- - - - - - - Langley Free Press Welcomes Your Comments - - - - - - - - - Name Email URL is optional
LFR,
I think you misunderstand Section 4.21 of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation. It states: “The employer must develop and implement a written procedure for checking the well-being of a worker assigned to work alone or in isolation under conditions which present a risk of disabling injury, if the worker might not be able to secure assistance in the event of injury or other misfortune.” The regulation serves “in lieu” of working alone legislation and serves its purpose well. That is precisely what you are asking for in your posting.
As for the remainder of your post what you are asking for is not improved “work alone” legislation as much as a “don’t let young adults, seniors or women work alone” legislation. The problem with your proposal is that it hits a human rights wall that is insurmountable. Any legislation of that sort would be struck down by the courts the first time it came up. Essentially you are saying that young adults should not be allowed to work nights or in isolation! There already is legislation in place to limit how many hours or when a youth can work. However, once you hit 17 (as the poor victim in this case) you are legally an adult, you are no longer required to be in school, you can get married, you are criminally responsible for your actions and you can join the army. The way the law works the government simply cannot then tell an adult be he/she a young adult or a seasoned adult that they cannot work at legal, low-paid jobs! While we all want to protect our kids we have legislation to protect them, to deny young adults the opportunity to make a living just won’t fly in this day and age.
If what you say is correct is the alternative to legislate that at least 2 people should work at dangerous times/locations? For instance police in some jurisdictions have 2 to a patrol car in dangerous times/locations.
You seem to be missing the point on this, workplace safety isn’t about numbers but rather about limiting exposure to risks. The reality is that in a workplace where a teller is exposed whether there is one person or two makes little difference. Given an exposed workplace a burglar will be able to rob/kill two people just as easily as one. Typically in these situations the criminal simply puts a knife to the throat of one teller and demands that the other teller follows his/her orders. In that case most employees will submit in lieu of risking their colleague’s life. You use the example of police working in twos but you forget the critical difference. Police are ARMED. Police have the training and tools to defend themselves and their partners. If one partner is put at risk, the other has the training AND THE TOOLS to defend the two of them.
Simply put our society has decided that tellers in stores will not be armed, this is neither good nor bad in this discussion, just a fact. Thus, in a situation like in Montreal it is likely that since neither teller would be armed having two people there means that all you would have is two victims instead of one. Were the teller’s station set up so that the teller was isolated and protected (in a bullet-proof booth with a sliding slot for payment like they have at the cheque cashing places) then likely that young victim would be alive today. However, in that situation, the employee would be unable to restock shelves or even put up marginal resistance to shoplifters etc.. it is a trade-off.
To summarize, any workplace can be made safe, all it takes is time and money. The owners balanced employee safety against the costs to keep them safe and protect stock from shoplifting. Clearly in this equation the balance was off. If you want legislation, you have to change the balance of that equation. Frankly I don’t know how you could do it, but you are free to try.
Cheers,
The old adage is safety in numbers. Why do some police unions convince municipalities that 2 policemen are neccesary for critical areas. My point still remains it is easier to prey on a solitary individual, especially a young one. Also training for all to handle these kinds of risks. The foodsafe equivalent plus of personal safety. When I was in my teens I worked late shift alone and explcitly remember being very uncomfortable and also very stupid!
If you reread my comments the explanation for a second police officer is clear. Two ARMED police officers can defend themselves and cover each other’s backs. This is not nearly as easy if you are UNARMED and EXPOSED, like a teller in a gas station.
As for your reference to the adage, the problem with an old adage is once you forget where it comes from it becomes meaningless. Safety in numbers has a derivation which is linked to the ecological construct of limited predators/multiple prey. A predator when faced with numerous prey animals will often split her/his efforts and be unable to catch a single prey, alternatively as a prey animal with lots of similar targets around you, your likelihood as an individual of being caught is reduced, sure someone is going to be eaten but with 100 other prey animals your individual chances are reduced. Admittedly, in cases where the prey is comparable in size and power to the predator, with sufficient numbers a predator will be less likely to attack a defensive group.
The problem with bringing this adage to the world of retail sales is a teller is not able to easily evade the criminal as they are stuck in a shop. As well, unlike your average prey animal the average teller has empathy for their partner so if the criminal can threaten one teller they can usually cause the second teller to submit through threat of force to the first, that simply isn't the case with sardines and ducks. Finally, the ultimate weakness in the "strength in numbers" argument is since tellers are typically unarmed there is a major power difference, you would need more tellers than a shop could possibly afford to ensure that everyone was covered with sufficient strength all the time. After all with only two tellers one will be exposed when the other was on break (in the toilet, eating) so then you need a third etc...
Ultimately the best defense has to be through reducing the individual’s exposure to threats, not increasing the number of individuals exposed to the threat. That is why a lot of gas stations go to “pay-at-the-pump only” after 10 pm. It reduces exposure by letting criminals know that the teller will not have cash and also reduces the number of times that the teller is exposed to customers (potential threats). Alternatively you provide physical protection in the form of barriers so the criminals can’t get to the tellers.
Cheers
The 17 year old in Montreal was behind locked doors in a booth of the kind you speak of that just had a slot to pay through. It would seem somehow the door was opened or she opened it for some reason. The petroleum companies are pretty good when it comes to providing safe barriers. But in her case it did not work. Why?
Update: See Link http://www.theglobeandmail.com/s...Story/National/
Co-Worker sought in murder/theft. Once again if minumum two were working we believe outcome may have been totally different.
LFR,
In this case I don't think it would have helped, sounds like there were three criminals and at least one was a former employee....thus they knew all the security arrangements. You really can't protect against insiders! In this case I don't think either of our opinions would have worked perfectly, as the saying (okay I'll bite.... old adage 
goes) hard cases make bad law.
Just a note, the security arrangements weren't as I described. In this station you had to buzz to get into the station but once in the door you had full access to all facilities including the teller and the till. The style I would recommend is like the type I've seen in Calgary where the teller sits in a protected booth not exposed to attack.
Regards,
Commenting by HaloScan
