That old robot PSA, where it gets its arm cut off, and then it re-attaches itself, and then tells kids to play safe.

[ 19 November 2007: Message edited by: co-worker ]

Le Telespectateur:

quote:

---

I poked around and couldn't find another thread on this. Although I tend to be pretty awful at searching for threads.
This TV ad scared the shit outa me when I first saw it on TV. Not because it is graphic (WARNING: the link is graphic!) but because I have worked a bit in kitchens over the years and I found this to be incredibly realistic.

What do people think about this ad campaign?

I was also very shocked when reading the comments on youtube. What do folks think about those?

---

triciamarie:

quote:

---

There's a whole series of TV and movie theatre ads like this as well as print ads that were run in subways and buses.
The bus ads were really controversial in Guelph because a mom got on the bus with her four-year-old son and couldn't figure out why he was freaking out, until she saw the ad -- it think it was the one of someone's ear on the floor, with the message that losing your ear makes it harder to listen to your walkman. All the ads were pulled and the WSIB issued sanctimonious statements about "if we save one life it's worthwhile", similar sentiments issued from the newspaper, and the ads went back up on the buses.

My problem with this whole campaign is not so much the graphic violence, although I wouldn't want my four-year-old exposed to that either. The main problem is that that this whole campaign targets and the victim, for an issue that is by and large outside workers' personal control. The ad says to readers that if you hadn't been so stupid as to get your ear cut off at work, you would have a lot easier time listening to your music, and that at least is something that should catch your attention, as you don't seem to care about your health or you wouldn't get hurt.

People do not want to get hurt at work -- as if it should need saying. That goes for young workers too.

The research is very clear that the way to reduce injuries in the workplace is ensure that there is a functioning health and safety committee.

---

I'm actually worried that my son is going to see one of these commercials by accident. He is extremely sensitive and gets nightmares. Sorry to be all "think of the children" but you know, sometimes you do have to think of the children. And some adults who might be scarred by this sort of graphic depiction.

There's a Facebook group protesting against these ads, where one of the members makes the good point that this could also be an extremely traumatic thing for people whose family members have been killed in workplace accidents. If these type of accidents are as common as the WSIB says they are, then I'm sure there are a lot of people who get pretty triggered by this sort of depiction.

There should at least be a warning before the commercial is shown. And it should NEVER be shown when children are likely to be watching.

triciamarie, I remember those WSIB subway ads. My son is old enough that he wasn't traumatized by the subway ads, but I remember that when he was a few years younger, he would have been. It's bad enough that we have to be assaulted by ads on our public transit. It's not like TV, where you have a choice as to whether or not to use it. But ads like that are unacceptable.

[ 20 November 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

But the truth is, many many parents see no issue with their kids playing violent games this young, or watching wrestling (which is pretty violent) or hell, even the UFC.

I mean, that's horror movie stuff. If a scene like that Sous Chef commercial were in a movie, it would get an R rating. I don't let my 8 year-old watch R movies. Maybe some people do, but that's not the norm. (By the way, I knew you weren't directing that at me, Stargazer. )

quote:

---

Funny though, the only problem I have with these ads was the concept that somehow accidents at work were the fault of workers, thus the "there are no accidents".

---

In my workplace, a guy got broken bones in his face, and another guy got a broken wrist, because a manager was careless. But it wasn't just some random happenstance.

Very realistic and can happen just like that if people are not careful in the workplace.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sineed:
Folks get careless, and whether it's management failing to provide a safe work environment, or the workers themselves getting sloppy, people who work in ERs have to deal with maimed and disfigured young people, whoever's at fault.

---

That's right, it's not a question of fault -- and important to note that WSIB is a no-fault system. Workers give up the right to sue the employer in exchange for this statutory benefits regime. But with all these WSIB ads about stupid ways to get hurt at work, now we're importing the idea of contributory negligence into this no-fault system -- whether on the part of the person who gets hurt, and/or their coworker. Under the old common law system, that would have been enough to eliminate the employer's financial responsibility to that injured worker.

Employers have been driving this wedge for the past decade or more. So far it hasn't made much of a difference in the actual decisions that get made in these files.

But what I do see changing is injured workers' attitudes about their own injuries. There used to be more righteous indignation about how the employer put them in the position to get injured like this, with often life-changing consequences (and not always or primarily for young people). Now with all this propaganda about "there are no accidents", what I see more of is guilt.

quote:

---

In my workplace, a guy got broken bones in his face, and another guy got a broken wrist, because a manager was careless. But it wasn't just some random happenstance.

---

If the employers that entirely fund the WSIB really wanted to prevent injuries, they would pressure the government to ensure that all employers comply with their obligations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, in particular, the need for a functional H&S Committee. This transfers the responsibility to anticipate and correct potentially dangerous facilities and work practices into the joint hands of workers and management.

quote:

---

This transfers the responsibility to anticipate and correct potentially dangerous facilities and work practices into the joint hands of workers and management.

Real responsibility costs employers money. But we know that this is what prevents preventable workplace injuries -- not terrorizing workers and their families.

---

I see triciamarie's point about how it can be a slippery slope to blaming employees for stuff.

But in a case like, say, the chef's, there could be a workplace culture where everyone's rushed (say if it's understaffed or a busy time) where supervisors might get peeved if people stop and clean up a grease spill, thus making some customer's food order 5 minutes late.

It is the job of managers and supervisors to ensure that their workers do not feel pressure to overlook workplace hazards in order to increase productivity.

Of course, employees should also realize that if they bend to peer pressure or employer intimidation and let something slide, that they're basically risking their lives (or someone else's) in order to not get in trouble or get flack from coworkers. In a perfect world, everyone would be able to withstand such pressure. But in the real world, many people can't.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bacchus:
What about the many employers not part of the WSIB? (virtually all office workers)

Can they still sue?

---

What makes you think that most office workers aren't covered? They are, with a couple notable exceptions -- banks and law offices spring to mind.

You can call the WSIB anonymously to find out if your industry has mandatory coverage.

[ 21 November 2007: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sineed:
But some of my workmates have the attitude "I'm not a janitor," and would leave the mess.

---

In Ontario, our Occupational Health and Safety Act came out of the experience of the Elliot Lake uranium miners in the 50's and 60's. These workers knew that their working conditions were making them sick, and many of them felt strongly enough about this to put their jobs on the line for the sake of health and safety.

We know about their organizing, their wildcat strike, the government's conspiracy against them (they were doing a major long-term study on the the adverse health effects of uranium mining for an international symposium -- but told the workers they had no knowledge of any risks). But the unwritten part of this history is how much pushback these 'troublemakers' faced not just from management and the government, but from some of their own coworkers, to the extent of serious personal threats against them. Mining paid well and it was often the only game in town, so a lot of miners were fatalistic. They had an attitude. They had families to support. This was going to interfere with their paycheck, and money was the only thing that mattered.

The Health and Safety laws that came out of that experience are based on what is called the "Internal Responsibility System", where no one in the workplace is legally off the hook for health and safety. Each person is responsible for safety as part of his or her individual job -- managers do managerial safety (programs, staffing, resources), supervisors do supervisor safety (training, inspections, procedures, reporting) and workers do worker safety (applying training, identifying hazards, inspections etc.).

Each person in the workplace was given three rights: the right to know, the right to refuse, and the right to participate. Each person benefits from the safe environment and each has legal duties. No one escapes potential liability.

So out of these miners' collective experience, the Ontario health and safety system promotes individual due diligence. If an avoidable accident occurs or an inspector writes an order, IRS analysis helps identify all the individuals that failed to plan, develop, implement or monitor the health and safety system development.

We do have this legal framework in Ontario and some other provinces.

But it is a far, far stretch from this kind of a systematic program to formally provide all workers with the skills, knowledge, tools, responsibility and jurisdiction to take control of health and safety in the workplace, versus simplistically fixing blame on individual workers -- including managers -- for personal "negligence", when accidents occur.

It is the employer who has the legal onus to put that joint system in place.

[ 22 November 2007: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

It is disturbing. But maybe it should be. And maybe teens should see it, as the stats on students getting hurt and killed on the job are alarming.

There was a time, when my brother first started driving that London had an ad hoc "driver training" program put on by the police. It essentially consisted of the police showing teens police photo's of accidents scenes.

Such shock tactics in education, I seem to remember reading somewhere have only a temporary effect. So maybe the disturbing video above can't claim that the ends justifies the means.

quote:

---

What makes you think that most office workers aren't covered?

---

My daughter is almost 18 (22 days) and is co-oping at the local animal shelter. In her first review she got top marks on everything but safety. She was not taking appropriate cautions with some of the more feral cats she was working with. That was putting her at risk.

When we reviewed her review, she felt that was a good thing. Naturally I asked her why.

She felt that if she could demonstrate she wasn't afraid to take risks and get hurt, she'd make a better employee because they wouldn't have to step in and do it themselves, she could do it. (she hadn't been taught yet how to handle a wild domestic (as oppose to wild 'tiger') cat.)

I was horrified that she would see her willingness to risk her own health and well being, to make herself "more employable".

She has seen, and was the one who drew my attention to these commercials, and they have made her think.

I agree they are way too graphic for younger children. I think the series of commercials that depict the aftermath of an accident - the ones where they are talking about their plans etc, are equally effective, without being as graphic.

I think these graphic commercials would be good in high schools where teens tend to feel invincible.

We had a discussion about safety and workplaces etc and she's made the attitude adjustment!

[ 31 December 2007: Message edited by: rural - Francesca ]

quote:

---

My daughter is almost 18 (22 days) and is co-oping at the local animal shelter. In her first review she got top marks on everything but safety. She was not taking appropriate cautions with some of the more feral cats she was working with. That was putting her at risk.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lunette123:
I am starting an online petition to stop the airing of this commercial and I hope that you will take the time to sign it online and pass this on to as many people as you know. a((snip)

---

Nope.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bacchus:

Because I work in the online industry and every company I know of in Canada that is based on websites, is not covered on WSIB regardless of the size of the office (Im not talking online as in work from home, I mean companies that own websites and thats the maindstay of where their sales are)

---

Workers' compensation falls under provincial jurisdiction. The vast majority of office workers in Ontario (and other provinces as far as I know) are eligible for benefits. It doesn't make any difference whether they work with websites. However, as I noted, there are a few industry groups that did manage to opt out of mandatory coverage.

quote:

---

There are a few industries that do not have to register. These include:

Banks, trusts and insurance companies
Private health care practices (such as those of doctors and chiropractors)
Trade unions
Private day cares
Travel agencies
Clubs (such as health clubs)
Photographers
Barbers, hair salons, and shoe-shine stands
Taxidermists
Funeral directing and embalming

---

http://www.wsib.on.ca/wsib/wsibsite.nsf/public/EmployerRegisterWSIB#Register

There are some other exceptions not included in this list. As I suggested, you can confirm your status by calling the Board. If you work in Ontario and you are not covered under WSIB then you do have the right to try to sue your employer for a work injury. For those who work in industries with mandatory coverage, the right to sue is taken away, replaced with the statutory benefits scheme.

[ 01 January 2008: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

[ 31 December 2007: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

[ 31 December 2007: Message edited by: Aristotleded24 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rural - Francesca:
My daughter is almost 18 (22 days) and is co-oping at the local animal shelter. In her first review she got top marks on everything but safety. She was not taking appropriate cautions with some of the more feral cats she was working with. That was putting her at risk.

[snip]

She has seen, and was the one who drew my attention to these commercials, and they have made her think.

[snip]

We had a discussion about safety and workplaces etc and she's made the attitude adjustment!

---

Welcome rural-Francesca.

Luckily your daughter wasn't injured in her first few days on the job. Many young workers are not so fortunate.

From what you say, may I respectfully suggest that it was actually the shelter's application (albeit after the fact) of safe work policies and your resulting follow-up with her as a parent that led to her adjustment?

If the ad campaign that has been running in schools and media for well over a year were primarily responsible, one would expect that kids would avoid assuming unnecessary risks in the first place.

But how much individual control do young workers actually have over their working conditions, if the employer doesn't fully support their decisions? Are they really in a position to start asserting their rights? Is their choice not in large part either to give up the employment (or accept a weaker recommendation, or not be recalled for another work term), or suck it up?

In my view this whole employer-funded advertising campaign is wrong-headed. It is simply not reasonable to put the expectation on vulnerable young workers going into new, often temporary jobs, to be able to unilaterally make the necessary decisions to avoid injury. These workers have limited knowledge of the working world and the industry where they are employed. If they can even evaluate what the risks are, they probably don't know what equipment or procedures are available to mitigate the risk, still less how to access them. Of course they are trying to do a good job and make a good impression and look competent, and furthermore there is a prevailing legal expectation that they will respect their supervisor and carry out their duties to the best of their ability.

The only way to really prevent unnecessary risks is to as far as possible, eliminate the risks for all workers. This is done through organization on the shop floor to draft effective policies, mandate all necessary training and supervision and empower workers with the resources and jurisdiction to implement a safe workplace.

This is called the internal responsibility system. It is by far the most effective means of preventing workplace injury. Many employers don't like it because they think it costs them money, and they can't cut as many corners. It is governed by the Ministry of Labour under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Not the employer-funded WSIB.

[ 01 January 2008: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

I don't think it should be censored. But I do think there should be a warning before it about the graphic nature of the commercial, and I also think it should only be played later at night, and only during shows that are similarly graphic, that kids would likely not be watching. Sorry, but as a parent of a child who has terrible nightmares, I'd be pissed off as hell if he were to see that with no warning and during a show he was likely to watch.

Where the OHSA applies though, this sets out a joint system of responsibility. Workers and management both share the opportunity and the obligation to enforce safety for all.

Unfortunately the Act does not apply as strongly in small workplaces, and these tend not to be unionized, so the old paternalistic system of hoping the employer will 'do the right thing' often prevails. If that works, great. If not, there are options: it may be easier to for staff to organize around health and safety in small workplaces, and small employers can sometimes be easily spooked into compliance, especially when it doesn't cost much money.

The Workers Health and Safety Centre in Ontario is an excellent source for information and certification courses.

http://www.whsc.on.ca/

[ 01 January 2008: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

I know I drove him nuts as I'm a bit accident prone (I know we're not suppose to use the word 'accident'). There is a running joke in my family that if someone starts using a power tool, I start bleeding on a finger.

The point, and there is one, is that my choice of rebellion as a teen, against my father, was through safety issues. If we changed a light bulb, we had to flip the breaker, so if I was mad at him, not only would I not flip the breaker, I'd leave the light "on"!!

For me it was control, I was asserting my control over my life, my right to chose my own path. A typical teen response.

My son, he's 21, got hurt on the job (factory), and was treated exactly how he should have been, hospital visit etc. It was a mild bruising of his foot, which he dismissed the first 20 minutes after doing it, until the pain really got to him. They flipped on him for not reporting it immediately and shipped him off to hospital. They gave him crutches, but he hid them under his bed - that's how I found out about the injury.

He didn't want me to know because I'd ask questions about how the factory handled it (well duh - it's not organized and he's a temp worker, of course I'd grill him) and make a fuss.

Getting injured just seems to accepted as a part of life with the kids I work with, it truly boggles.

But when they spend a lot of time watching hockey (NHL is a job) and these guys get hurt constantly the message is that getting hurt on the job is part of work. You tough it up.

My son's workplace has light shields as part of the safety equipment and we've had conversations about how annoying he finds them. He's trying to work and doesn't realize that one small part of him is breaching the light shield, and he can't get the 'contraption' to work. Disturbs his rhythm. He's got size 13 feet and they drive him nuts.

I think we've lost the image of the "worker". Kids see workplace injuries as an aspect of "manufacturing". Whereas they see themselves seeking more "office" based employment in their own future.

Here in our rural community we don't have a lot of manufacturing so there isn't the same "perceived" risk.

The cooking/chef accident is a good example because everyone cooks, it is somewhat relevant.

quote:

---

Getting injured just seems to accepted as a part of life with the kids I work with

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrose:

It's true. I remember climbing up rows of shelving units to grab stock at a retail job I worked at, in heels I might add. If I lost my footing just once, I could have been seriously, seriously injured, if not worse. It was just sort of something we all did, and didn't think about the consequences of.

---

Exactly. And it's not just kids with cavalier attitudes to safety -- I can't tell you how many order pickers I've talked to who do exactly that same thing, not to mention even stupider things like getting a boost on a Raymond Reach or lift truck with no harness. Most of them survive.

Contrast that with the warehouse I worked in as a teenager. There were reams and reams of safety precautions and we all just accepted them as a matter of course, because eveyone followed the same rules. If you were caught violating these rules, especially as a new worker, you would probably be either written up or fired -- that simple.

So I didn't have to decide on my own whether or not an action was safe, or safe enough.

That's how you avoid injuries.

The same principles apply in smaller workplaces but they are less frequently implemented, mainly because of lack of knowledge and organization. Some of these places are now being looked at because MOL is going into the most dangerous workplaces in the province, but that's just on the level of following up on tickets. There is still a huge vacuum around workers organizing to take control of their health and safety on the job.

That is the message that the WSIB should be putting out if they really intended to prevent injury, rather than just stigmatize it.

[ 01 January 2008: Message edited by: triciamarie ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rural - Francesca:
I think we've lost the image of the "worker". Kids see workplace injuries as an aspect of "manufacturing". Whereas they see themselves seeking more "office" based employment in their own future.

---

That's a really good point.

I say, the last thing these employer ads are going to do is to to awaken class consciousness.

A massive proportion of WSIB claims are for repetitive strain injuries, suffered by office workers just as often as those on an assembly line.

Why don't these ads depict someone sitting at her computer long into the evening, developing debilitating CTS? How about the sales rep repeatedly slogging a laptop and a case full of catalogues into and out of her trunk day after day? Or the man under constant stress from workload and dealing with coworkers and/or clients and/or supervisors who belittle and degrade him?