We've talked several times over the years about how cellular tower climbing is one of the most dangerous professions in the country, something that received renewed attention back in 2008 when there was a flood of fatalities in the profession. PBS Frontline is running a new documentary on the profession this week which is viewable online here for those interested. An article here is also worth a look, and explores some of the ignored safety practices that resulted in the 2008 flood of fatalities. According to the report, between 2003 and 2011, 50 climbers died working on cell sites, while 100 were killed on communications towers. Research into the deaths found that AT&T had more fatalities on its jobs than Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile combined. As PBS notes, the fatalities came as AT&T was rushing to integrate Cingular equipment and trying to prepare to handle the iPhone.
...other countries would be interesting. Orange, Deutsche-Telekom, Virgin...
"more than half of the tower fatalities we examined, workers were free-climbing" Well, that isn't surprising. When you see how little they (subs) are paid, time in money.
Did you read the comments at the end of that (article) link? Looks like the spouse of the main victim puts the blame on ATT (not the sub's sub, nor the victim's failed equipment. I am sorry for the loss, but blame isn't going to get people back. Awareness, safety and legislation just might save future lives). But we here know how "legislation and telcos works...)
I wonder how many towers are owned/operated by ATT to compare. I mean, it ATT has 150K towers, losing 15 lives over 8 years is really small loss (but still a loss).
Then look at companies like American Tower (owns 30K towers in the US). They likely sub out to others too.
"New entrants into the market have also preferred to use infrastructure rented from dedicated infrastructure service providers or from larger operators. Virgin Mobile for example uses the network of mobile operator Tata Teleservices, while Etisalat's Indian joint venture plans to use the infrastructure of Reliance Infratel, a dedicated infrastructure services company, for its rollout of mobile services."
(everyone leases, no one really owns...no tax burden and when it comes due, they sell off as loss or refurb/lease again... )
See! This is the problem I have with outsourcing. It save money to the share holder (profit), but at cost to the personnel (human factor).
Not getting me up there. Bet the pucker factor is 10.
Looks like the spouse of the main victim puts the blame on ATT (not the sub's sub, nor the victim's failed equipment. I am sorry for the loss, but blame isn't going to get people back. Awareness, safety and legislation just might save future lives). But we here know how "legislation and telcos works...)
I noticed that also. My first question was why doesn't she blame him? He is the moron that didn't use his safety equipment. Laws and regulations don't stop anything, it's compliance that stops the fatalities.
I wonder if one could blame time pressures. Safety equipment makes things slower. Being slow probably means being unemployed. I wonder what expectations are on these climbers for speed and "efficiency".
It sounds like the incentives aren't set up properly. The companies who are hiring should have a policy that the climbers will be fired on the spot if they aren't using the safety gear properly, OSHA-compliant, etc. There is no reason for a falling death on a tower, the climbers should be using dual-clip harnesses all the time, so that they are always tethered at one point.
See! This is the problem I have with outsourcing. It save money to the share holder (profit), but at cost to the personnel (human factor).
If you want the truth then follow the money.
The "outsourcing saves money" is a lie. However, outsourcing is a great way to transfer large sums of money from publicly held corporations to private companies.
The people really getting hosed by the outsourcing scam are the stock holders.
In the case of Foxconn's supposedly bad working conditions, people keep saying why blame Apple? All OEMs like Apple buy from ODMs like Foxconn. Foxconn may even be one of the better companies in terms of treatment, but because they have 100K employees and the focused spot beam of being the Apple supplier, they get the attention.
On to my point, "blaming Apple" has resulted in tangible action from Foxconn, it also results in tangible action from other ODMs who would want to supplant Foxconn and get a contract with Apple.
Much in the same way I feel that blaming AT&T for workers' deaths will help to put the spotlight and pressure where it needs to be. No one is going to give a damn about one family's court case against TowerCom Inc., but if they're suing AT&T it gets more attention.
It's also very possible that it can be proven that AT&T created an unrealistic contract where the only way it can all be done is if short cuts are taken.
A successful case against AT&T means that they actually will be held accountable for safety of those they contract to do the jobs they need done. They can no longer sit back and dictate contract prices while legally washing their hands of whatever sorts of a shortcuts and horror stories result from the subs attempting to eek out their profit while being squeezed by AT&T.
It's a shame these things happen, but anyone who has worked in an environment where you must produce results, and are under the time gun, will understand why this happens... you do an action dozens of times per week for months, maybe years on end. By taking a short cut you are able to meet your quota, maybe even go home early to see your family. It's the same reason you see roofers up there w/o fall arrestors on--it takes so much time to setup, it impedes your work, and 99/100 times you're fine, and often enough that 1/100 will only be an 'oh shit' moment... but every now and then you're going to hear about the one where that 1/100 resulted in their death or serious injury. How many times do you see someone working and not wearing eye or hearing protection? Yeah OK, not quite the same as climbing those towers, but when your job is to climb the towers day in and day out it becomes second nature to you.
They need to crack down on that practice. What got me is how hard is it to make a couple of phone calls to find out which wireless company ordered the job. OSHA pretty much gave up after the got slapped by court in Bluegrass case.
Nobody needs to die when climbing anything. Using double lanyards so that your are always attached by at least one at all times is the only way to safely climb any type of tower.
Nobody needs to die when climbing anything. Using double lanyards so that your are always attached by at least one at all times is the only way to safely climb any type of tower.
Bingo! Stop passing the blame. When it comes down to it the person doing the climbing is the person to blame. Nobody told them not to use their safety equipment, they made that decision on their own.
Not all companies provide the safety gear. My brother worked for a small wireless internet company climbing water towers with little gear. They got bought out by a larger company and he got the training and safety gear needed.
Your brother took a tremendous risk in doing so. I risk I would never take.
I recently did some construction work for a subcontractor of Sunoco Logistics and the word was safety, safety, & SAFETY.
No one was allowed more than 6 feet of the ground without a full harness & lanyard. The safety inspector wasn't so much a prick as a pain in the ass.
Rightfully so, refineries & fuel blending depots are risky business.
I'm supposing your brother had his reasons, it's a tough economy out there, and people have to feed their families. I get it.
But I never met anyone who was severely hurt on the job from a fall, or not wearing a hardhat, or skipping the hard toe boots for black sneakers ever say it was worth trading a couple toes, or a chunk of skull for a few bucks.
Like I said, I understand, and I'm not passing judgement, but short of starving to death, I'm not taking un necessary risks on a job site.
As for me, I'm not the tower climbing type. Not a fan of heights. Falling sucks.
Not all companies provide the safety gear. My brother worked for a small wireless internet company climbing water towers with little gear. They got bought out by a larger company and he got the training and safety gear needed.
If your brother done the job for $10/hr and didn't have the proper training and equipment, then obviously he has no regards to the value of his life. There are plenty of other jobs out there that pay worth shit that don't have any where near the risk of life.
Not all companies provide the safety gear. My brother worked for a small wireless internet company climbing water towers with little gear. They got bought out by a larger company and he got the training and safety gear needed.
If your brother done the job for $10/hr and didn't have the proper training and equipment, then obviously he has no regards to the value of his life. There are plenty of other jobs out there that pay worth shit that don't have any where near the risk of life.
Right, well the "safe" $10/hr jobs will always be $10/hr.
At least with the unsafe $10/hr job he is gaining experience and knowledge that may lead to be a better job
I think you missed the point. There are big wigs who pass the work down until the worker climbing the tower is only getting paid 10$ an hour. The workers also have no safety training, so they probably do not know how to use the safety equipment properly. It seems that greed may be the only one to blame.
That is a silly comment. If I'm greedy and tell you to walk across a freeway during rush hour, don't you think you'd look for a pedestrian bridge? Take some accountability for your actions.
They need to crack down on that practice. What got me is how hard is it to make a couple of phone calls to find out which wireless company ordered the job. OSHA pretty much gave up after the got slapped by court in Bluegrass case.
The only reason they really lost was they couldn't connect the death to Bluegrass. That would be like me loaning my truck to my sister in law and she kills someone. I can't be directly responsible for her driving even though she has a license to drive. That's why they won, had nothing to do with the death. They hired a contractor, that contractor is on the hook, not the company ordering the work. Reason why my roofer is insured and bonded. If his worker falls off my roof, that's what he has insurance and bonding for!
Looks like the spouse of the main victim puts the blame on ATT (not the sub's sub, nor the victim's failed equipment. I am sorry for the loss, but blame isn't going to get people back. Awareness, safety and legislation just might save future lives). But we here know how "legislation and telcos works...)
I noticed that also. My first question was why doesn't she blame him? He is the moron that didn't use his safety equipment. Laws and regulations don't stop anything, it's compliance that stops the fatalities.
That's the other thing I couldn't figure out either. A lot over at consumerist yesterday blasted her for blaming at&t for the same reasons. They hired a licensed and bonded contractor, it wasn't at&t's fault because the contractor subcontracted out and took 1/2 the money with it, and the added fact the safety equipment he was using failed, and rappelling off the tower.
I kind of wanted to say: "I am sorry for your loss but had your husband used the correct equipment, properly and not rappelled off the tower there is a good chance he might still be alive. "
I guess it's easier to blame someone else these days, who cares about them pesky compliance and regulations.
Truthfully I think they need to cut out the middle men. The middle men are just profit men.
The scope and sheer number of work during expansion can't be done any other way than the way they have been doing it. Sub-contracting is inevitable, and the carriers certainly appreciate the cost savings and the extra liability insulation.
With that said, the carriers have a moral obligation to assure that the sub-contractors provide proper training, suitable wages to promote employee retention so they gain skills, wages that retain higher skilled climbers to act as supervisors and commit to spending on projects to assure sub-contractors make enough money to properly replace safety equipment. The last check written is at the carrier, and this affirms their obligation.
When they're paying close to minimum wage, it's obvious these are not skilled climbers. That is reprehensible as these will be people making mistakes (sometimes very dumb ones) and getting killed.
With that said, the carriers have a moral obligation to assure that the sub-contractors provide proper training, suitable wages to promote employee retention so they gain skills, wages that retain higher skilled climbers to act as supervisors and commit to spending on projects to assure sub-contractors make enough money to properly replace safety equipment.
Do car makers have the moral obligation to make sure every driver of a car they made has had extensive training beyond what the states mandate? The moral argument is weak. OSHA and the states mandate the workers of the contractors and sub-contractors follow safety regulations. If they don't it isn't AT&T's fault.
The car analogy is weak since the people purchasing the cars are not being asked by the manufacturers to do something dangerous. Ultimately, the parent company should be liable for the actions of its subcontractors otherwise the comapny will hire the cheapest possible subcontractors (who WILL take shortcuts) and the parent company will be sheilded from the consequences of the bad decisions made by the sub.
The entitlement that business feels for limited liability is morally disgusting.
Are the manufacturers asking (or better yet paying) the purchasers to drive? Of course not. If you get right down to it, the manufacturers are only trying to sell a product... they could care less what the consumer does with it. They can drive it, put it in a showroom, or take it right to the car crusher... the manufacturer doesn't care. Sorry, a manufacturer/consumer situation is just not what we are talking about here; worker safety is not the same thing as consumer protection.
If you want a better analogy, why don't you try using someone who is paid to drive a truck for a company. Shouldn't that company be required to ensure the driver is licensed and the truck is in proper working order? Or are you going to say that is the responsibility of the driver alone and the company can wash its hands of any accidents.
If you want a better analogy, why don't you try using someone who is paid to drive a truck for a company. Shouldn't that company be required to ensure the driver is licensed and the truck is in proper working order? Or are you going to say that is the responsibility of the driver alone and the company can wash its hands of any accidents.
What Frontline found was that in most cases, the workers had the right safety equipment but chose not to use it. Shouldn't the driver be required to put their seat belt on? Shouldn't the driver be required to not be intoxicated and be drug free? In one of the cases, there was a climber that was rappelling down a tower without any safety harness and he had traces of marijuana in his system as well.
I have no problems making sure the company provides the right equipment. In some cases, the company is at fault. I am just saying its a two way street. Just as the company should be held liable if they don't provide the right safety equipment, the person shouldn't be able to file a lawsuit because they freeclimb.
For the most part, I agree with you. I see guys every day go up in buckets without a safety harness on. I am sure they have one but just don't put it on. Maybe they are just going to run up 'for a second to check something' and can't be bothered, who knows. I can tell you it is stupid to even consider it and I would never do it.
On the flip side of that coin, I can also tell you that I have personally been assigned aerial work literally THE DAY AFTER I told my foreman I needed a safety lanyard and didn't get one because they 'were on order'. When I reminded him I had no lanyard, he huffed and threw the work back on the desk... he found a really shitty job for me to spend the next week on. He took it that I was giving him a hard time and didn't want to do the aerial work rather than realizing HE fucked up by not having needed safety equipment. So there is certainly pressure to get your work done whether you have the equipment or not. Had I done the aerial work anyway and fallen, I am sure a Verizon spokesperson would have insisted that I had the proper equipment available to me.
If there are so many tower workers that free-climb, then there is a disconnect that needs to be addressed. Whether it is in training, policy, equipment, management, or worker mentality... something is wrong. Ultimately, it has to be the company's responsibility to fix that problem. Holding them liable for what looks like worker stupidity is the only way to make sure they address it.
For the most part, I agree with you. I see guys every day go up in buckets without a safety harness on. I am sure they have one but just don't put it on. Maybe they are just going to run up 'for a second to check something' and can't be bothered, who knows. I can tell you it is stupid to even consider it and I would never do it.
On the flip side of that coin, I can also tell you that I have personally been assigned aerial work literally THE DAY AFTER I told my foreman I needed a safety lanyard and didn't get one because they 'were on order'. When I reminded him I had no lanyard, he huffed and threw the work back on the desk... he found a really shitty job for me to spend the next week on. He took it that I was giving him a hard time and didn't want to do the aerial work rather than realizing HE fucked up by not having needed safety equipment. So there is certainly pressure to get your work done whether you have the equipment or not. Had I done the aerial work anyway and fallen, I am sure a Verizon spokesperson would have insisted that I had the proper equipment available to me.
If there are so many tower workers that free-climb, then there is a disconnect that needs to be addressed. Whether it is in training, policy, equipment, management, or worker mentality... something is wrong. Ultimately, it has to be the company's responsibility to fix that problem. Holding them liable for what looks like worker stupidity is the only way to make sure they address it.
I agree with you 100%. You didn't put yourself in harms way by not climbing without equipment. No company should be forcing that issue without the right equipment.
We both get the jist of what Frontline was reporting. I am concentrating on it from the "foolish employee's" perspective while you are going at it from the "company is at fault" perspective. Simple truth is that if the company has the equipment and the employee doesn't use it, then the employee is at fault. If the company doesn't hand out the equipment and the employee has to climb or lose their job, then the company is at fault.
When they're paying close to minimum wage, it's obvious these are not skilled climbers. That is reprehensible as these will be people making mistakes (sometimes very dumb ones) and getting killed.
They are getting paid a lot more than that. Tower climbers get paid very well.
EDIT: You are right in that some of these subcontractor tower climbers are not though. I am saying that a good portion of these tower climbers get paid very well.
I started climbing towers in the early '70s. It was all "free climbing" and a linemans belt to belt off with.
When I was climbing, I was very, very, very much aware of what I was doing. I knew exactly what I was grabbing onto, where my feet were placed, and where and how I was tied off.
Fast forward to a couple of years ago when I was watching an oil field climbing safety video. The person was racing down a ladder - his hands and feet were just tapping the ladder rungs on the way down. He was relying on his safety line to catch him. Complacency.
Your description is mine too! I stopped climbing in 2002 when enforcement for two climbers and certification of climbers was starting to be enforced. Re-training myself for 100 percent tie-off might have been close to impossible?!?
The men in this video aren't climbing cell phone towers. This is roughly an 1800' TV or radio tower. During the video the narrator claims that OSHA allows 'free climbing'. I've watched the documentary. So which is it? Is free climbing legit?
Company at fault for personal stupidity? In some cases yes.
I got a chance to watch this, and all I could do is shake my head. I think that AT&T, these contractors, and the people they hire really need to look at the bigger picture. With over half of the fatalities due to poor decisions by the workers.
For example, Gilford had smoked weed, and was not wearing a safety harness. Then, he was rapelling down the tower without a harness. Yet, Gilford's fiancee wants AT&T and the contractor to be at fault?
Do I think that the wireless providers could improve things? Absolutely. Make it mandatory for people to have more training before they go up on these towers. You don't see the military sending in troops that haven't been through basic and advanced training. The government could also put new regulations in place to ensure that every one of these subcontractors have to have good safety gear.
In the end though, the workers have to have a brain. There are too many people who are free climbing, and then when they fall off the tower, their families expect retribution. Is that really a fair assessment? Especially if these workers have safety equipment and choose not to use it? Thats just not right.
Companies control the ethos that their workers function in. Different companies have different safety track records. Should we believe that this is because of fundamental differences in human nature amongst the workers of these different companies? That seems rather silly. Human beings are much the same everywhere. Much of it comes down to how dedicated a company is to spending the money for the training and equipment to properly prepare their work force.
If workers are choosing, without pressure, to forego safety measures then the company should give them additional training and pressure mandatory use of such measures. Most companies could tell us how many times a day their work force urinates yet we should believe that they can't determine whether their work force is following proper safety procedures? If, as I think is more likely, there are cost and time pressures which are driving cutting corners, then the company is directly responsible for that. Of course a company can't make sure that no employee ever does anything stupid but that only explains a random accident, not a pattern. In most instances, bad safety records at companies are about management trying to do things on the cheap.
Frontline doesn't make a program because of one or two freakish accidents but because of a noted pattern. That pattern isn't because of lack of personal responsibility but because of the economic pressures and working environment that exists in that business or market.
ATT/Verizon etc are paying top dollar I'm sure... the problem is allowing a sub to sub to a sub... all the while the "top dollar" is watered down to the point where there is no hope for (much of) a profit for te guy actually responsible for taking the job. And make no mistake, someone will take the job
The 3rd generation climber that "fell" had to drive 20+ hours prior to climbing, because the tech truck he saw on-site caused him to fear losing the job. due to the time line set.
The same thing happens with Roofing Companies, Cable Contractors, Electricians etc. The money is there, shady business practises make it dangerous. Just to split the pie into as many pieces as possible and/or to isolate ones self from liabilities.
Many of the towers I climb are 200+ feet. Many across the country are much taller... And Ill tell you what- Ill take a solid tower over a squirmy lift any day of the week!!!