OFSC Web Notice - PSSD

[CarlingRider]

And another thing...do you think that MOL diverts any portion of the fines collected to the victims or their families? Of course not...it's not about them and it's not necessarily about "fixing" the problem (i.e. better training or supervision). Having worked for the government in the past, I think I can accurately say that a lot of times it's about a bunch of peon government employees trying to make a name for themselves. It's about "process" and "protocols", not trying to solve the actual problem, be it real or perceived.

I agree with the need for safety guidelines and enforcement of said guidelines, however, this has to be balanced by the realization that sometimes employees make errors in judgment and that an error in judgment does not necessarily translate into a criminal or negligent act on the part of the employer.

Totally agree with this!!!

I also heard Mr. Ryman was told to stay off the lake. I saw where the groomer went thru - it was not that far onto the lake at all. Very surprising actually. I heard he was a very experienced operator. A tragic accident.

How can somebody else be held responsible? And is fining this person a solution?

[Giddy UP]

And another thing...do you think that MOL diverts any portion of the fines collected to the victims or their families? Of course not...it's not about them and it's not necessarily about "fixing" the problem (i.e. better training or supervision). Having worked for the government in the past, I think I can accurately say that a lot of times it's about a bunch of peon government employees trying to make a name for themselves. It's about "process" and "protocols", not trying to solve the actual problem, be it real or perceived.

I agree with the need for safety guidelines and enforcement of said guidelines, however, this has to be balanced by the realization that sometimes employees make errors in judgment and that an error in judgment does not necessarily translate into a criminal or negligent act on the part of the employer.

Totally agree with this!!!

I also heard Mr. Ryman was told to stay off the lake. I saw where the groomer went thru - it was not that far onto the lake at all. Very surprising actually. I heard he was a very experienced operator. A tragic accident.

How can somebody else be held responsible? And is fining this person a solution?

Welcome to the forum CarlingRider!

I also agree.

I also heard that Mr. Ryman was not supposed to be on the lake. It was an unfortunate decision that he made to make his job (he believed) easier by turning his groomer around on the lake instead of the trail (correct me if I am wrong here...but that's how I heard it anyway).

Usually when an employee makes a decision contrary to that of the employer - the employer fires the employee - the MOL should not be involved! How can an employer "control" what an employee does when he is out of sight? Mr. Ryman was also an experienced groomer with 20+ years of grooming, how much more training do you think he needed? It was just an accident - a very very sad accident. JMO

[CarlingRider]

And another thing...do you think that MOL diverts any portion of the fines collected to the victims or their families? Of course not...it's not about them and it's not necessarily about "fixing" the problem (i.e. better training or supervision). Having worked for the government in the past, I think I can accurately say that a lot of times it's about a bunch of peon government employees trying to make a name for themselves. It's about "process" and "protocols", not trying to solve the actual problem, be it real or perceived.

I agree with the need for safety guidelines and enforcement of said guidelines, however, this has to be balanced by the realization that sometimes employees make errors in judgment and that an error in judgment does not necessarily translate into a criminal or negligent act on the part of the employer.

Totally agree with this!!!

I also heard Mr. Ryman was told to stay off the lake. I saw where the groomer went thru - it was not that far onto the lake at all. Very surprising actually. I heard he was a very experienced operator. A tragic accident.

How can somebody else be held responsible? And is fining this person a solution?

Welcome to the forum CarlingRider!

I also agree.

I also heard that Mr. Ryman was not supposed to be on the lake. It was an unfortunate decision that he made to make his job (he believed) easier by turning his groomer around on the lake instead of the trail (correct me if I am wrong here...but that's how I heard it anyway).

Usually when an employee makes a decision contrary to that of the employer - the employer fires the employee - the MOL should not be involved! How can an employer "control" what an employee does when he is out of sight? Mr. Ryman was also an experienced groomer with 20+ years of grooming, how much more training do you think he needed? It was just an accident - a very very sad accident. JMO

Exactly!

The groomer went thru 10, maybe 15 feet from shore. I didn't think the lake was that deep there! Obviously just turning around.

[Looney]

My understanding was that he did manage to get out, but at the end hyperthermia was the cause of his death.

Do groomers have two way radios with them?

Or does someone keep track of there time, when should they be back at home base.

I could be wrong, but did they find out he was missing the next day.

In any case this is very sad.

[smurfz]

My understanding was that he did manage to get out, but at the end hyperthermia was the cause of his death.

Do groomers have two way radios with them?

Or does someone keep track of there time, when should they be back at home base.

I could be wrong, but did they find out he was missing the next day.

In any case this is very sad.

(Simply fact is stated below with no indication or intent or blame)

As I understand it The President has been charged under the guise they failed to provide services or procedures "in the event of an accident" The MOL suggests that there was no radio nor cell communication mandate nor plan, even though there was cell coverage. It was actions not limited to this but inclusive of this that has led to the charges. If you read the charges carefully, as I have, the Association and the President has been charged under section 32(a) 25(2)c 25(2)h 25(2)j which states (summary here) failure to comply with MOL Occupational Health and Safety act. None are charged with his death but rather for breaking the law when it comes to providing safe policy and procedure, training and supervision in all mandates of the safe operation of groomers.

[Domino]

My understanding was that he did manage to get out, but at the end hyperthermia was the cause of his death.

Do groomers have two way radios with them?

Or does someone keep track of there time, when should they be back at home base.

I could be wrong, but did they find out he was missing the next day.

In any case this is very sad.

(Simply fact is stated below with no indication or intent or blame)

As I understand it The President has been charged under the guise they failed to provide services or procedures "in the event of an accident" The MOL suggests that there was no radio nor cell communication mandate nor plan, even though there was cell coverage. It was actions not limited to this but inclusive of this that has led to the charges. If you read the charges carefully, as I have, the Association and the President has been charged under section 32(a) 25(2)c 25(2)h 25(2)j which states (summary here) failure to comply with MOL Occupational Health and Safety act. None are charged with his death but rather for breaking the law when it comes to providing safe policy and procedure, training and supervision in all mandates of the safe operation of groomers.

For exactly this reason, my employer, who has technician working alone in remote areas has a system in place. Every two hours the technicain must phone into an automated system to state where he is. If he failes to call in, we page page him/her and then if no response, we send someone to the last known location to make sure they are ok.

This is what is expected! (Not saying anything was or was not done in the case of PSSD)