done faster with more eyes on the job. Time is $.
More trained workers available...........

BUT

Government Mandates are just no longer acceptable, we have way to many laws as it is.
I dont survey anymore I just fill our forms and pay tax.


Brian

[David Kendall]

I dont survey anymore I just fill our forms and pay tax.

I hope you aren't doing it alone

[Peter Ehlert]

I dont survey anymore I just fill our forms and pay tax.

I hope you aren't doing it alone

Big Brother is ALWAYS watching

[William Magee]

Absolutely 100% agree that employee safety is # 1A priority. And, recruiting, training and retaining new surveyors is an issue which is entering critical mass stage (or should I say, critical vacuum).

But the questions remain, is that really what is motivating OE-3? Is that really what is motivating certain persons within CLSA who are also selling this?

Surveying is a relatively safe thing. I don't expect to hear these same proponents of the 2 man crew to be next lobbying the State Workman's Comp board to change surveyors from being lumped with engineers. Maybe we should be instead classified in the same classification as timber fellers, roofers and underwater salvage workers. Currently we enjoy workmans comp rates based on a classification where the most serious injuries are paper cuts and carpal tunnel syndrome.

I have worked over 30 years in the industry predominately switching between surveying some of the most rugged mountainous boundaries our state has to offer and in heavy highway construction. The injuries I have witnessed have been serious poison oak rashes, bee stings and only 2 minor cuts. While there are surely some who can tell of more serious and likely more frequent injuries, I am of the belief that our current workmans comp classification is borne from low claims rate.

Now I would like to relate a story from one of my other lives. A number of years ago I was tapped to be resident engineer for the replacement of a 12" water main down main street of a small rural city. The contractor who got the job was a small ma and pa outfit from out of town. The water main replacement primarily consisted of digging a trench which provided 3' of cover over the 12" pipe plus 4" of sand bedding below it. I.e. the trench was designed to almost but not quite 5' deep. For the most part it was under the 5' depth but as all things there were some variances.

2nd day on the job, Mr. OSHA himself shows up. Crusty old guy who liked being a $%##$$. Being as I was the city's rep, he confided in me that his office had gotten complaints from one of the local contractors about the crew working without shoring in unsafe trench conditions. Mind you this trench was being cut through what I would classify as cementious cobble. Very stable and consistently under the 5' threshold. Anyways, Crusty takes out his tape measure and starts stabbing at different points along the trench until he finally found himself a spot that was 5'-1/16" deep. He then promptly grabbed 'ole pa off the backhoe and starts writing him up for having workers in the trench without shoring. Pa nicely explains those workers are his son and brother and so fall under some sort of family exemption or something. All that seemed to do was cinch down 'ole Crusty's flank strap as he then went on a tirade and starting looking for anything and everything he could write up. While to be fair, I understand Mr. OSHA has probably seen more than a few serious safety violations and trench safety is not something to question. I can assure you that wasn't the case this day. Nor was it 2 days later when he showed up again as a result of "repeated complaints".

I wish I could say this was the only time I've seen contractor's use OSHA or use bid protests or other means to retaliate against other contractors because of a lost bid. But I can't. It happens all too frequently.

So I know who to remember the next time I'm out doing some topo work for new sidewalk for safe routes to school job on some low ADT residential street, and 'ole Crusty jumps out and starts writing me up for no 2nd person, no traffic control, no hardhat, no steel toed boots, and for general overall obstinance, even though I try to explain he has no jurisdiction as I'm a sole proprietor. I'll remember the union surveyors, those same surveyors behind these proposals. The same union surveyors who not long ago lobbied (detrimentally I might add) to get survey technicians reclassified under the Davis Bacon labor standards.

It would seem, being the reality of the fairly safe nature of surveying as evident by our low-risk workman's comp rating/classification, that the threat to the Operating Engineer's membership numbers resulting from one-man crews might be a concern to them as a significant loss of membership dues. Perhaps almost as big of a concern as losing bids to one-man crews. Kinda sorta reminds me of some NC dentists.

[polaris]

I am not for gov't mandates. Legislating common sense doesn't work!

That said, we run one, two , three and sometimes four person crews. In my office that could mean the whole office is on the job! My point being that we decide together the need for additional people in the field. We have a virtually non-existent accident record, no traffic related accidents, no job related injuries or accidents. The reason is due to information, not rules. We discuss job safety, sometimes daily, and procedures. We watch out for each other. I would support a rule regarding safety meetings before this mandate.

I just read an article which states that over 50% of survey only firms nationwide are in the category of "Under 10 employees". It seems logical to me that the requirements for this new rule of two person crews and the responsible decision maker on who decides which job, project, or day to send out a two person crew vs. a one person crew be related to the size of the firm. Firms with less than 10 employees the owner/land surveyor should be in charge of that decision. For larger firms the decision maker should be the Survey Manager (licensed person)

Remote locations can be dealt with by different means of communication: cell phones, other people in the area, we have a emergency beacon (SPOT) which works very well in all remote sites. We also check in and out of communication at the beginning and end of the day when traveling to a "remote" site.

We always run two person or three person crews in areas of heavy traffic. It is just common sense. We also train everyone to watch for traffic at all times. Training is more important than numbers of people on a job site.

Not all prevailing wage jobs are in dangerous areas like construction sites or busy highways; some are in more rural areas in wide open fields. One person is sufficient to get the job done sometimes.

I also think that this "mandate" is coming from the union, not an actual concern for my safety. They are fighting to stay employed in a world where construction staking is fast disappearing, at least as traditionally practiced.

I agree, Peter, it is insulting. I thought we were professionals?

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

Saying government regulation doesn't work is straight up BS.

Workplace safety has made vast strides since regulation started in the early 20th century.

It is not un-American to regulate business behavior. Businesses always have a superior bargaining position and safety will disappear if they have their way.

[Administrator]

Additional information is available here: http://www.dir.ca.gov/oshsb/Field-Surve ... ne-AC.html

Minutes and related information from the April meeting is not yet available. We will post it when it is provided to us.

[Jim Frame]

I would support a rule regarding safety meetings before this mandate.

The rule you allude to already exists, and has since 1991: Title 8, Sections 3203 and 1509, which require all employers to have an Injury and Illness Prevention Program. Substantial compliance requires meetings and documentation of same.

[BeachBum]

There are a lot of areas in California that do not have adequate cell coverage. I'm not sure mandating a minimum of two people would accomplish in these instances. I'm a rather large person, I doubt a second person would be able to do anything but leave me! We do the same as Polaris in remote areas, we make contact before and after, just to check in. As Jim mentioned above, we are required to have an IIPP, can this issue be rolled into this? Part of the package on a new job is to reconnoiter new sites? Sounds like most of you on here already do this and use common sense, just reminding your crews of what to be aware of wouldn't hurt.

[Mr. Smith]

Again it appears we have a STRIKING difference between
the Public and Private sector.
Some call my opinions BS (which are my initials by the way)
but a lot of us do have the opinion that government should shrink
with a huge rewriting of the statutes.

In any event if this thing passes all surveyors should be required to follow
the rules including sole proprietors so they do not have an unfair advantage!


Brian S.

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

I spent the first ten years of my career working for a private firm; so I have been there.

The perspective is different in a public agency. We own the property we are surveying so any additional work is a benefit. On a private survey, there is a need to limit the work to that which is necessary to the specific project for which a fee is being received. Also work load on the public side is generally not tied to revenue, they are independent.

Note, I do not necessarily think a two person mandate is a good idea. We can talk about that. But to just say in general government regulation is bad so I'm against it is not really a valid argument; it can easily be shown that government intervention has increased safety in a lot of areas, aviation, construction, etc ad nauseum. The advantage of government regulation is that it is required of all so all have the same costs with respect to that, at least in theory. Without regulation a business could trim costs by reducing safety which is exactly what the meat packing industry did in the early 20th century. If you can show it wouldn't enhance safety then that would be a valid argument against.

I think OSHA is employee based so a business owner would be exempt, I think, could be wrong about that. But the client could require it, say a Water District says no one person crews on our site then the solo practitioner would have to decline the contract or hire a rodman.

[goodgps]

Whomever is "Druthering" for a three man crew or at least mandatory two man crew, Please send me the billing address so I can invoice for the cost of this MANDATORY extra field personnel. YES ! I would be very happy to have an extra hand for every job, but cost of doing business and federal regulations simply make it impossible.

Just think Three man crew Gurley transit Chain chopping brush . . . .aaaah the good olde days

We must STOP GOVERNMENT CONTROL even if its disguised as "safety"
When did land surveyors lose common sense ?

[E_Page]

My druthering is reckoned to a perfect world. A 3-person crew standard isn't ever coming back in the real world. so that part of my druthering is actually more just reminiscing.

If you have time to review the whole thread, you'll see that I'm not at all excited about a regulation to mandate crew sizes. For the majority, probably the vast majority of organizations, no regulation is needed to tell them how to conduct field operations responsibly. They may utilize one-person crews occasionally, regularly, or almost always, but they don't do so when it would create undue safety risks for the field employee. They have adapted procedures to account for safety concerns where a 2nd set of eyes may help for most situations.

However, (and now I repeat myself from an earlier post) there are a (probably) very small minority of firms that seek to minimize hard costs at every opportunity. The largest hard cost most employers have is staff. They don't give any real consideration to the safety of their field staff, and will send the fewest people with the lowest level of training (thus typically lower wages) that they can to get the job done (or what can appear to be done and is billable). If the regulation is written correctly, those are the only ones it will have any real effect on. Everyone who is conducting their fieldwork responsibly, whether with 1, 2, or 5-person crews, should not be affected at all.

That's why I'm involved, and that's why I'm asking for input - to ensure that the regulation is not written so poorly or broadly that it puts an unreasonable burden on responsibly run organizations.

I don't really need any laws to tell me that it's not right to commit burglary or murder. Since I don't intend to commit those acts, not because they are illegal but because those acts do not conform to my sense of morality and because I live my life more responsibly than to consider burglary or murder as a reasonable solution to any of my circumstances, those laws have no effect on the way I live. I've managed to live for over 50 years without doing either and expect that I'll make it the rest of my life with a clean record on those counts. The vast majority of people don't need these laws to be in place to keep them from committing those acts, but I don't see or hear anyone credibly arguing that those laws shouldn't exist.

[E_Page]

For those waiting to watch the webinar or not being able to log in, stand by.

CLSA Central Office is hav I ng tech difficulty.

Starting soon.

[E_Page]

For those not able to log in, Jeff Burgess and I will monitor this thread for questions.

[Peter Ehlert]

total fail.
I scheduled my day/week around this, I am pretty busy here, it was not easy to do.

I signed up, got many email reminders: links, instructions on how to make sure it would work, etc. I did all that, on Two different computers.
(never a mention of software that must be installed, never)
a few minutes early I logged in, got a message ... not ready yet.
a few minutes later at the appointed time, and I get a bunch of error messages.
I move to another computer... it wants me to download and install some crud. I do that.
Finally! I log in again, now running 15 minutes late and I get "full, contact support"

Question: does anybody check these things out in advance? Obviously not.
I will skip being a guinea pig next time, let me know when you get your stuff together.

[Administrator]

Follow-up from today's CLSA Webinar:

Regrettably, some of you who registered for today's CLSA Webinar regarding proposed Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) two-person crew mandates were not able to login. We now understand that the GoToWebinar system allows account holders to register more participants than their account plan allows. Upon learning of this situation, we attempted to increase the plan but decided against doing so as it would have cancelled the webinar for everyone. We apologize to those affected by our oversight.

Today's webinar was recorded and is available now for viewing on Youtube. Please click the link (https://youtu.be/3hY8hR84awk) to view the webinar. Please note: it appears to start abruptly. We assure you the recording starts at the beginning of the webinar.

We may be able to schedule another webinar in the near future. If we can, we will reach out to you first to ensure you the best opportunity to participate.

Thank you.

[Sunburned_Surveyor]

I don't believe it is a good idea to consider this issue "already decided". If private companies have concerns about this mandate, those should be addressed in the rule-making process. If you are a private company, CLSA member, and want to oppose this proposed mandate for a 2 man field crew, your opinion should be heard and respected. If CLSA membership is evenly divided or majority opposed to this proposed mandate, our organization should stay neutral or get members concerns addressed in the rule-making process if possible.

I strongly suspect ACEC is going to oppose any mandate for a 2 man field crew. If you are a private company and are an ACEC member, you should reach out to the professional surveyors committee with your concerns. If you aren't an ACEC member, you should join and have your views as a private business person represented in the rule making process.

Landon

[mpallamary]

What the heck do I know but shouldn't big issues like this be debated at an annual conference?

[LS_8750]

To much of the surveying world, this issue is too advanced. There are perfectly functioning PLS shops out there using wives, husbands, in-laws, sons and daughters, high school kids, college dropouts, corporate dropouts, fast food chain dropouts, etc., in the field these days. Pickup help for an otherwise one man shop.

Professional land surveyor? Hmm... I'm watching the tuna fishermen cast their nets out and sweep underneath the boats of the PLS community while they hold their rods and snooze, no bait on hook.

Two man crew minimum. Sheesh... What about the last one the unions are pushing? Basically making surveying a grade checker's job or something like that? The last CLSA conference debate on that issue was a travesty of a mockery of a sham. Lots of straight faces. I felt like I had ticks crawling all over my poison oak.

Oh, and what about drones, and laser scanning, and lidar, and GIS? The unions haven't figured out how to control those yet have they? But the general public can do it all now, right?

Two man crew minimum..... Looks like we're gonna need to keep junior home from school for this job Honey. ...

Have surveyors as a whole become accustomed to being constantly bullied?

[E_Page]

For those of you for whom reading comprehension is a challenge....

The issue is not "already decided", and that is why CLSA is involved. If we decided to oppose, we would have Ralph Simoni and a surveyor representative from Leg Comm hand deliver our "We don't like it" letter to the DIR, have some manner of meeting with them to personally explain why we don't like it and then boycott or be disinvited from the Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee would continue and formulate some manner of proposal without the input of the profession that it targets, and we would put ourselves in the weaker position of trying to kill it at the public hearing where they decide whether or not to implement it. At that point, we would be going against the DIR staff opinion & recommendation and the supporting positions of several powerful organizations. At that point, it would be "already decided" to the great disadvantage to a significant percentage of our membership.

The course of action that we've taken so far has been to recognize that the final form was far from decided and that we have the opportunity to have considerable influence on what the final form will look like. That decision has led to us having that influence and having current wording such that if implemented in that form, would not have any effect on the vast majority of survey organizations either because they are doing work where additional crew members add no appreciable safety benefit, or because companies which field crews to inherently hazardous traffic and construction situations already have appropriate safety practices in place and send an adequate number of field surveyors to do the job effectively and safely.


"What the heck do I know but shouldn't big issues like this be debated at an annual conference?"

Because we had been made aware of the proposal only 2 weeks prior to the conference, had not had any direct involvement in the process until after the conference and did not have the opportunity to have and understand all of the facts prior to the conference. But judging from this thread and those on some other topics, there's several here who are quite comfortable arguing positions on issues for which they lack enough information to have an understanding of the issue.

A lot like to stand on the outside, throw stones and demand why whatever it is you think should be done isn't being done. And why not? It's so much easier to show everyone how much you care and how much concern you have about issues that affect the profession by broadcasting your displeasure with how they are being addressed by others, or some organization seen as having the responsibility to address them than it is to step up and work with your fellow members in that organization to actually address them. When you broadcast your opinions on the internet, lots of people see them so lots of people can read how concerned you are. When you work on the solutions, you can get satisfaction in knowing that your efforts made a positive difference, but far fewer, typically only those also putting in effort will take any notice.


"Two man crew minimum. Sheesh... What about the last one the unions are pushing? Basically making surveying a grade checker's job or something like that? The last CLSA conference debate on that issue was a travesty of a mockery of a sham. Lots of straight faces. I felt like I had ticks crawling all over my poison oak."

I don't remember that union proposal or the CLSA debate you're referring to. Had there been a debate on this issue at the last conference, there would have been a lot more faces contorted in anger or incredulity than there would have been straight faces. But it still would have been a mockery because virtually none of the debaters would have been making arguments from a position of knowledge as none of us had been involved in the process at that point and none of us had a full understanding of the background.

The last proposal that OE3 got behind was actually brought forward by a group of surveying organizations. My understanding is that group is comprised of organizations that are mostly, but not all union signatory, but all very involved in construction. Their goal was to alter some wording in parts of 8726 with the goal of making it more difficult for non-surveyors on construction sites to encroach on those things that have typically been surveying functions in the past. They brought CLSA into the process late on that one and the consensus at Leg Comm was that while the stated goal was a good one, the proposed wording did nothing that would have been effective toward that end and in fact may have introduced confusion in some instances. They lined up a legislative sponsor before coming to CLSA, were surprised when we couldn't support the proposal as worded, and were caught flat-footed when the legislative sponsor wanted to fast track it in the current legislative cycle.

I suspect that they may have another go at it in a year or two, but will bring CLSA into the process earlier to try to help accomplish strengthening the definition of survey practice.


"Two man crew minimum..... Looks like we're gonna need to keep junior home from school for this job Honey. ..."

If you are a sole proprietor/solo operator this is quite unlikely. But then, if you really are concerned about this issue, you already know that because you would have already read it elsewhere in this thread.


"Have surveyors as a whole become accustomed to being constantly bullied?"

Many have in some respects. There are those who will go to great lengths to see that CLSA takes no action that might be seen as opposing something that BPELSG wants to push through or that might upset BPELSG in any way. For them, anything BPELSG wants, in whatever form they first introduce it, whether beneficial or detrimental to the profession or the public, CLSA should just blindly apply our enthusiastic stamp of approval, and to heck with how the majority of CLSA members would see the matter.

If we were going to be bullied in this issue, we would have simply ignored the issue and maybe took a "watch" position all the way through to implementation rather than getting involved as soon as it was brought to our attention and stepping in to shape a proposal that best addresses the desires and concerns of our membership as a whole.

I've got a great idea. Why don't you show up to a Leg Comm meeting or the next DIR Advisory meeting on this issue and see how much I allow myself to be bullied on this or any important issue? There's a Leg Comm meeting at the CLSA Central Office in Sacramento tomorrow morning. I hope to see you there. In fact, I'm getting weary of dealing with this particular issue, so maybe as a concerned CLSA member, you can take this one over for me.

[LS_8750]

Mr. Page, my commentary did not deserve a response. I appreciate what you do for this profession.
I don't like how OE3 meddles with surveyors. That is all.

[Administrator]

Quick note reminding everyone about one of our forum guidelines:

We encourage lively discussion and debate but remember that disagreeing with an idea is different from attacking an individual. In that spirit, do not post messages that contain personal attacks against other individuals, including CLSA members, officers, or staff. Messages and materials that are defamatory, abusive, profane, threatening, offensive, or illegal are strictly prohibited. Do not post anything on the CLSA Discussion Board that you would not want made public or that you would not want anyone to know came from you.