Great, Barbara. Then I can assume your school's faculty comply with health and safety regulations, come eagerly to your training sessions, pass the training on to their students, and you don't have the issues the others are talking about, right? Then somehow you've made collaboration work. You don't need the power to enforce the rules. My hat is off to you and my post was not about you.
But when the AG's office has to essentially write a chemical hygiene plan for UCLA that the State will enforce on the Board of Regents, then clearly there is a problem with enforcement at UCLA. And from what I read on this forum, it is systemic--meaning what happened at UCLA could happen in many schools. Isn't that the same conclusion that the CSB came to earlier in their report?
And I sympathize with safety people who work hard and are dedicated. But if all this work and dedication aren't paying off any better than this, it's time for the profession to consider exchanging collaboration and cajoling for authority. And that is also one of the recommendations of the CSB.
Don't blame me for these conclusions. I only am reporting on what I read.
In a message dated 8/2/2012 4:09:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bfoster**At_Symbol_Here**WVU.EDU writes:
With all due respect, I was somewhat astounded by this post. Safety professionals in academia work very hard to provide a safe and healthy environment in which to teach, learn, and conduct research. I consider it an honor and a privilege to work with my administration, faculty, students, and fellow staff members to promote laboratory safety and safe work practices.
Academic departments are inherently complex in nature and one of first things that safety professionals learn in academia is how to effectively collaborate with all constituents to achieve common goals. We should not paint with broad strokes and label all faculty as non-compliant. To do so would be unfair and untrue.
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post