Do safety inspectors need to be monitored?
September 1, 2009 by Fred HosierPosted in: construction safety, In this week's e-newsletter, inspections, Latest News & Views, What do you think?
PDF New York City will begin monitoring its building inspectors via department-issued cell phones and GPS.
Starting this week, a group of 10 inspectors will be monitored. By the end of this month, all 379 will be tracked, according to The New York Times.
The tracking program is partially due to the case of former inspector Edward Marquette. He was charged last year with faking a report that he inspected a tower crane in response to a complaint. Authorities said he never visited the site, and 11 days later, the crane fell, killing seven people.
Officials have said it was unlikely the missed inspection had any relation to the incident.
Marquette has pleaded not guilty to charges. He also allegedly filed false inspection reports for cranes at two other sites.
A Buildings Department official said the agency doesn’t believe there are widespread reporting problems by inspectors. The monitoring system will also allow supervisors to dispatch the closest inspector to a building-related emergency and locate inspectors who lose contact with the department during hazardous inspections.
The union representing most inspectors doesn’t like the plan.
However, one inspector quoted by the Times said, “If you are where you’re supposed to be, you’ve got nothing to fear.” Inspectors will only be monitored while they’re on duty. When an inspector’s shift ends, the tracker will be turned off.
So, what do you think? Do safety inspectors need to be monitored? Let us know in the Comments Box below.
SafetyNewsAlert.com delivers the latest Safety news once a week to the inboxes of over 270,000 Safety professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to SafetyNewsAlert!
Tags: Edward Marquette, monitoring building inspectors, New York City
Loading ...
September 1st, 2009 at 6:34 pm
[...] View original post here: Do safety inspectors need to be mo… [...]
September 10th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
I really cannot see the harm in documenting where you have been, where you are, or where you might be going unless, of course you have something to hide. I would think that the greatest asset would be to have an inspector get to a site of concern quickly. Let’s face it, this is going to be SOP for almost every occupation that has any responsibility for documentation.
October 19th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Ok. Let’s think about this…I guess. Right? Maybe not all jobs but critical jobs where the work you do does or doesn’t result in the serious injury of an employee or from the general public.
When I grew up you didn’t need to do these types of things but the work ethic has changed people have changed and we have an increasing work force who don’t care about anything but themselves let alone the public, their piers or their employer.
I guess the big brother mentality is kind of scarry…just look at England who have thousands of cameras in the streets and in stores. Today they announced they will be putting cameras with audio in all the classrooms in their schools. Just sounds like a horror movie doesn’t it.
I think all these inspectors have someone they are reporting to maybe they should get off their duff and do some follow-up with these critical inspections. They can have forms that require employer signatures with phone calls to that employer for verification. The let’s trackem-danno attitude shows how lazy people can be and gets even further from the personal contact we need to preserve along with our individual freedoms. Ok I can hear you all now..but you’re on the employer’s time….he should be able to do whatever he wants when he’s paying you. Again…I guess. Just widens that gap between the employer and the employee. At least for those of us who are honest and would have went out and really inspected that crane. The few always have to screw things up for the masses.