Comment by akira2501
7 months ago
You're making a lot of assumptions. That the apprentice is totally incapable of evaluating the tools he uses. That his boss is disinterested or that the additional profits aren't used to pay his workers above what the other shops do. You're painting a hyperbolic narrative here and there's not a lot of evidence that this is the norm or the root cause of even a simple majority of the 30,000 incidents per year.
You're going from safety releases on exterior doors in the same breath to child labor? It genuinely makes me wonder if you've spent much time in places where manual labor with saws are done. In most of these places, the "apprentice" owns his own tools, and works as a sub contractor because that pay structure is ideal for them.
If you want to mandate that employers who own a saw that is used by shift workers must have some sort of safety technology, I think you'll be disappointed to find that these regulations already exist, and it's unlikely that "sawstop" technology is going to benefit these locations at all. They already have a more abstract set of rules that's more comprehensive and compliance is driven by worker complaints and fines.
Finally, it should be an obvious coincidence to everyone that we only outlawed child labor once gasoline engines were well developed and prevalent. Our social reasoning that "children just shouldn't work" isn't as simple as everyone presumes it to be.
You're the one making assumptions about my assumptions.
> The apprentice is totally incapable of evaluating the tools he uses.
Apprentices are by definition inexperienced, but for the sake of argument, let's say the apprentice full well knows that the circular saw can take his fingers off if he makes a mistake.
What choice does he have? Unemployment? Complain to the disinterested boss?
> That his boss is disinterested
Some might care deeply about the safety of their employees. Most don't do anything that isn't enforced by law.
Here every constructions site by law must have all staff wear high-vis vests, hearing protection, helmets, steel-toed boots, and so forth.
YouTube is filled with videos of workers in Pakistan using the "safety squint" when welding for eye protection, or using a moist rag as their lung protection.
This is the reality versus abstract bullshit arguments.
> Additional profits aren't used to pay his workers above what the other shops do.
Are you... kidding?
First of all, let's say in this hypothetical perfectly efficient job market, a junior apprentice receives an extra $100 compensation annually because his workplace saved $500 on a circular saw that year and have five employees.
Do you think $100 is a fair price for your fingers?
We can meet up. I'll give you $100 in cash. I get to remove the fingers from one of your hands. You get to choose which hand. Deal?
Alternatively: Before accepting a work placement, do you personally spend several days evaluating the safety of that workplace? Do you check the fire escape? The smoke alarms? The material used for the carpets? Do you then adjust the contract if you find that the work environment is not up to your standards?
No, seriously, have you ever done literally this? If not, why would you expect any young, junior, desperate-for-a-job kid to factor any of this into any decision?
> In most of these places, the "apprentice" owns his own tools
I've never heard of an apprentice bringing their own circular saw (a huge table!) to a workshop. Clearly you've never been anywhere near an industrial workshop yourself.
> They already have a more abstract set of rules that's more comprehensive and compliance is driven by worker complaints and fines.
That's hilarious.
"Sure, you lost your fingers, but you can fill this form out and submit a complaint."
> outlawed child labor once gasoline engines were well developed and prevalent
The movement to outlaw child labour started in the 1870s, but diesel engines weren't invented until 1898 and didn't become commonplace until the 1920s and 30s.
You're just making things up now.