So ya know

hollywoodmfg · January 01, 2010, 05:59:21 PM

In april New york is requireing safety gear ( hard hat , chaps , ect ) and level 1 of the game of logging. For any one working on state land.

Tom · January 01, 2010, 06:17:51 PM

Yep, there's always someone in Government that knows how to take care of you better than you do. The fellow that instigated that probably got a paper cut on his finger from a picture of a chansaw and figured they must be dangerous.

What it is, is they have all this surplus tax money that they have to get rid of somehow and a friend of a friend who needs a job. So they created one for him. He's going to push the papers to keep track of those who didn't buy the chainsaw course. He'll probably need an office full of co-workers, a secretary or two and 50 men in the field before the year is out.

bill m · January 01, 2010, 06:20:03 PM

I would have no problem with that. They should do something like that here in Mass.

Mark K · January 01, 2010, 06:27:17 PM

I think its a good idea. I took 1-3 levels of the game of logging. Pretty informative, doesn't fit all situations but I learned alot. Your saftey gear all has to be OSHA approved, UL tag must be on your chaps, helmet has to have 6 point harness and no older then 2 years.

Jeff · January 01, 2010, 06:29:29 PM

I dont see any problem with it either.

Tom · January 01, 2010, 06:53:41 PM

I don't either, as long as it is occuring in other states where people wish to be told what, where and how to do everything. I just want my Government to answer to me, not me to it.

hollywoodmfg · January 01, 2010, 07:07:16 PM

Always have my safety gear when im in the bush but I agree with Tom I dont need a babysitter. Ya give an inch. They take a mile!

Jeff · January 01, 2010, 07:14:28 PM

Its not the government telling you what to do in this case but the state protecting itself from the real villains. The Lawyers. There is nothing wrong with a landowner requiring people doing work on their property to adhere to safety rules and conditions they feel necessary to protect themselves. In this case the state is the land owner. They are not requiring the safety gear on other lands, but more then likely, these are already required by the jobbers insurance provider.

Kansas · January 01, 2010, 07:15:03 PM

If I read the original post correctly, it involved being on state land. I can see where the state has a vested interest concerning anyone that runs a chainsaw there. I don't see a lot of difference between that and a landowner requiring insurance, and/or some level of training before a logger sets foot on their place. In this sue-happy world, it isn't a bad idea for the state to protect itself.

Black_Bear · January 01, 2010, 07:49:54 PM

I hate to see anything "mandatory" handed down by the govt., state or feds. And I agree with Tom that the govt. should be working for us, but I really don't see any problem with this new policy when cutting on state land.

The landowner should always be able to require anything he/she/they want when you are cutting on his/her/their land.

BTW, what is required now when cutting on NY state land?

Ed

stonebroke · January 01, 2010, 07:54:40 PM

I think that NYS already requires insurance to cut on State land. So what is the extra protection for the State. The State does not have insurance so that is not driving it. It is bureaucrats with too much time on their hands.

Stonebroke

bill m · January 01, 2010, 07:59:03 PM

If someone got hurt on state land and were not using PPE the lawyers would have a field day with it.

ford62783 · January 01, 2010, 08:23:41 PM

stop me if im wrong but here in upstate ny in the park they dnt allow any cutting on forever wild land even though in my opinion they should just to increase the health of the forest. im not sure about the rest of the state but i dnt have a problem with the course i have a problem with the reasoning of the course they teach u alot of things that are good to know but it is how u apply them that is the diffrence to require the course is unfair in my mind for the simple reason that most guys wear chaps hard hats and other safty equiptment in the woods already i know i do but the course wnt do anything to curb the injuries that happen in the woods

bill m · January 01, 2010, 08:31:12 PM

As for the game of logging training requirement it's a case of the state trying to CYA. If you get hurt and have had the training the state is in a better position to defend itself from a lawsuit.

pasbuild · January 01, 2010, 09:07:27 PM

The proper wording in the sale contract would take care of all liabilities, no need to add to the rules.

stonebroke · January 01, 2010, 09:07:37 PM

Try sueing the state for anything, They have plenty of lawyers and have plenty of immunity. You will be a old man before it ever(if ever) comes to trial. Also you have to sign a release before you can cut anyway.

Stonebroke

Kevin · January 01, 2010, 09:16:50 PM

Ask anyone that's had the misfortune of running a chain into their leg and they'll probably tell you it's a good idea.

Gary_C · January 02, 2010, 03:52:50 AM

Here in Minnesota the MN Dept of Labor and Industry provides chain saw safety training free for all who want it and it includes the same training as the GOL and also includes CPR and First aid training. You have to take one day of training every year with the CPR and First Aid being required every three years as required by the Am Heart Association.

It's all done by one guy and a paramedic they bring in for the CPR training that covers all the state. No one is required to take it but you will get a better rate on your work comp insurance. And you now have to have a work comp policy to cut state contracts or sign a waiver that says you have less than 5 employees, I think.

In the past, the hardwood loggers that need it the most have ignored the safety training but it's getting harder for them to do that. For the pulpwood loggers in the north, you can't get a contract to sell to a pulp wood mill without training so everyone has taken it.

Wisconsin has a similiar program and both states recognize the others programs.

stonebroke · January 02, 2010, 09:06:33 AM

No one is required to take it but you will get a better rate on your work comp insurance. And you now have to have a work comp policy to cut state contracts or sign a waiver that says you have less than 5 employees, I think.

So Workers comp is not required in Minn. for every employee?

Stonebroke

Gary_C · January 02, 2010, 10:05:14 AM

I am not real sure on that one as I always sign a waver that I have no employees so I am exempt.

Minnesota does have a state run program for work comp that is called "if any" meaning if you have any employees during the year you have to report them and pay a fairly high rate and you are audited at the end of the year. I have carried one of those policies in past years and you pay $400-600 to start the policy and get back all but about $175 at the end of the year if you have no employees. That policy is mainly for the time you hire a seasonal or part time worker.

There are a lot of small independent contractors in logging and construction that use that "if any" policy and pay their workers as independent contractors but they get burned if their workers do not have their own "if any" policy. Then they can pay a rate that is over 40 cents per dollar of payroll. If you do have employees, you can get a rate much lower if you do all the training, have a good safety program and record, and now if you want to jump thru the hoops to become a Master Logger. There are also a lot of family run operations where everyone is an owner, not an employee.

Incidentially one of the things the MN DOLI Safety and OSHA guy will do is come to your home or place of business and review all your safety equipment and procedures and set up a safety program including the written program. I have that done and I have a safety meeting every month, with myself. ;D

Ron Scott · January 02, 2010, 10:11:16 AM

I require PPE by everyone working or entering any of my logging jobs regardless of whose land it is, Federal, State, or private. I get very uneasy if I see anyone without the required PPE and properly armored equipment for the job.

Logging is hazardest enough without wearing the proper PPE or being trained in the specific tasks to be performed. Some injuries and near misses over the years have made me a believer.

zopi · January 02, 2010, 10:19:31 AM

If we outlaw lawyer only lawyers will be outlaws.....oh wait...

Gary_C · January 02, 2010, 11:21:09 AM

Lawyers are comparable to the hyenas and vultures that clean up after the lions have their feast. :(

Guess who the lions are comparable to?

moonhill · January 02, 2010, 11:51:09 AM

I once heard a State Police Officer compare himself to a cheetah in a pack of antelope. This was while patrolling I-95.

Couldn't the state just require insurance, and the insurance company require the other stuff. It almost sounds like a double tax. If the state only requires that the person is tested and qualified, without insurance and is injured, the state could be in trouble if the person was of such quality to sue.

Tim

Gary_C · January 02, 2010, 12:20:01 PM

Quote from: moonhill on January 02, 2010, 11:51:09 AM
If the state only requires that the person is tested and qualified, without insurance and is injured, the state could be in trouble if the person was of such quality to sue.

I don't believe this has anything to do with liability, lawyers, or lawsuits. It's all about the high cost of work comp insurance for all employers in the state. And in response to high work comp rates the state will target high hazard industries and pile more rules and regulations on them hopefully to reduce the accident rate. And the state does respond to pressure from large companies to get the cost of work comp down.

But the high cost of work comp is not all about high hazard industries. Part of the ever increasing cost is due to growing health care costs in general. And in Minnesota it has been recognized for some time that the high cost of work comp insurance is because of the large numbers of Metro Transit bus drivers that are not working because of back injuries. It seems that the metro area has an epidemic on their hands of debilitating back injuries that prevent these drivers from working ever again.

And of course the insurance industry does take advantage of any insurance that has high payout rates for claims. Since they work on a cost plus basis, they are all to eager to raise their rates, even if it is only perceived that claims are high.