Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Friday, October 30, 2020
Professionally Distanced: Ensuring Employee Safety Through Remote Monitoring and Social Distancing
Occupational Health & Safety: With the focus for many businesses dealing with the ongoing COVID-19 global health crisis beginning to shift to “the new normal” and returning to the workplace, workers and employers alike are asking questions about how workplaces will be made and kept safe.
This article is somewhat disappointing. All that it says is a new tool that can be used to help enforce social distancing is a wearable Bluetooth tool, with limited quantities (to prevent too many people from being on site at any one time), and monitoring the distance between the tools.
I was hoping for some new ideas or unique tools but this is just something I read in April. They don’t even touch on the personal privacy or use for possible contact tracing that other articles mention.
COVID-19 is an unfortunate health hazard that we will be dealing with for a very long time. Social distancing and masks will be in our future for at least a year, if not more, which makes it very important for OSHA to write articles and make regulations on what employers can and can’t do during this time. One idea that OSHA is endorsing is tracking how close people are in your workplace by using your employee’s existing devices and figuring out when two of them come within six feet. I think this kind of tracking is super scary and could have consequences we might not even know about yet. For example, an Amazon warehouse could use this tech to track how many times an employee goes to the bathroom or gets off task which I think is a questionable violation of worker’s rights. I am frankly not quite sure if this technology should be used at all.
I think this article takes an interesting tack when it comes to monitoring employee health and safety. The concept the monitoring equipment should be worn by employees, instead of installed in static locations throughout a work site is really interesting because it is a more dynamic solution. I could see this being a particularly useful tool on a construction site or other area where 'traditional' safety monitoring techniques may not work as well or require significant overhead to maintain. However, personal monitoring technology really only maps data where the employees are. This seems like an obvious statement, but the inverse suggests that no monitoring occurs where employees aren't, which means that problems may not be noticed until an employee walks by. A better monitoring system would probably combine both personal equipment with static monitoring equipment such that you get the best of both systems. In the scenario the article suggests, though, I really cannot see why personal monitoring equipment is actually better than a simple network that interfaces with the machinery, which would allow for truly remote monitoring and data manipulation. As DB is wont to say, "No, stupider."
If I am understanding this correctly, these devices do not help keep workplaces safe from COVID-19, they help manage preexisting hazards. The only ways that they contribute to pandemic safety is by reducing the interaction that was formerly required for workplace safety. I doubt that these devices can monitor for the presence of the virus, although I suppose that they could issue a proximity warning when workers get within range. They don’t solve the problem of how to keep workers safe when they need to be together in close quarters in order to do their jobs. I am really hoping for people to come up with a solution to that problem...I do not know how we are going to get our industry back to work on a broad scale without either an end to the pandemic or a brilliant innovation in safety. I am so tired and so disappointed by all of these articles dangling a solution that is not real.
This article makes me pretty uncomfortable. While I do appreciate that new technology is being developed so that we can return to working I fear this technology will not be able to do that and will be exploited by employers. This idea has been brought up in TD 1, how do we build a set if everyone has to stay 6 feet apart. What does that look like? My first concern is this definition of close contact. Carnegie Mellon seems to have defined it as being less than 6 feet for more than 15 minutes. I understand how this definition was reached. After 15 minutes, if one of you has COVID there’s a high chance that they coughed or breathed a bit too heavy or whatever. However, it’s not like the COVID particles are waiting for that 15th minute to infect that next person. That could happen the second two people get too close. So, if during an 8-hour shift, you’re never near someone for 15 minutes but for 5 minutes, then 8, then 2, then 4, then 12, that seems to not work. Secondly, and very important, dear god this could so easy be manipulated by employers like Amazon. Your pace is too slow. You’re standing still for too long. You took too long cutting that wood. No thanks!
I’m all for health and safety and well being but what I am not about is my boss monitoring my every move. Is it a good thing that technology is being developed rapidly to help us return to a pre-pandemic time? Yes, but not at a cost of my personal space or freedoms. It is one of the main reasons why i don’t have any of those covid tracking apps on my phone. I don’t trust them to keep my data secure or for the program not to be used for nefarious purposes. If this unit can monitor certain things, it can easily be manipulated to monitor other things. Last thing I want or need is my boss telling me I’m standing still for too long or not moving fast enough. Thanks, I’ll pass. I want to work in a friendly and open workplace, not one run by some person who only cares about the bottom line and how much money they get in profit.
Wait I am very confused as to what this article about and how it relates to COVID in the workplace. All that I am seeing is this is just a way for companies to assess their spaces without having to physically do the tests. To me this does not seem like it would help reassure works as these devices only seem to monitor "excessive noise, dust, particulate and vibration levels". This seems like they are just pushing the leg work of monitoring workspace safety onto their workers and using COVID as an excuse. I'm not seeing how this helps with COVID fears in the workplace at all. And even then with these measurements, it appears that only managers can see this and who knows how long that is going to take to reach workers (also I am confused as to why battery life is mentioned). Overall this article seems half like click bait and half like they forgot what they were supposed to be talking about before they even started.
I think this article definitely offers some great solutions to be able to safely return to the workplace. However, I hope these solutions are not used to rush individuals back to the workplace before it can be done safely. With COVID-19 cases hitting all time highs and records, it is not time for people to be rushed back to the workplace. If it is imperative that people return to the workplace based on the nature of their job, hopefully employers will institute and enforce safety measures to keep employees safe. It seems that people are not taking this second wave of COVID-19 case spikes as seriously as we were in the spring, and I am fearful that with each return of normalcy, like going back to work, we are only going to be making the situation worse. I hope large companies remain committed to keeping employees home and safe, hopefully one piece of making this situation better.
While I greatly appreciate the potential solutions this article provides for maintaining social distancing in the workplace, I think it is completely missing the point on people's concerns about returning to work in the first place. Social distancing is not the only precaution that needs to be thought of. You also need to worry about transmission in indoor spaces through air particles. You also might need to consider rapid testing capabilities. Not only those, but you also need to consider that you can't monitor your employees 24/7. They might follow every procedure and take every precaution in the workplace, but when they leave they go to parties or go out in public without a mask or take any number of potential risks. If that happens, them returning to the workplace and social distancing won't stop an outbreak from happening, and then you as an employer would have no shortage of problems, not even to mention the fact that now your entire employee base is now at risk of serious injury and/or death. If we must return to the workplace, then EVERY risk of COVID-19 transmission must be considered and compensated for, not just some of them.
9 comments:
This article is somewhat disappointing. All that it says is a new tool that can be used to help enforce social distancing is a wearable Bluetooth tool, with limited quantities (to prevent too many people from being on site at any one time), and monitoring the distance between the tools.
I was hoping for some new ideas or unique tools but this is just something I read in April. They don’t even touch on the personal privacy or use for possible contact tracing that other articles mention.
COVID-19 is an unfortunate health hazard that we will be dealing with for a very long time. Social distancing and masks will be in our future for at least a year, if not more, which makes it very important for OSHA to write articles and make regulations on what employers can and can’t do during this time. One idea that OSHA is endorsing is tracking how close people are in your workplace by using your employee’s existing devices and figuring out when two of them come within six feet. I think this kind of tracking is super scary and could have consequences we might not even know about yet. For example, an Amazon warehouse could use this tech to track how many times an employee goes to the bathroom or gets off task which I think is a questionable violation of worker’s rights. I am frankly not quite sure if this technology should be used at all.
I think this article takes an interesting tack when it comes to monitoring employee health and safety. The concept the monitoring equipment should be worn by employees, instead of installed in static locations throughout a work site is really interesting because it is a more dynamic solution. I could see this being a particularly useful tool on a construction site or other area where 'traditional' safety monitoring techniques may not work as well or require significant overhead to maintain. However, personal monitoring technology really only maps data where the employees are. This seems like an obvious statement, but the inverse suggests that no monitoring occurs where employees aren't, which means that problems may not be noticed until an employee walks by. A better monitoring system would probably combine both personal equipment with static monitoring equipment such that you get the best of both systems. In the scenario the article suggests, though, I really cannot see why personal monitoring equipment is actually better than a simple network that interfaces with the machinery, which would allow for truly remote monitoring and data manipulation. As DB is wont to say, "No, stupider."
If I am understanding this correctly, these devices do not help keep workplaces safe from COVID-19, they help manage preexisting hazards. The only ways that they contribute to pandemic safety is by reducing the interaction that was formerly required for workplace safety. I doubt that these devices can monitor for the presence of the virus, although I suppose that they could issue a proximity warning when workers get within range. They don’t solve the problem of how to keep workers safe when they need to be together in close quarters in order to do their jobs. I am really hoping for people to come up with a solution to that problem...I do not know how we are going to get our industry back to work on a broad scale without either an end to the pandemic or a brilliant innovation in safety. I am so tired and so disappointed by all of these articles dangling a solution that is not real.
This article makes me pretty uncomfortable. While I do appreciate that new technology is being developed so that we can return to working I fear this technology will not be able to do that and will be exploited by employers. This idea has been brought up in TD 1, how do we build a set if everyone has to stay 6 feet apart. What does that look like? My first concern is this definition of close contact. Carnegie Mellon seems to have defined it as being less than 6 feet for more than 15 minutes. I understand how this definition was reached. After 15 minutes, if one of you has COVID there’s a high chance that they coughed or breathed a bit too heavy or whatever. However, it’s not like the COVID particles are waiting for that 15th minute to infect that next person. That could happen the second two people get too close. So, if during an 8-hour shift, you’re never near someone for 15 minutes but for 5 minutes, then 8, then 2, then 4, then 12, that seems to not work. Secondly, and very important, dear god this could so easy be manipulated by employers like Amazon. Your pace is too slow. You’re standing still for too long. You took too long cutting that wood. No thanks!
I’m all for health and safety and well being but what I am not about is my boss monitoring my every move. Is it a good thing that technology is being developed rapidly to help us return to a pre-pandemic time? Yes, but not at a cost of my personal space or freedoms. It is one of the main reasons why i don’t have any of those covid tracking apps on my phone. I don’t trust them to keep my data secure or for the program not to be used for nefarious purposes. If this unit can monitor certain things, it can easily be manipulated to monitor other things. Last thing I want or need is my boss telling me I’m standing still for too long or not moving fast enough. Thanks, I’ll pass. I want to work in a friendly and open workplace, not one run by some person who only cares about the bottom line and how much money they get in profit.
Wait I am very confused as to what this article about and how it relates to COVID in the workplace. All that I am seeing is this is just a way for companies to assess their spaces without having to physically do the tests. To me this does not seem like it would help reassure works as these devices only seem to monitor "excessive noise, dust, particulate and vibration levels". This seems like they are just pushing the leg work of monitoring workspace safety onto their workers and using COVID as an excuse. I'm not seeing how this helps with COVID fears in the workplace at all. And even then with these measurements, it appears that only managers can see this and who knows how long that is going to take to reach workers (also I am confused as to why battery life is mentioned). Overall this article seems half like click bait and half like they forgot what they were supposed to be talking about before they even started.
I think this article definitely offers some great solutions to be able to safely return to the workplace. However, I hope these solutions are not used to rush individuals back to the workplace before it can be done safely. With COVID-19 cases hitting all time highs and records, it is not time for people to be rushed back to the workplace. If it is imperative that people return to the workplace based on the nature of their job, hopefully employers will institute and enforce safety measures to keep employees safe. It seems that people are not taking this second wave of COVID-19 case spikes as seriously as we were in the spring, and I am fearful that with each return of normalcy, like going back to work, we are only going to be making the situation worse. I hope large companies remain committed to keeping employees home and safe, hopefully one piece of making this situation better.
While I greatly appreciate the potential solutions this article provides for maintaining social distancing in the workplace, I think it is completely missing the point on people's concerns about returning to work in the first place. Social distancing is not the only precaution that needs to be thought of. You also need to worry about transmission in indoor spaces through air particles. You also might need to consider rapid testing capabilities. Not only those, but you also need to consider that you can't monitor your employees 24/7. They might follow every procedure and take every precaution in the workplace, but when they leave they go to parties or go out in public without a mask or take any number of potential risks. If that happens, them returning to the workplace and social distancing won't stop an outbreak from happening, and then you as an employer would have no shortage of problems, not even to mention the fact that now your entire employee base is now at risk of serious injury and/or death. If we must return to the workplace, then EVERY risk of COVID-19 transmission must be considered and compensated for, not just some of them.
Post a Comment