Beyond the standard eight-hour day may raise the risk of job-related injuries

May be seen in: Truck World News - "www.infotruck.blogspot.com"

"WORKING beyond the standard eight-hour day may raise the risk of
job-related injuries, regardless of a person's occupation, a new study
suggests... Among nearly 10,800 US adults followed for 13 years,
researchers found that those who worked overtime or on regularly
extended shifts were at greater risk of on-the-job injuries. And the
effect was not limited to hazard-fraught industries... Muscle and
joint problems were the most common complaint, followed by cuts and
bruises, according to findings published in the journal Occupational
and Environmental Medicine..."

I'm curious. Although I don't doubt the numbers given here, perhaps the
"researchers" could break the statistics down to the differences between the
truly ambitious and hopelessly lazy. Nothing brings more success and
satisfaction than good old honest hard work. Having some experience with
the hiring and firing process, I can say that this work ethic seems to be a
dying breed around here these days. I'd just like to know if it is more
about the attitude than the number of hours on the job.
Motorcity


"truck & bus" <santiago.rz@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126891418.859837.7570@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
> May be seen in: Truck World News - "www.infotruck.blogspot.com"
>
> "WORKING beyond the standard eight-hour day may raise the risk of
> job-related injuries, regardless of a person's occupation, a new study
> suggests... Among nearly 10,800 US adults followed for 13 years,
> researchers found that those who worked overtime or on regularly
> extended shifts were at greater risk of on-the-job injuries. And the
> effect was not limited to hazard-fraught industries... Muscle and
> joint problems were the most common complaint, followed by cuts and
> bruises, according to findings published in the journal Occupational
> and Environmental Medicine..."
>[/color]

It also depends upon whether the 'job' is repetitive or interesting, hard
physical or mild and also on age.

Sounds like a rehash (for more grant money) of studies done in the 1960's
!!!

n Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:41:02 GMT, "Motorcity" <kflynn3@cfl.rr.com> found
these unused words floating about:
[color=blue]
>I'm curious. Although I don't doubt the numbers given here, perhaps the
>"researchers" could break the statistics down to the differences between the
>truly ambitious and hopelessly lazy. Nothing brings more success and
>satisfaction than good old honest hard work. Having some experience with
>the hiring and firing process, I can say that this work ethic seems to be a
>dying breed around here these days. I'd just like to know if it is more
>about the attitude than the number of hours on the job.
>Motorcity
>
>
>"truck & bus" <santiago.rz@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1126891418.859837.7570@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...[color=green]
>> May be seen in: Truck World News - "www.infotruck.blogspot.com"
>>
>> "WORKING beyond the standard eight-hour day may raise the risk of
>> job-related injuries, regardless of a person's occupation, a new study
>> suggests... Among nearly 10,800 US adults followed for 13 years,
>> researchers found that those who worked overtime or on regularly
>> extended shifts were at greater risk of on-the-job injuries. And the
>> effect was not limited to hazard-fraught industries... Muscle and
>> joint problems were the most common complaint, followed by cuts and
>> bruises, according to findings published in the journal Occupational
>> and Environmental Medicine..."
>>[/color]
>[/color]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:23:38 -0700, truck & bus wrote:
[color=blue]
> May be seen in: Truck World News - "www.infotruck.blogspot.com"[/color]

I only work on my Toyotas for an hour or two at a time...
[color=blue]
>
> "WORKING beyond the standard eight-hour day may raise the risk of
> job-related injuries, regardless of a person's occupation, a new study
> suggests... Among nearly 10,800 US adults followed for 13 years,
> researchers found that those who worked overtime or on regularly
> extended shifts were at greater risk of on-the-job injuries. And the
> effect was not limited to hazard-fraught industries... Muscle and
> joint problems were the most common complaint, followed by cuts and
> bruises, according to findings published in the journal Occupational
> and Environmental Medicine..."[/color]

<snip> I can say that this work ethic seems to be a[color=blue]
> dying breed around here these days. I'd just like to know if it is more
> about the attitude than the number of hours on the job.
> Motorcity[/color]

I think it's more the attitude than the hours. For the past 13 years, I have
been the network guru in a small manufacturing plant. It was nothing for me
to come in 1 or 2 Saturdays a month for 4 to 10 hours, and work long hours
during the week. I didn't mind (even though I am paid salary) because it was
part of the job, that's what I needed to do to make changes or repairs to
the network, and frankly, I loved what I was doing. Then, when the
manufacturing sector crashed around 9-11, there were a number of lay-offs,
and jobs were consolidated. Not only was my job the network, but now I had
to unload trucks, pull parts for assembly jobs, put other parts away, and
other (to me) BS jobs that we could have kept one person to do. My attitude
went down the tubes, along with network consistency and other things (hard
for one person to do 2-1/2 jobs). It's not that I minded the physical labor-
I worked my way up from machinist (5 years) to NC programmer (2 years) to
network administrator. It was just that after business picked back up, there
was no one hired back in my department, and we were expected to work
overtime to cover what needed to be done. I use any excuse I can to not work
over 40 now. My boss doesn't have to tell me my attitude sucks- I told her
that. I hate my job now, and have been actively seeking employment
elsewhere. But jobs are scarce around here, or the pay is no where near what
I'm making now. I'm 59 now, so I might just tough it out for 3 or 4 more
years and draw Social Security, unless they do me a favor and fire me first.
Sorry for the rant, just the way I feel.

SC Tom
[color=blue]
>
>
> "truck & bus" <santiago.rz@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1126891418.859837.7570@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...[color=green]
>> May be seen in: Truck World News - "www.infotruck.blogspot.com"
>>
>> "WORKING beyond the standard eight-hour day may raise the risk of
>> job-related injuries, regardless of a person's occupation, a new study
>> suggests... Among nearly 10,800 US adults followed for 13 years,
>> researchers found that those who worked overtime or on regularly
>> extended shifts were at greater risk of on-the-job injuries. And the
>> effect was not limited to hazard-fraught industries... Muscle and
>> joint problems were the most common complaint, followed by cuts and
>> bruises, according to findings published in the journal Occupational
>> and Environmental Medicine..."
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 08:03:11 -0400, "SC Tom" <SC@Tom.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
><snip> I can say that this work ethic seems to be a[color=green]
>> dying breed around here these days. I'd just like to know if it is more
>> about the attitude than the number of hours on the job.
>> Motorcity[/color]
>
>I think it's more the attitude than the hours. For the past 13 years, I have
>been the network guru in a small manufacturing plant. It was nothing for me
>to come in 1 or 2 Saturdays a month for 4 to 10 hours, and work long hours
>during the week. I didn't mind (even though I am paid salary) because it was
>part of the job, that's what I needed to do to make changes or repairs to
>the network, and frankly, I loved what I was doing. Then, when the
>manufacturing sector crashed around 9-11, there were a number of lay-offs,
>and jobs were consolidated. Not only was my job the network, but now I had
>to unload trucks, pull parts for assembly jobs, put other parts away, and
>other (to me) BS jobs that we could have kept one person to do. My attitude
>went down the tubes, along with network consistency and other things (hard
>for one person to do 2-1/2 jobs). It's not that I minded the physical labor-
>I worked my way up from machinist (5 years) to NC programmer (2 years) to
>network administrator. It was just that after business picked back up, there
>was no one hired back in my department, and we were expected to work
>overtime to cover what needed to be done. I use any excuse I can to not work
>over 40 now. My boss doesn't have to tell me my attitude sucks- I told her
>that. I hate my job now, and have been actively seeking employment
>elsewhere. But jobs are scarce around here, or the pay is no where near what
>I'm making now. I'm 59 now, so I might just tough it out for 3 or 4 more
>years and draw Social Security, unless they do me a favor and fire me first.
>Sorry for the rant, just the way I feel.
>
>SC Tom[/color]

I know what I would do if I were your boss...

Don't let the door hit ya in the arse on the way out...

--

Scott in Florida

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 08:03:11 -0400, "SC Tom" <SC@Tom.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
><snip> I can say that this work ethic seems to be a[color=green]
>> dying breed around here these days. I'd just like to know if it is more
>> about the attitude than the number of hours on the job.
>> Motorcity[/color]
>
>I think it's more the attitude than the hours. For the past 13 years, I have
>been the network guru in a small manufacturing plant. It was nothing for me
>to come in 1 or 2 Saturdays a month for 4 to 10 hours, and work long hours
>during the week. I didn't mind (even though I am paid salary) because it was
>part of the job, that's what I needed to do to make changes or repairs to
>the network, and frankly, I loved what I was doing. Then, when the
>manufacturing sector crashed around 9-11, there were a number of lay-offs,
>and jobs were consolidated. Not only was my job the network, but now I had
>to unload trucks, pull parts for assembly jobs, put other parts away, and
>other (to me) BS jobs that we could have kept one person to do. My attitude
>went down the tubes, along with network consistency and other things (hard
>for one person to do 2-1/2 jobs). It's not that I minded the physical labor-
>I worked my way up from machinist (5 years) to NC programmer (2 years) to
>network administrator. It was just that after business picked back up, there
>was no one hired back in my department, and we were expected to work
>overtime to cover what needed to be done. I use any excuse I can to not work
>over 40 now. My boss doesn't have to tell me my attitude sucks- I told her
>that. I hate my job now, and have been actively seeking employment
>elsewhere. But jobs are scarce around here, or the pay is no where near what
>I'm making now. I'm 59 now, so I might just tough it out for 3 or 4 more
>years and draw Social Security, unless they do me a favor and fire me first.
>Sorry for the rant, just the way I feel.
>
>SC Tom[/color]

Once...one of my guys asked me what I would do if he submitted his
resignation. He was very valuable to the operation....but like
anyone...can be replaced.

I told him...that I'd accept his resignation.

He did. I did.

He came back a different person about a year later.

Your attitude needs to be adjusted.

Either you do it or someone else will do it.


--

Scott in Florida

Since Hurricane Katrina past, I been working every day. Most shifts have
been normal 12 hour shifts but some have been 18 hour shifts just so we can
get the plant back up and running to make some gasoline for you folks. I do
see the light at the end of the tunnel. I am suppose to have Wednesday off,
may be I can fix my truck. It started overheating on me the Thursday. Damn
heater hose went to leaking and the connection on the outlet broke off in
the head. I been to tired to work on it when I get home, so its been parked
every since.

Sarge

Yep, everyone can be replaced eventually.

Hang in there Tom, maintain your good attitude and keep your chin up.
Management will take note of that, I can assure you. If they do have to cut
you loose, don't take it personally. It's all part of conducting business.
Sometimes, management thinks that their jobs suck too. They will most
likely have good things to say about you if you ever need a reference for
another job. There is great value in that.
Motorcity


"SC Tom" <SC@Tom.com> wrote in message news:YBTWe.17795$tc7.6951@fe03.lga...[color=blue]
> <snip> I can say that this work ethic seems to be a[color=green]
> > dying breed around here these days. I'd just like to know if it is more
> > about the attitude than the number of hours on the job.
> > Motorcity[/color]
>
> I think it's more the attitude than the hours. For the past 13 years, I[/color]
have[color=blue]
> been the network guru in a small manufacturing plant. It was nothing for[/color]
me[color=blue]
> to come in 1 or 2 Saturdays a month for 4 to 10 hours, and work long hours
> during the week. I didn't mind (even though I am paid salary) because it[/color]
was[color=blue]
> part of the job, that's what I needed to do to make changes or repairs to
> the network, and frankly, I loved what I was doing. Then, when the
> manufacturing sector crashed around 9-11, there were a number of lay-offs,
> and jobs were consolidated. Not only was my job the network, but now I had
> to unload trucks, pull parts for assembly jobs, put other parts away, and
> other (to me) BS jobs that we could have kept one person to do. My[/color]
attitude[color=blue]
> went down the tubes, along with network consistency and other things (hard
> for one person to do 2-1/2 jobs). It's not that I minded the physical[/color]
labor-[color=blue]
> I worked my way up from machinist (5 years) to NC programmer (2 years) to
> network administrator. It was just that after business picked back up,[/color]
there[color=blue]
> was no one hired back in my department, and we were expected to work
> overtime to cover what needed to be done. I use any excuse I can to not[/color]
work[color=blue]
> over 40 now. My boss doesn't have to tell me my attitude sucks- I told her
> that. I hate my job now, and have been actively seeking employment
> elsewhere. But jobs are scarce around here, or the pay is no where near[/color]
what[color=blue]
> I'm making now. I'm 59 now, so I might just tough it out for 3 or 4 more
> years and draw Social Security, unless they do me a favor and fire me[/color]
first.[color=blue]
> Sorry for the rant, just the way I feel.
>
> SC Tom
>[color=green]
> >
> >
> > "truck & bus" <santiago.rz@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1126891418.859837.7570@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...[color=darkred]
> >> May be seen in: Truck World News - "www.infotruck.blogspot.com"
> >>
> >> "WORKING beyond the standard eight-hour day may raise the risk of
> >> job-related injuries, regardless of a person's occupation, a new study
> >> suggests... Among nearly 10,800 US adults followed for 13 years,
> >> researchers found that those who worked overtime or on regularly
> >> extended shifts were at greater risk of on-the-job injuries. And the
> >> effect was not limited to hazard-fraught industries... Muscle and
> >> joint problems were the most common complaint, followed by cuts and
> >> bruises, according to findings published in the journal Occupational
> >> and Environmental Medicine..."
> >>[/color]
> >
> >[/color]
>
>[/color]

Scott in Florida <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote:
snip[color=blue]
>Once...one of my guys asked me what I would do if he submitted his
>resignation. He was very valuable to the operation....but like
>anyone...can be replaced.
>
>I told him...that I'd accept his resignation.
>
>He did. I did.
>
>He came back a different person about a year later.
>
>Your attitude needs to be adjusted.
>
>Either you do it or someone else will do it.
>
>[/color]
'Your' attitude could do with a small bit of adjustment too
Scott. You sound like the employers of yesteryear (before workers
had any protection from bosses wearing steel reinforced boots).
Of course unions could very well do with a bit of a tune up too
of course. But ISTM that unions made a large difference in the
QoL of the working man.

Thank God that I wasn't concerned with unions for my main working
life (Canadian Armed Forces) but I can quite easily see worker's
point when they're exploited as this chap seems to have been.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:59:03 GMT, Gord Beaman <gord@islandtelecom.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>Scott in Florida <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote:
> snip[color=green]
>>Once...one of my guys asked me what I would do if he submitted his
>>resignation. He was very valuable to the operation....but like
>>anyone...can be replaced.
>>
>>I told him...that I'd accept his resignation.
>>
>>He did. I did.
>>
>>He came back a different person about a year later.
>>
>>Your attitude needs to be adjusted.
>>
>>Either you do it or someone else will do it.
>>
>>[/color]
>'Your' attitude could do with a small bit of adjustment too
>Scott. You sound like the employers of yesteryear (before workers
>had any protection from bosses wearing steel reinforced boots).
>Of course unions could very well do with a bit of a tune up too
>of course. But ISTM that unions made a large difference in the
>QoL of the working man.[/color]

My only first hand brush with unions....was back when I first stated
working in industry.

Raetheon Andover Mass... I was sent up to help fix a piece of
equipment my company supplied them.

The f*ing Union would not let me put oscilloscope leads on a test
point. A UNION tech had to do it...

Unions are WORTHLESS when you are trying to get the job done!

[color=blue]
>
>Thank God that I wasn't concerned with unions for my main working
>life (Canadian Armed Forces) but I can quite easily see worker's
>point when they're exploited as this chap seems to have been.[/color]
--

Scott in Florida

Apparently that was not your job. The contract your company had with the
union obviously listed that a one of the qualification for a job assigned to
a union worker. Your complaint should have been with your employer not the
union. Imagine what would happen to quality control if just anyone was
allowed to do whatever job they wanted.. Is seems to my you should have
concentrated on doing you own job, the one they were paying you to do. ;)


mike hunt.


"Scott in Florida" <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote in message
news:lghti1t0k6vs4puhddgau4drdao89ub360@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:59:03 GMT, Gord Beaman <gord@islandtelecom.com>
> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Scott in Florida <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote:
>> snip[color=darkred]
>>>Once...one of my guys asked me what I would do if he submitted his
>>>resignation. He was very valuable to the operation....but like
>>>anyone...can be replaced.
>>>
>>>I told him...that I'd accept his resignation.
>>>
>>>He did. I did.
>>>
>>>He came back a different person about a year later.
>>>
>>>Your attitude needs to be adjusted.
>>>
>>>Either you do it or someone else will do it.
>>>
>>>[/color]
>>'Your' attitude could do with a small bit of adjustment too
>>Scott. You sound like the employers of yesteryear (before workers
>>had any protection from bosses wearing steel reinforced boots).
>>Of course unions could very well do with a bit of a tune up too
>>of course. But ISTM that unions made a large difference in the
>>QoL of the working man.[/color]
>
> My only first hand brush with unions....was back when I first stated
> working in industry.
>
> Raetheon Andover Mass... I was sent up to help fix a piece of
> equipment my company supplied them.
>
> The f*ing Union would not let me put oscilloscope leads on a test
> point. A UNION tech had to do it...
>
> Unions are WORTHLESS when you are trying to get the job done!
>
>[color=green]
>>
>>Thank God that I wasn't concerned with unions for my main working
>>life (Canadian Armed Forces) but I can quite easily see worker's
>>point when they're exploited as this chap seems to have been.[/color]
> --
>
> Scott in Florida[/color]

Sarge wrote:[color=blue]
> Since Hurricane Katrina past, I been working every day. Most shifts
> have been normal 12 hour shifts but some have been 18 hour shifts
> just so we can get the plant back up and running to make some
> gasoline for you folks. I do see the light at the end of the tunnel.[/color]

I for one, and I'm sure others will agree, appreciate your efforts to get
production of fuel back to what it was before Katrina. It has to be tough on
you working those many hours and it's bound to get you down. Please take
comfort in the fact there are many, many people whose lives have changed
drastically due to fuel prices driven up by no supply. And these many people
will benefit greatly when the fuel prices go down due to your extreme
efforts to rebuild our fuel supply.
I say thanks,
davidj92

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 12:26:33 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Apparently that was not your job. The contract your company had with the
>union obviously listed that a one of the qualification for a job assigned to
>a union worker. Your complaint should have been with your employer not the
>union. Imagine what would happen to quality control if just anyone was
>allowed to do whatever job they wanted.. Is seems to my you should have
>concentrated on doing you own job, the one they were paying you to do. ;)[/color]

It was MY companies hardware.

MY company did not send ten UNION people to do the job ONE qualified
person could do all by himself...

Unions Suck....

;-)

[color=blue]
>
>
>mike hunt.
>
>
>"Scott in Florida" <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote in message
>news:lghti1t0k6vs4puhddgau4drdao89ub360@4ax.com...[color=green]
>> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:59:03 GMT, Gord Beaman <gord@islandtelecom.com>
>> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Scott in Florida <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote:
>>> snip
>>>>Once...one of my guys asked me what I would do if he submitted his
>>>>resignation. He was very valuable to the operation....but like
>>>>anyone...can be replaced.
>>>>
>>>>I told him...that I'd accept his resignation.
>>>>
>>>>He did. I did.
>>>>
>>>>He came back a different person about a year later.
>>>>
>>>>Your attitude needs to be adjusted.
>>>>
>>>>Either you do it or someone else will do it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>'Your' attitude could do with a small bit of adjustment too
>>>Scott. You sound like the employers of yesteryear (before workers
>>>had any protection from bosses wearing steel reinforced boots).
>>>Of course unions could very well do with a bit of a tune up too
>>>of course. But ISTM that unions made a large difference in the
>>>QoL of the working man.[/color]
>>
>> My only first hand brush with unions....was back when I first stated
>> working in industry.
>>
>> Raetheon Andover Mass... I was sent up to help fix a piece of
>> equipment my company supplied them.
>>
>> The f*ing Union would not let me put oscilloscope leads on a test
>> point. A UNION tech had to do it...
>>
>> Unions are WORTHLESS when you are trying to get the job done!
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>
>>>Thank God that I wasn't concerned with unions for my main working
>>>life (Canadian Armed Forces) but I can quite easily see worker's
>>>point when they're exploited as this chap seems to have been.[/color]
>> --
>>
>> Scott in Florida[/color]
>[/color]
--

Scott in Florida