|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Hey you, you suck! (AKA: Outing bad film handlers) Part 2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Charles Greenlee
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 801
From: Savannah, Ga, U.S.
Registered: Jun 2006
|
posted 11-10-2006 07:56 PM
I carry those darned things. I guess my slight build would make me ideal to be the one to throw their back out, or get a hernia, etc. I'm dirty, but not dirty enough to "allow" myself to be injured by fox boxes. Though you do have a good point. If anyone does get injured from possibly the fox boxes, they should push the issue as hard as they can. Yeah, I carried flyboys. And yes, the do have interlocking film boxes. It's the heavy plastic square ones, with the nice handle. I love them, except for having to fight them to get them closed fully. They have a hexagonal ridge on their sides. And if you lay one on its side, the you lay the other on top the same way, you can get them to lock.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 11-11-2006 12:15 AM
quote: John Hawkinson
Well, the reason for the handling charge is because film cans don't work on conveyer belts. I'm not sure why. Possibly because of sharp edges?
Sounds like a load of horse hockey to me.
Cans have handles. And, even accounting for the weight of the metal, they weigh less than Fox boxes. Once they are closed properly they don't pop open or break like boxes. They are easier to lift and stack. And, if they have a problem with metal cans damaging equipment or people getting cut on sharp edges, they shouldn't have a problem with the blue PLASTIC film cans.
So, tell me... If I took two film cans, containing eight reels of film, and strapped them together with fiberglass tape before sealing them inside a cardboard box would I still get the charge?
AFAIC, no matter how you slice it, it still comes up bullshit.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 11-11-2006 12:51 PM
quote: Randy Stankey
So, tell me... If I took two film cans, containing eight reels of film, and strapped them together with fiberglass tape before sealing them inside a cardboard box would I still get the charge?
We ship our ETS film that way all the time. We order boxes, item # 3W206, from W. W. Grainger. (www.grainger.com) The cans lay nicely in the boxes, there is no need to strap them together. Not only is it cheaper to ship one container than two, but you avoid the handling charge, and you're assured the shipping label won't come off. Just be sure to tape all the way around the box and tape the flaps down to the corners with GOOD QUALITY packaging tape, not cheap crap that won't stick.
The extra charge pretty much applies to anything not shipped in a cardboard box. The biggest reason for the handling charge on cans, barrels, etc is because they don't stack as easily as boxes and won't behave themselves when they are stacked -- IOW, they roll around, slide around, etc. so they cause extra work at the sort. (This is all from a UPS guy I know.)
quote: Charles Greenlee
If anyone does get injured from possibly the fox boxes, they should push the issue as hard as they can.
They wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Common sense dictates that if something is too heavy, you should get someone else to help lift it. If you injure yourself lifting something, any court would say, "You were negligent. You shouldn't have lifted something that heavy without help." Or as Judge Judy would say, "You don't get paid for being stupid."
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 11-11-2006 08:05 PM
United States OSHA Guidelines for lifting:
http://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/otm_vii/otm_vii_1.html
quote:
1. GENERAL. Back disorders can develop gradually as a result of microtrauma brought about by repetitive activity over time or can be the product of a single traumatic event. Because of the slow and progressive onset of this internal injury, the condition is often ignored until the symptoms become acute, often resulting in disabling injury. Acute back injuries can be the immediate result of improper lifting techniques and/or lifting loads that are too heavy for the back to support. While the acute injury may seem to be caused by a single well-defined incident, the real cause is often a combined interaction of the observed stressor coupled with years of weakening of the musculoskeletal support mechanism by repetitive micro-trauma. Injuries can arise in muscle, ligament, vertebrae, and discs, either singly or in combination.
2. INCIDENCE. Although back injuries account for no work-related deaths, they do account for a significant amount of human suffering, loss of productivity, and economic burden on compensation systems. Back disorders are one of the leading causes of disability for people in their working years and afflict over 600,000 employees each year with a cost of about $50 billion annually in 1991 according to NIOSH. The frequency and economic impact of back injuries and disorders on the work force are expected to increase over the next several decades as the average age of the work force increases and medical costs go up.
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Hawkinson
Film God
Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 11-11-2006 08:36 PM
Replies:
Charles, "And yes, the do have interlocking film boxes. It's the heavy plastic square ones..." I meant boxes that securely interlocked to each other for shipping purposes--not simply for stacking.
Randy, "Sounds like a load of horse hockey to me." I don't think it is. But really, I suppose you can talk to FedEx (et al) about it. My point was that it would be nice to solve it, horse hockey or not.
Mike, "They wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Common sense..." This is the law we're talking about. It does not always behave in a sensical way. Sadly, other industries have set the stage such that this sort of lawsuit is not outlandish by the standards of our modern legal system.
Good point about the cardboard boxes. We've done that once or twice, but usually I guess we're a bit too lazy. Probably we shouldn't be.
--jhawk
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 51 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 49 50 51
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic