Safety Officer Requires Daily Hazard Reports, So Programmer Spends Two Weeks Documenting Every Possible Risk Posed By His Camping Chair
Pexels/Reddit
Workplace safety is serious business, especially on construction sites where overlooking a hazard can have dangerous consequences. But sometimes, following every rule to the letter can produce some pretty ridiculous results.
One construction programmer apparently discovered exactly how far he could take a safety requirement after an officer insisted he complete additional paperwork.
Unlike the electricians on his crew, the programmer spent his days sitting in a finished room, working on a laptop to connect the building’s automation systems.
Every morning, the entire crew attended a safety meeting and signed a form identifying potential workplace hazards.
That arrangement seemed perfectly adequate until a safety officer decided the programmer’s responsibilities were different enough to require separate documentation.
Despite explaining that his workspace presented no additional hazards, he was told to complete his own forms anyway.
So he did.
And after two weeks of meticulously documenting his working conditions, the safety officer apparently had a change of heart.
I have to fill out a separate safety form?
I have a friend (who I’ll call Mike) who use to do programming for an automation company in construction.
The company had 3-5 electricians running the conduit and wire and hooking up the equipment, while Mike’s job was to sit in a computer and program all the systems to work together.
This required him to sit in a small room in a camping chair he brought in and a laptop on a makeshift desk. Safety is everywhere with everything on these job sites.
Doesn’t seem particularly safe?
The company/crew is required to have a morning safety meeting ending with everyone signing a form every morning called a FLHA.
One day the site safety officer sees Mike sitting in the small automation room and asks about his FLHA. He points to the one his crew filled out that morning.
The safety officer tells him because his task is different that he was to complete his own FLHA separate from the rest of the crew because his “tasks are different.”
Hmmm…
Mike points out he sits in a room that is finished being worked in, other than his programming, and there are no hazards for him to identify separately from the rest of his crew.
Safely says too bad, do it anyways.
Cue malicious compliance! Mike starts filling out FLHA forms doing a “5-point safety inspection” of his camping chair he sitting in! Writing in points about checking for tears in the fabric. Checking the rivets for wear. Checking the plastic feet for cracks….
Alrighty…
A couple weeks later the safety officer shows up again to ask Mike about his FLHA’s and MIKE hands him a stack of filled out FLHA’s for the past two weeks. He watches safety start reading through them one at a time.
He watches dudes face slowly drop more and more as he flips through the pile. By the end, safety officer looks back up and says “you’re fine to just sign your crews FLHA’s from now on.
I’m embarrassed I have to file these.” and walks away shaking his head.
The programmer’s response is an entertaining example of malicious compliance, particularly because he followed the safety officer’s instructions rather than openly refusing them.
Construction sites have legitimate reasons for requiring detailed hazard assessments, and different tasks can expose workers to different risks.
Even someone working primarily on a laptop might encounter hazards involving electrical equipment, cables, poor ergonomics or access to the work area.
However, requiring a separate daily form without identifying what additional risks needed documenting apparently created more paperwork than useful information.
Sign up to get our BEST stories of the week straight to your inbox.
By conducting elaborate inspections of his camping chair, the programmer highlighted how repetitive the process had become.
The safety officer’s eventual decision to let him sign the crew’s existing forms suggests the additional documentation wasn’t necessary in that particular situation.
Of course, the lesson isn’t that safety procedures should be ignored. It’s that they should be appropriate to the work being performed.
Ultimately, the programmer didn’t have to argue his way out of the requirement. He simply followed it so thoroughly that the person enforcing it decided enough was enough.
This person has been there.
This person thinks safety people just get a bit too viigorous.
If you enjoyed this story, check out this post about a professional cheesemaker who works for a family business, but isn’t sure about working for a 17yo boy.
And this person has some jokes…
The safety officer wanted Mike to identify every possible hazard, but apparently wasn’t prepared for two weeks of chair-related concerns.
Enjoyed this story?
Sign up to get our BEST stories of the week straight to your inbox.
