Quote:
Originally Posted by Dom Heffner
And where is Brian Kelly's personal accountability? You've made just about every excuse imaginable for the guy. He's too busy, too many people to watch over. How about this: How about if you have so many people to watch over that you can't account for safety, then you need to get some help, don't you? Again, the personal responsibiity crowd never sees it from any other side than to place it on the victim.
Your ananlogy of mom telling not to touch a stove is a little different here, in fact it almost gives credence to the other side. If a mom tells her child to touch a burning stove, is it the fault of the kid who touches it? Or, if the kid realizes that it's dangerous, isn't the mom still an idiot?
Had Brian Kelly (or whoever was in charge of this guy) told him not to go up there, he wouldn't have.
That in'ts what happened: they told him to go up there.
Here's the bottom line: whether this kid realized it or not, it was a stupid and dangerous request to ask somebody to climb up there in those conditions. If the kid refuses or if he goes, they still asked- they still tried to get their football practice filmed by someone on a tower in 50 plus mph winds.
The request should never have been made, and if it isnt, the kid is alive. So for me, sorry, the responsibility rests with the university.
We can't on one hand say that the student should have known better, but the person who asked him to go up there should not have known better. That makes no sense.
I dont want to live in a world where the workers have to trust themselves to determine safe working conditions that are constructed by somebody else.
"Hey, I'll pay you $8.00 an hour to work on that power line." "Is it grounded?"
"I dunno, that's your job to figure out, youre the one stupid enough to go up there..."
There's something really wrong with that scenario, don't you think?
|
But that's not really the case here.
It's not like Kelly told him to go up there knowing there were 50 MPH winds. The issue is that Kelly decided to have practice, and since no one thought to say differently, everyone went about their daily routine as normal. No one told Sullivan to go up there. No one had to because Sullivan does it every day. That's the routine.
If Kelly had told Sullivan to go up there, specifically after knowing about the safety risks, then I would feel much more strongly about that decision. But that's not the case... the problem is that no one thought of the issue of the winds knocking down the tower.
That's why I'm asking why Sullivan (or anyone in that situation) can't bring the matter to the attention of their superiors. The fact of the matter is that an employer can't always know of every danger facing their people. Even the best employers in the world need the feedback of their people to make better decisions and provide better resources. Without that expectation of feedback, they're not always going to have all of the information--and certainly not the best information.
What good are military leaders that make decisions for their units in the heat of battle without the feedback of the people on the ground? That's why they have intelligence people reporting back. Because they need to hear from people doing the jobs.
Same thing here. No one told Sullivan to go up there because it was already implied. It was business as usual. Sullivan knew he was in a bind... and all he had to do was raise awareness, and perhaps his employer could have made a much more informed decision.
Ultimately, this falls back at least someone on Notre Dame. That's not being denied. But safety in a workplace also somewhat relies on properly trained individuals making smart decisions and communicating with their employers.
I can't see how, as someone that operates a business, you would deny that.