Get me a lawyer! Chapter 3 summary
I am going to go out on a limb here and tell everyone to read Liz Felter’s blog for a brief summary of each law that mandates risk communication. It would be silly for me to post the exact same thing. After all, laws can only be summarized in so many ways.
What is important to emphasize from this chapter, is that as risk communicators we need to understand the laws within the context of the organization we are working for. There are different laws for different areas of potential risk; find yours, grab a lawyer friend, and discuss what it means for your organization.
We need to offer our expertise and take part in discussions about the implementation of these laws too. Many of the laws require some sort of “community relations plan,” opportunity for community feedback, or public meetings. I honestly can not think of a harder part of the job. The researcher in me would want to conduct these interviews (actually I’d prefer focus groups) with some rigidity to ensure I received a variety of opinions. I have never worked in the field, but I would imagine it is easier to get at “the loud minority” group of people who probably are not exactly representative of the population. Who goes to these public meetings any way? I argue that most people do not care until there is a problem or crisis. People that attend these public meetings are probably your higher educated, higher income folks. How do we involve minority groups from the community? I think this problem is why “dangerous” plants/factories are found in poor parts of communities. All of the wealthier people went to the meetings and said “Hey, not in our town. But Shantyville looks like a better place for your risky operations!”
I was particularly interested in the section on occupational safety and health act. I took care of a variety of veterinary lab animals for Purdue University and dealt with Material Safety Data Sheets on a daily basis. I did not know there was no formalized standard for these sheets. There should be! If a crisis occurs and someone needs to read that sheet quickly, they should all be the same, so the person knows immediately where to look for the quick information they need. The authors point out one portion of the standard that is missed by many organizations: “the requirement for a ‘written hazard communication program’ that describes what steps will be taken to ensure that workers receive the information about the chemicals in their work environment.” Purdue must have had a communication program as stipulated, because it was part of their training. Every room had a training program which went over chemicals in the room, MSDS’s, and safety procedures. Discussing these hazards and safety protocols with my manager for every room helped me remember them much better than reading a manual.
The take-home message from chapter three is that we need to make our organization’s directors aware of these laws, but also emphasize the need to do more than the law minimally requires. Just getting by is not going to cut it.
What is important to emphasize from this chapter, is that as risk communicators we need to understand the laws within the context of the organization we are working for. There are different laws for different areas of potential risk; find yours, grab a lawyer friend, and discuss what it means for your organization.
We need to offer our expertise and take part in discussions about the implementation of these laws too. Many of the laws require some sort of “community relations plan,” opportunity for community feedback, or public meetings. I honestly can not think of a harder part of the job. The researcher in me would want to conduct these interviews (actually I’d prefer focus groups) with some rigidity to ensure I received a variety of opinions. I have never worked in the field, but I would imagine it is easier to get at “the loud minority” group of people who probably are not exactly representative of the population. Who goes to these public meetings any way? I argue that most people do not care until there is a problem or crisis. People that attend these public meetings are probably your higher educated, higher income folks. How do we involve minority groups from the community? I think this problem is why “dangerous” plants/factories are found in poor parts of communities. All of the wealthier people went to the meetings and said “Hey, not in our town. But Shantyville looks like a better place for your risky operations!”
I was particularly interested in the section on occupational safety and health act. I took care of a variety of veterinary lab animals for Purdue University and dealt with Material Safety Data Sheets on a daily basis. I did not know there was no formalized standard for these sheets. There should be! If a crisis occurs and someone needs to read that sheet quickly, they should all be the same, so the person knows immediately where to look for the quick information they need. The authors point out one portion of the standard that is missed by many organizations: “the requirement for a ‘written hazard communication program’ that describes what steps will be taken to ensure that workers receive the information about the chemicals in their work environment.” Purdue must have had a communication program as stipulated, because it was part of their training. Every room had a training program which went over chemicals in the room, MSDS’s, and safety procedures. Discussing these hazards and safety protocols with my manager for every room helped me remember them much better than reading a manual.
The take-home message from chapter three is that we need to make our organization’s directors aware of these laws, but also emphasize the need to do more than the law minimally requires. Just getting by is not going to cut it.
posted by Katie at
1/20/2007 03:13:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home