Snickers maker fined after workers fall into vat of chocolate

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
31,613
10,027
136
Funny as it is, I'm pissed off that the fine amounts to nothing more than a very half-hearted slap on the wrist. Safety violations get people injured and killed - very often people who are most vulnerable to injury and/or loss of income
 

allisolm

Elite Member
Administrator
Jan 2, 2001
24,988
4,330
136
I could visualize the scene if I was the one who fell in.

"Hello up there!"
"So glad you came to check up on me."
"Tell you what. Why don't you come back tomorrow and see how I'm doing."
"I'm good with that."
 
  • Like
Reactions: FelixDeCat

NWRMidnight

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,952
2,558
136
I am having a hard time understanding their conclusion to fining "snickers maker".. These where contractors hired to do maintenance, they where not authorized to work on the machine, and where not trained on the proper safety procedures of the machine. But Isn't it the contractor's job to ensure THEIR employees are trained properly, and authorized to work on the machine they where contracted to do, not that of the company that hired them? That's like contracting a plumber to fix/maintain your water heater, and the owner of the house, being fined because the company they contracted sent out a unlicensed plumber, who was not properly trained and he injured himself putting in the water heater. I would understand a fine if proper safety equipment was missing, not working, etc. But the article implies it was due to them not having authorization or training on the machine they where contracted to work on. Of course, there may be more to it than that, and the article is missing key facts.
 

Drach

Golden Member
Apr 24, 2022
1,041
1,666
106
I could visualize the scene if I was the one who fell in.

"Hello up there!"
"So glad you came to check up on me."
"Tell you what. Why don't you come back tomorrow and see how I'm doing."
"I'm good with that."
Typical woman and her chocolate. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: allisolm

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
37,780
18,067
146
I am having a hard time understanding their conclusion to fining "snickers maker".. These where contractors hired to do maintenance, they where not authorized to work on the machine, and where not trained on the proper safety procedures of the machine. But Isn't it the contractor's job to ensure THEIR employees are trained properly, and authorized to work on the machine they where contracted to do, not that of the company that hired them? That's like contracting a plumber to fix/maintain your water heater, and the owner of the house, being fined because the company they contracted sent out a unlicensed plumber, who was not properly trained and he injured himself putting in the water heater. I would understand a fine if proper safety equipment was missing, not working, etc. But the article implies it was due to them not having authorization or training on the machine they where contracted to work on. Of course, there may be more to it than that, and the article is missing key facts.

yea, it is like fining a home owner 10 cents

the article is extremely light on details, but in the end, the business (not a homeowner) is required to ensure all personnel operating at the site are fully credentialed including all the stupid little details about their plant operations.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
26,202
24,189
136
Industrial accidents are always funny.

Both were taken to hospital, with one transported by helicopter