Job posting - This is why students need to get shocked - It's required for a job

[DougSpindler]

One of my students is applying for a job at a well known American company.  The person in HR who was interviewing my student gave him the following job description which was given to her (for approval) by the head of the department.

As my student read throug the job description he noticed the following to be essential funtions of the job being applied for.

Exposrue to toxix chemaicals - occasionally.
Exposre to electirc shock - frequent.
Exposure to injury from biohazards - constantly.

And no this position is not in prison to test electric chairs and lethal injections.

And some of you in this forum were complainign in a previous post when I said if a students get's an accidentla jolt it would be a good learning experiance for them.  Well now it appears getting electric shocks is now a requirment for some jobs.
   

[paulca]

I believe "Exposure to" means "There is a present risk", not that they WILL get shocked frequently.

[DougSpindler]

I believe "Exposure to" means "There is a present risk", not that they WILL get shocked frequently.

If that's what they meant, why didn't they describe the work environment and use the words "frequently" for electric shock and "constatnly" for exposure to injury from biohazzards?

It's the use of the words occasionally, frequently and constantly.

[rstofer]

Furthermore, all of the conditions listed are subject to Fed OSHA as well as state safety codes.

When working on energized circuits, for example, there are Personal Protective Equipment requirements - gloves, shield, flame retardant clothes, etc.  Basically, energized circuits are avoided and shocks prevented by LOTO (Lock-Out, Tag-Out) procedures.

Noise is similarly regulated and hearing protection is required when the exposure level hits a certain limit.

It may well be that those conditions are present and safe practices already in place to mitigate the risk.  That would be my take.  Yes, these things are here but, no, they're not going to hurt you because we're going to train you.

[rstofer]

I believe "Exposure to" means "There is a present risk", not that they WILL get shocked frequently.

If that's what they meant, why didn't they describe the work environment and use the words "frequently" for electric shock and "constatnly" for exposure to injury from biohazzards?

It's the use of the words occasionally, frequently and constantly.

Because the document was written by a moron and hasn't been reviewed by Legal.  If HR has a collective brain in their head, they would burn every copy of this document and wait for a new job description that had been reviewed.  Shredding would not be sufficient!  Burn it!  Then flush the ashes!

[gregariz]

It's the use of the words occasionally, frequently and constantly.

America is a little different to other places - often these things are not vetted like they would be elsewhere. All I saw when I read the description is a nasty factory of scientific lab environment that was loud and potentially dangerous if you didn't have your wits about you. A bit like a large metals fab place near me - it stinks of burnt metal from across the road and you can hear it clanking away all night. My guess is they will inform the candidate of OSHA requirements and give protective gear but aren't going to lose much sleep if you stick your bare hands into something that will hurt you. When I first came into America I was shown a video by my employer of workers ie mechanics and electricians all mashed up after getting caught in process equipment and often in several pieces because they didn't follow OSHA guidelines. The idea was to scare us into asking about something if we were not sure. My electrical lecturer was missing fingers because he stuck them into a printing machine late at night (probably tired and was sloppy with lock and tag - or he didn't know what to lock and tag exactly) in Melbourne after it had appeared the machine had failed. Might want to give those jobs a miss.

[DougSpindler]

Furthermore, all of the conditions listed are subject to Fed OSHA as well as state safety codes.

When working on energized circuits, for example, there are Personal Protective Equipment requirements - gloves, shield, flame retardant clothes, etc.  Basically, energized circuits are avoided and shocks prevented by LOTO (Lock-Out, Tag-Out) procedures.

Noise is similarly regulated and hearing protection is required when the exposure level hits a certain limit.

It may well be that those conditions are present and safe practices already in place to mitigate the risk.  That would be my take.  Yes, these things are here but, no, they're not going to hurt you because we're going to train you.

Yes and every single compnay follows every Fed OSHA proceedures. 
How many people fall to their death every year working on cell towers?

I worked for a company which worked with equipment which produced ionizing radiation.  (Sort of like an X-ray machines but much, much larger.)  The compnay guy was trying to fix something and shorted out the safetly interlock protection switch so he could work on the machine with the shielding removed.  I don't think Fed OSHA procedures were followed and the sad part is none of the workers in the plant understood they were being exposed to a constant high dose of ionizing/X-ray radiation.

Not sure if you are aware but the Koch Industries and the Koch brothers continually violate Fed OSHA laws.  When workers were injured or killed they found the cost of the OSH fines and paying the death benifits to the familes were less expensise than having employees follow Fed OSHA safety proceedures.   Koch borthers have had to pay the largest civil fine our goveremnt has ever imposed.....  And the fine was tax deductable.

Maybe this company is being honest in sayig employees will be constalty exposed to biohazards and shocked frequently.














 

[DougSpindler]

Maybe this company is being honest in sayig employees will be constalty exposed to biohazards and shocked frequently.

This simply was written by someone who wasn’t thinking properly at the time seeing the overall style, when they simply mean that there will be exposure to equipment running on live mains voltage, probably even medium voltage

And how do you explain the constant exposure to biohazards?

[rx8pilot]

This is not unusual at all. When an accident occurs, the employer wants/needs to to be able to claim that they offered considerable warnings for nearly any possible issue.

Another person's sweat could be considered a biohazard. A building with electricity provides the possibility of electrical shock.

The company has to conform to various safety regulations like ear plugs, gloves, eye protection, respiratory, etc, etc. If you live in California - pretty much everything must be labeled as a carcinogen.

You can thank the massive number of lawsuits for this type of behavior.

[Brumby]

Where's the problem?

Exposure to toxic chemicals - occasionally.  Occasionally your work may put you in a position where there are toxic chemicals around.  We tell you this so that you will know to take care and not carry on like an idiot - and that if you take proper precautions if you are required to work directly with them.  I'd be saying this if working with things like ferric chloride or ammonium persulphate

Exposure to electric shock - frequent.  You are frequently going to be in situations where you could get an electric shock if you don't pay attention.  How long have we been saying "One flash and you're ash"?

Exposure to injury from biohazards - constantly.  At all times you are going to have stuff like lead and beryllium around you.  Please don't eat the solder or the thermal compound.  Bring your own lunch.

Bottom line:  We have serious shit around here, so when we give you safety procedures to follow, you'd better bloody well follow them!!


These things sound really bad - and I would suggest the shock value in how it is presented is there so that candidates actually take notice.  But, put in context, I think they will not be anywhere near as bad as people are making out.

[ejeffrey]

I believe "Exposure to" means "There is a present risk", not that they WILL get shocked frequently.

If that's what they meant, why didn't they describe the work environment and use the words "frequently" for electric shock and "constatnly" for exposure to injury from biohazzards?

It's the use of the words occasionally, frequently and constantly.

Well, you haven't explained what the job is.  If the job is working in a medical testing lab, then maybe working with biohazardous materials is a daily occurrence, but working with dangerous electrical voltages is only weekly.

And yes, maybe you can complain about the exact wording, but it obviously means that you will be working in an environment with those hazards, not that you will be shocked, infected, and poisoned.  Some people might decide they don't want to work around such things, so they would rather tell you before you accept the job.  And of course if you accept they will tell you again -- a prerequisite to working safely is to know what the hazards are.

[DougSpindler]

Where's the problem?

Exposure to toxic chemicals - occasionally.  Occasionally your work may put you in a position where there are toxic chemicals around.  We tell you this so that you will know to take care and not carry on like an idiot - and that if you take proper precautions if you are required to work directly with them.  I'd be saying this if working with things like ferric chloride or ammonium persulphate

Exposure to electric shock - frequent.  You are frequently going to be in situations where you could get an electric shock if you don't pay attention.  How long have we been saying "One flash and you're ash"?

Exposure to injury from biohazards - constantly.  At all times you are going to have stuff like lead and beryllium around you.  Please don't eat the solder or the thermal compound.  Bring your own lunch.

Bottom line:  We have serious shit around here, so when we give you safety procedures to follow, you'd better bloody well follow them!!


These things sound really bad - and I would suggest the shock value in how it is presented is there so that candidates actually take notice.  But, put in context, I think they will not be anywhere near as bad as people are making out.

Why is exposure to electric shock frequent? And not constatnt? 

[gregariz]

Where's the problem?

Exposure to toxic chemicals - occasionally.  Occasionally your work may put you in a position where there are toxic chemicals around.  We tell you this so that you will know to take care and not carry on like an idiot - and that if you take proper precautions if you are required to work directly with them.  I'd be saying this if working with things like ferric chloride or ammonium persulphate

Exposure to electric shock - frequent.  You are frequently going to be in situations where you could get an electric shock if you don't pay attention.  How long have we been saying "One flash and you're ash"?

Exposure to injury from biohazards - constantly.  At all times you are going to have stuff like lead and beryllium around you.  Please don't eat the solder or the thermal compound.  Bring your own lunch.

Bottom line:  We have serious shit around here, so when we give you safety procedures to follow, you'd better bloody well follow them!!


These things sound really bad - and I would suggest the shock value in how it is presented is there so that candidates actually take notice.  But, put in context, I think they will not be anywhere near as bad as people are making out.

Why is exposure to electric shock frequent? And not constatnt?

You would need to tell everyone what the job is, rather than let everyone speculate.

But I will give you one example - in a mineral processing plant, it was sometimes required to clean the high tension (voltage) insulators (corona) because if they dusted up with metal based dust they would arc over, potentially damaging the insulator or cables. You know how they did it? They sprayed it with a water hose. Why are they not dead? Because they made sure they used a sprinkler head on the end of the hose so that it broke the conduction path (water stream) from the high tension to the worker spraying it.

[DougSpindler]

I believe "Exposure to" means "There is a present risk", not that they WILL get shocked frequently.

If that's what they meant, why didn't they describe the work environment and use the words "frequently" for electric shock and "constatnly" for exposure to injury from biohazzards?

It's the use of the words occasionally, frequently and constantly.

Well, you haven't explained what the job is.  If the job is working in a medical testing lab, then maybe working with biohazardous materials is a daily occurrence, but working with dangerous electrical voltages is only weekly.

And yes, maybe you can complain about the exact wording, but it obviously means that you will be working in an environment with those hazards, not that you will be shocked, infected, and poisoned.  Some people might decide they don't want to work around such things, so they would rather tell you before you accept the job.  And of course if you accept they will tell you again -- a prerequisite to working safely is to know what the hazards are.

Job is working is at a major American company maintaining the production line and plant equipment.  They make food products for human consumption.

[ejeffrey]

Then your description makes perfect sense:

Biohazard is constantly because the job is to be on the floor of a food processing plant.  Food can harbor infectious disease.

Electrical is frequently because you are servicing the equipment.  This isn't constant, as a machine plugged in and running probably isn't considered a hazard, but you will frequently have to open the service panels or use lock-out tags.

Toxic Chemicals: possibly cleaning or sterilizing chemicals, or possibly strong acids or bases that are used in food preparation.  Presumably the job is not cleaning the production equipment, but occasionally while servicing some of the equipment you may have to deal with these.

Think of it as "how often to I have to wear PPE or use other safety tools like lockout tags related to this type of hazard"

[CatalinaWOW]

Can't justify the wording, but it may even be more innocuous than currently postulated.

For example - the plant makes peanut butter snack sandwiches.  The peanuts and wheat based crackers are both biohazards to those with severe sensitivities.

And the plant is in California, where virtually everything has been identified as carcinogenic or otherwise hazardous.  Recent examples include things like coffee and pine boards.

[rx8pilot]

I live in California.
It is stupid.

At one point, I had 15 employees. The burden of the rules, regulations, and red tape are over the top. I have a tangled mess of family matters that keeps me from leaving for 8 more years.....but I will not stay in this idiotic state one more second than I have to.

[Nerull]

Maybe this company is being honest in sayig employees will be constalty exposed to biohazards and shocked frequently.

This simply was written by someone who wasn’t thinking properly at the time seeing the overall style, when they simply mean that there will be exposure to equipment running on live mains voltage, probably even medium voltage

And how do you explain the constant exposure to biohazards?

Do you believe that technicians who work with biohazardous materials are routinely shoving them up their noses?

"Exposure" means "You will be near" not "You *will* contract anthrax and die".

I used to work in a place that manufactured high voltage medical equipment that stored thousands of volts in large capacitors. The service techs were all constantly exposed to shock hazards, and were trained to take proper precautions.

One day, one of the techs got shocked.

The next day, he didn't get a pat on the head and told "Welp its just part of the job." He got fired. For not following procedures and putting the company at risk.

[ez24]

I live in California.
It is stupid.

I am also a California prisoner, sad place to live 

[Brumby]

Why is exposure to electric shock frequent? And not constatnt?

Really?

You should be able to answer that question yourself a dozen times over - and it shouldn't take long if you make any sort of an effort.

[Mechatrommer]

The person in HR who was interviewing my student gave him the following job description...
...Well now it appears getting electric shocks is now a requirment for some jobs.

can you differentiate the meaning between job "description" with job "requirement"? if you cant, just PM me i can teach...

[Brumby]

I live in California.
It is stupid.

At one point, I had 15 employees. The burden of the rules, regulations, and red tape are over the top. I have a tangled mess of family matters that keeps me from leaving for 8 more years.....but I will not stay in this idiotic state one more second than I have to.

I live in California.
It is stupid.

I am also a California prisoner, sad place to live 

Not sure about the rules, regs and red tape - but Sydney has the weather.   

[ebastler]

can you differentiate the meaning between job "description" with job "requirement"? if you cant, just PM me i can teach...

Job description = what do you do in the job.
Job requirement = what qualification (skills, training) do you need to bring to the job, to be able to do it properly.

Standard terms, really.

[Mechatrommer]

the questions are meant for the OP. he's confusing between the term hence the existence of this thread. is any requirement in the job saying that "you must be at least experienced an electric shock during childhood of at least X Vac and Y Vdc"?

[BillB]

This seems right to me.  My interview application would read:

1.  How many times before the age of 5 did you get shocked sticking a butter knife into an electrical socket? (A fork is also acceptable)

2.  If less than twice, please explain?



I'd prefer hiring engineers who had the calling at an early age, such as myself.