Sad Unisaw Story

[brian c miller]

The company I work for has for as long as I have worked here had a 1950's Era Delta Unisaw that now reside in the scrap metal bin.

One of our main't guys had a nasty kick back accident and now the saw is being scraped. He was "ripping" a board much wider than it was long, the board racked slightly between the fence and the blade and now the saw is unsafe. Picture someone pushing a 2' long piece of 1" by 6" between the fence and blade.

I tried to recuse it but b/c it's a "safety hazard" it can not be sold. :(

I am not sure that this is in the right section so Mods, please move if it's not.

[Marty Paulus]

I am going on the assumption that the saw itself is fine/working and was just declaried a safety hazard because some idiot used it wrong.

Since this now resides in the scrap bin I would think that if could be fair game for a dumpster diver. They are not selling it that way or you could just buy it for scrap prices.

[Bob Wingard]

Perhaps you can educate them (lots of material - well documented online) as to the ONLY things that can cause kickback .. .. alignment & operator error.

Check the alignment .. show them the numbers .. offer to correct if it is out of alignment. Maybe do the demo that Marc Adams does so well in his demonstrations, using a piece of styrofoam board to show the dynamics of a kickback.

If they won't budge, try to make friends with their scrap guy and buy it as soon as it hits their yard. Tell him "they" have found it to be unsafe, and that you only want it for spare parts, 'cause you don't want an unsafe tool in your shop, and HE sure doesn't want the liability for having sold an unsafe piece of equipment to an unsuspecting customer who will probably be injured by it, with the resulting lawsuit and all .. .. ..

[brian c miller]

Right now it's sitting with a bunch of other dis-positioned equipment on a pallet. It will be picked up by the scrap metal people and presumably melted down.

It is a safety-hazard due to the fast it was used incorrectly. Just hitting your thumb with an unsafe hammer. It's a shame.

They've replace it with a SawStop Cabinet Saw, complete with a 52" fence, dust collection, all the bells and whistles. Still not safe to try and crosscut between the fence and blade.

[Tom Slupek]

Strip it down and buy if for parts then reassemble it in your garage.

[Bill Blackburn]

Back up and take it.

[Robert Reece]

Brian-

(the following is a joke).

If I were you, I would take that new SS and make sure I was the first one on it. With all the people standing around, I'd crosscut a 1x6, 2' long and have the same kick back happen. Maybe the board will catch one of the "decision makers".

I wonder what saw they would buy after the venerable SS had a kick back too.

[Kyle Iwamoto]

Strip it down and buy if for parts then reassemble it in your garage.


Good idea. Try it!

The Sawstop probably won't stop the kickback as described. Hope they don't think it will.......

[Scott Hildenbrand]

Still not safe to try and crosscut between the fence and blade.

You're correct there... So.. How much of his hand did he end up loosing to warrant such a harsh reaction to the saw.

[John Coloccia]

When the truck pulls up, slip them $100 and buy the scrap metal from them.

[Aaron Wingert]

I'd see if they'd let you write a letter and have it notarized, offering to take or purchase the "unsafe" saw for "parts", releasing your employer of any liability for any damages from the transfer of ownership or use of the saw.

[Matt Day]

As others have said, I would try to be around when the scrap metal guy comes along to pick it up. Hopefully $100 cash would be plenty. Heck, the driver will have less work to do (less to pick up) and may happily take it. If you can't be there, just find out where it's going to and buy it off the yard. It's not like they just back the truck up to a smoldering inferno and melt it down right away.

Your company should invest some money into training as well. Yes the SS is a great saw, but it's not like you can't hurt yourself on it.

[David Winer]

I'd see if they'd let you write a letter and have it notarized, offering to take or purchase the "unsafe" saw for "parts", releasing your employer of any liability for any damages from the transfer of ownership or use of the saw.
Of the several suggestions offered here, I'd try this one first. However, it is likely not to work because the company legal adviser will see nothing to gain. Just saying "no" is safe and reliable for lawyers.

[Scott Hildenbrand]

Yes the SS is a great saw, but it's not like you can't hurt yourself on it.

Nothing like a board to the face or groin to solidify that, which I'm sure will be the case making unsafe cross cuts like had happened.. :p

[george wilson]

Stupid morons will realize they have spent money for nothing when the idiot operator has another accident! Don't try to educate the guy. Trouble is,I'm the kind of fool who would try to educate him. It never seems to work,though.

The Unisaw will sit out there and rust up. If the Saw Stop has a more powerful saw motor,it will kick back even worse!!

[Mike Henderson]

My guess is that the person who made the SawStop purchase decision understands what was done wrong and that a SawStop won't fix that. But if the worker's hand had contacted the blade when the kickback occurred the company would have been liable and the SawStop will fix that.

So the corrective action is probably several things - train the workers to use the saw correctly and the purchase of a SawStop in case someone does something stupid.

The problem the company faces is that now that SawStop is available they'd have a hard time defending themselves if they didn't buy it (Plaintiff's lawyer: "You mean to tell me you were too cheap to purchase a $4,000 saw that would have saved my client's hand?").

And as someone else pointed out, it's not worth the couple of hundred dollars they'd get for the old saw compared to the liability risk if you get hurt (Plaintiff's lawyer: "You meant to tell me that after you determined the Unisaw was unsafe for your employees, you sold it to my client?")

Mike

[Rod Sheridan]

My guess is that the person who made the SawStop purchase decision understands what was done wrong and that a SawStop won't fix that. But if the worker's hand had contacted the blade when the kickback occurred the company would have been liable and the SawStop will fix that.

So the corrective action is probably several things - train the workers to use the saw correctly and the purchase of a SawStop in case someone does something stupid.

The problem the company faces is that now that SawStop is available they'd have a hard time defending themselves if they didn't buy it (Plaintiff's lawyer: "You mean to tell me you were too cheap to purchase a $4,000 saw that would have saved my client's hand?").

And as someone else pointed out, it's not worth the couple of hundred dollars they'd get for the old saw compared to the liability risk if you get hurt (Plaintiff's lawyer: "You meant to tell me that after you determined the Unisaw was unsafe for your employees, you sold it to my client?")

Mike

Exactly, the Saw Stop is secondary protection for when the primary protection fails.

Primary protection is to design out the hazard through changing the process, adding guards and training the operator.

At least with a Saw Stop the company took positive, recognized steps to improve safety.

Regards, Rod.

[Zach England]

Encourage the guy to do the same thing with the sawstop, then they will scrap that and you can get a unisaw AND a sawstop out of the scrap pile.

[brian c miller]

Mike is exactly right. They had to address the problem, if your a company that does $6.5B a year it's a drop in the bucket to CYA, especially for a saw that's just used by the main't guys, not for actual production.

The liability / works comp / lawyers would be all over this is they didn't. Now days you can order a steaming hot coffee, dump it in your lap, sue the people who sold it to you and WIN... :confused:

The average woodworker doesn't have the resources to go out and buy a new (insert tool) every time they do something stupid with the old one.

Buying a new SS and scraping the "unsafe" Unisaw is 100% correct for a corporate perspective but sad non the less.

[Dave Gaul]

Sounds to me like someone was just looking/waiting for a good excuse to buy a SawStop!

But like others have said... try to be around when they come for the unisaw and see what you can do... or go get it before the scrappers come!

[Don Dorn]

Right now it's sitting with a bunch of other dis-positioned equipment on a pallet. It will be picked up by the scrap metal people and presumably melted down.


Unless you take the advise of some here, it will certainly go, but I really doubt that it will be melted down. It will make a nice saw in the shop of one of the employees of the scrap company. I'll bet about nearly anything I own that they are not as pretentious and bureaucratically ignorant as the company you work for.

[Mike Henderson]

Unless you take the advice of some here, it will certainly go, but I really doubt that it will be melted down. It will make a nice saw in the shop of one of the employees of the scrap company. I'll bet about nearly anything I own that they are not as pretentious and bureaucratically ignorant as the company you work for.
If you are sitting in court one day facing a multi-million dollar suit, and paying thousands of dollars in attorney fees, you won't feel pretentious and bureaucratically ignorant. You'll feel really dumb for not following the advice of your corporate attorney.

Mike

[Dave Lehnert]

The scrap yard close to me has stuff set aside to sell that people dropped off.
I would be surprised if that saw ever got scraped.

[Callan Campbell]

Encourage the guy to do the same thing with the sawstop, then they will scrap that and you can get a unisaw AND a sawstop out of the scrap pile.
WAY TOO FUNNY, it might just work:D:D:D

[Jason White]

Stupid people suck.



The company I work for has for as long as I have worked here had a 1950's Era Delta Unisaw that now reside in the scrap metal bin.

One of our main't guys had a nasty kick back accident and now the saw is being scraped. He was "ripping" a board much wider than it was long, the board racked slightly between the fence and the blade and now the saw is unsafe. Picture someone pushing a 2' long piece of 1" by 6" between the fence and blade.

I tried to recuse it but b/c it's a "safety hazard" it can not be sold. :(

I am not sure that this is in the right section so Mods, please move if it's not.

[Jason White]

Go there after hours when it's dark and just take it.

Jason



Right now it's sitting with a bunch of other dis-positioned equipment on a pallet. It will be picked up by the scrap metal people and presumably melted down.

It is a safety-hazard due to the fast it was used incorrectly. Just hitting your thumb with an unsafe hammer. It's a shame.

They've replace it with a SawStop Cabinet Saw, complete with a 52" fence, dust collection, all the bells and whistles. Still not safe to try and crosscut between the fence and blade.

[Steven DeMars]

You will soon see many UNISAWS for sale. A gentlemen I spoke to about a week ago works as a Workmen's Compensation Adjuster.

It seems SAWSTOP has done media blitz of sorts in every publication that caters to the "RISK" industry. They are also directly contacting some of the larger insurers with their "WEENIE" Show. This is a pretty easy sell since some of the states actually in some form administer or underwrite the workmen's comp insurers in there state.

So I'm sure every cabinet shop will be receiving a call from their friendly Workmen's Compensation Agent . . .

All this was news to me until I spoke to him.

Steve

[Mike Henderson]

You will soon see many UNISAWS for sale. A gentlemen I spoke to about a week ago works as a Workmen's Compensation Adjuster.

It seems SAWSTOP has done media blitz of sorts in every publication that caters to the "RISK" industry. They are also directly contacting some of the larger insurers with their "WEENIE" Show. This is a pretty easy sell since some of the states actually in some form administer or underwrite the workmen's comp insurers in there state.

So I'm sure every cabinet shop will be receiving a call from their friendly Workmen's Compensation Agent . . .

All this was news to me until I spoke to him.

Steve
I'm not surprised by that. What does surprise me is that the other saw makers didn't see this coming and license the technology. In five or so years, I'll be surprised if commercial cabinet shops have any table saw other than one with a blade brake.

Mike

[CPeter James]

Even though the accident was caused by operator error, the company is doing CYA in case something else happens. Knowing that there is a safer saw out there and not providing it puts a company in a position to be sued, possibly even if nothing did happen, but just having a dangerous tool in the shop. It is similar to having a machine with the belt guards removed, or even with the blade guard removed. Go through a rigorous OSHA inspection if you want a real thrill. It is something that gives management nightmares.

CPeter

[Chris Tsutsui]

They could donate it to a college for a tax write off rather than scrap it.

Only 5 or so years ago I learned how to use a table saw on a 50's or 60's unisaw at Cal state fullerton.

It had no safety features and there was only one table saw so if more than one student wanted to use it they had to wait in line.

Surprisingly the teacher only had one major incident where a student cut a finger off and it was with the band saw.

If I worked there, I'd just sell the unisaw on craigslist for an easy few hundred bucks.

[Don Dorn]

If you are sitting in court one day facing a multi-million dollar suit, and paying thousands of dollars in attorney fees, you won't feel pretentious and bureaucratically ignorant. You'll feel really dumb for not following the advice of your corporate attorney.

Mike

Yes, from a legal perspective, you are correct. However it doesn't change my opinion of the corporate attitude. It sets a presidence that any item that is ever manufactured to improve on another in regard to safety, must be upgraded. What sufferes in any aspect of personal responsiblity or proper operation. While I'm sure that saw safety is part of the deal, it assumes that an employee either will not comprehend or will not comply and the company builds in a "pressure valve" so to speak. The list will be long as time progresses.

Lastly - it is strictly my opinion but "Corporate Attorney" does not equal assumed intelligence or perfect legal advise. I'm sorry if your occupation is law, as you seem to have a degree of litigious knowledge.

[Cliff Holmes]

They could donate it to a college for a tax write off rather than scrap it.

I'd be surprised if they'd take it. Our local CC was dumping their saws for SSs last spring for the same safety reasons.

[Mike Henderson]

If any of us were to go back to a factory in the early part of the industrial revolution we'd be appalled at the working conditions and the unsafe equipment. Many, many workers were seriously injured or lost their lives and they or their family received very little compensation.

Slowly, and over time, attitudes began to change and people began to believe that workers deserved a safe working environment, at least as safe as was reasonable. The meaning of "safe working conditions" have evolved over time as we've learned more and as technology has developed.

We now have a table saw available with a blade brake if the blade comes in contact with flesh. Is it now reasonable that workers should have that protection in the workplace? My guess is that over a relatively short time, the answer will be "yes, it's reasonable".

You can do all the training in the world, and people will still make mistakes. Training (and "personal responsibility") is extremely important but having a secondary safety feature can make the difference between being embarrassed by tripping the brake and a lifetime of disability.

Mike

[Doug Donnell]

You guys haven't thought of the obvious... One of the "decision makers" is an avid woodworker and has already provided the scrap dealer with a C-note and a bottle of Scotch!

Unfortunately, "taking" it off the scrap pile is stealing, since it has some value as scrap. I wouldn't risk my job over that unless I got a wink and a nod from someone in authority.

The best bet for liberating the saw from its apparent fate is working a deal independently with the scrap dealer. I would think you could get a breathtaking deal even offering him twice its scrap value, unless they understand what they have and price it as a used saw and not scrap.

Everyone is right about the liability realities. And lawyers are notorious for "Just say no" (ironically, I am married to one... hummm, maybe THAT explains.. er, nevermind). We had one at my company that I swear would have sent everyone home and locked the doors as the ultimate risk management approach. However, even our company recognized his inability to support our business and he is seeking employment elsewhere.

Hey, perhaps at your firm!

[Ray Newman]

New retrofit TS safety device??....

http://www.whirlwindtool.com/index.html (http://www.whirlwindtool.com/index.html)

[Fred Preston]

You will soon see many UNISAWS for sale. A gentlemen I spoke to about a week ago works as a Workmen's Compensation Adjuster.

It seems SAWSTOP has done media blitz of sorts in every publication that caters to the "RISK" industry. They are also directly contacting some of the larger insurers with their "WEENIE" Show. This is a pretty easy sell since some of the states actually in some form administer or underwrite the workmen's comp insurers in there state.

So I'm sure every cabinet shop will be receiving a call from their friendly Workmen's Compensation Agent . . .

All this was news to me until I spoke to him.

Steve

this doesn't surprise me at all. a while back before SS hit the market the owners of SS tried to force that technology down everyones throat by trying to get laws passed that would require this technology on all table saws. they of coarse hold the patent so in turn would reap great rewards by this legislation.It failed so now they are going to try another way. even though it is a good system I am a bit peeved at the way they are going about this and therefor will NEVER buy the product. I don't take kindly to someone trying to shove chit down my throat. Ther are better ways to market your product and increase profits.

[Tim Null]

You guys are dealing with what I do for a living.

I run a consulting firm that evaluates medical reports for worker's compensation cases. I read about all of the fingers that get cut off in industrial accidents.

The costs run in the millions for the insurance companies. Individual cases can run in the thousands for a single finger.

So doing anything that can reduce the costs of each case, or possibly eliminate a number of cases, is worth it by far.

Saw Stops are a no brainer for the company. It should reduce claims, which in turn reduce their insurance rates. Having the saws might also give them a discount if the insurance companies want to encourage their use.

[Jacob Mac]

From a corporate perspective it is a really easy decision. A claim could easily cost a company more than what they pay a janitor in several years. There is little incentive to take such a large risk for what is essentially a small outlay of money.

That being said, if a nice Unisaw was awaiting an untoward end, I would do a lot to try and save it.

[Curt Harms]

You guys are dealing with what I do for a living.

I run a consulting firm that evaluates medical reports for worker's compensation cases. I read about all of the fingers that get cut off in industrial accidents.

The costs run in the millions for the insurance companies. Individual cases can run in the thousands for a single finger.
............



Probably more than thousands if the company were a very profitable one. I knew a guy who had a law degree but didn't practice. He was a pilot and the aviation industry has had its "issues" with product liability. He said that if he were to start up an aviation related company, he'd incorporate on Monday and declare chapter 11 on Tuesday and stay chapter 11 as long as he could. He was only half kidding, You can't sue someone in bankruptcy, at least as I understand it. There was a small manufacturer which did something very similar. Joint & several liability has been a bonanza for some........

[Van Huskey]

If any of us were to go back to a factory in the early part of the industrial revolution we'd be appalled at the working conditions and the unsafe equipment. Many, many workers were seriously injured or lost their lives and they or their family received very little compensation.

Slowly, and over time, attitudes began to change and people began to believe that workers deserved a safe working environment, at least as safe as was reasonable. The meaning of "safe working conditions" have evolved over time as we've learned more and as technology has developed.

We now have a table saw available with a blade brake if the blade comes in contact with flesh. Is it now reasonable that workers should have that protection in the workplace? My guess is that over a relatively short time, the answer will be "yes, it's reasonable".

You can do all the training in the world, and people will still make mistakes. Training (and "personal responsibility") is extremely important but having a secondary safety feature can make the difference between being embarrassed by tripping the brake and a lifetime of disability.

Mike

Amen. There is no question that safety regulations can go seemingly overboard sometimes but our lives as a whole are MUCH better for them. No one likes to be told what or how to do something when they think they know how to do it but I get a chuckle out of people who "rage against the machine" which in this case has almost certainly saved a friend or family member serious injury or death.

Shame about the Uni really, but even if the reasoning was poor the decision was correct, the guy using it seems quite capable of sticking his hand in the twirlly part. As much as it pains me to say it there are a TON of places that need to pony up for a SS because of the nature of the user and environment.

PS I am not a SS disciple, I just spent SS money on a PM2000/Incra setup.

[Chip Lindley]

No doubt, the Unisaw MUST be disposed of as scrap, in accordance with accounting principles, more so than the fact it was involved in an accident. The old TS was fully depreciated years ago. Accounting dictates that it is only good for scrap value, without calling into effect the technicalities of a capital gain on the books.

So, find out who will be buying the saw for scrap, and tell them you want the saw. The scrap man buys metal based on cents per pound. Make the scrap dealer YOUR offer first! $100 should do it! I've bought lots of *scrap* stuff from a friendly dealer, after it arrived on his premises. No Uni's (sigh) but several nice motors and their electricals. He sets these things aside rather than shred or crush them. $15 each for a Baldor TEFC 1hp, and Dayton TEFC 2hp 1-ph motors ain't too baad! (that's the presumed copper value)

[Stephen Edwards]

As others have said already, you're best bet to acquire this saw, if you want it, is to deal directly with the scrap company. Decide beforehand what you're willing to pay for the saw and take cash with you.

If you know the scrap company, I'd suggest that you go ahead and contact them now.

While these discussions about liability are interesting and provoke emotional responses, understandably so, from the corporate point of view trashing the saw is a no brainer. That's just way it IS.

[Mark Maleski]

(the following is a joke)...I'd crosscut a 1x6, 2' long [on the SawStop] and have the same kick back happen. I wonder what saw they would buy after the venerable SS had a kick back too.

But it wouldn't, would it? The SawStop, and all other new cabinet saws in the U.S., come with riving knives.

Warning, this post is authored by a neander. I could be completely wrong.

Mark

[Mark Maleski]

We now have a table saw available with a blade brake if the blade comes in contact with flesh. Is it now reasonable that workers should have that protection in the workplace? My guess is that over a relatively short time, the answer will be "yes, it's reasonable".

Mike, couldn't a company provide the same level of protection by instituting a policy that all table saws be operated at all times with the blade guard attached? I suppose that'd still leave them exposed if someone failed to follow policy (and it could be shown they hadn't sufficiently enforced the policy) and had an accident.

[Myk Rian]

But it wouldn't, would it? The SawStop, and all other new cabinet saws in the U.S., come with riving knives.

Warning, this post is authored by a neander. I could be completely wrong.

Mark
It could get cocked and kick back before the stock got to the knife.

[Mike Henderson]

Mike, couldn't a company provide the same level of protection by instituting a policy that all table saws be operated at all times with the blade guard attached? I suppose that'd still leave them exposed if someone failed to follow policy (and it could be shown they hadn't sufficiently enforced the policy) and had an accident.
I'm not an attorney. But when I was employed by a large company, I became friends with the people who worked there. If I felt the SS would save one of my friends from a lifetime of disability, I'd authorize the spending of $4,000 to insure against that. Prior to SS there was nothing you could do except training, training, training, and enforcement of the training. But accidents still happened.

And that's the problem as I see it. If the blade guard fails, or the employee is tired and makes a mistake, and someone is hurt, you may have to try to justify to a jury not spending $4,000 to prevent the injury. Suppose you were on the jury and the plaintiff's attorney reminded you that if the company had spent $4,000 for a SS, instead of $300 for an improved guard, we wouldn't be in court today and his client wouldn't be injured - that the injury is the result of the company "cheaping out". How would you find?

Mike

[Van Huskey]

I'm not an attorney. But when I was employed by a large company, I became friends with the people who worked there. If I felt the SS would save one of my friends from a lifetime of disability, I'd authorize the spending of $4,000 to insure against that. Prior to SS there was nothing you could do except training, training, training, and enforcement of the training. But accidents still happened.

And that's the problem as I see it. If the blade guard fails, or the employee is tired and makes a mistake, and someone is hurt, you may have to try to justify to a jury not spending $4,000 to prevent the injury. Suppose you were on the jury and the plaintiff's attorney reminded you that if the company had spent $4,000 for a SS, instead of $300 for an improved guard, we wouldn't be in court today and his client wouldn't be injured - that the injury is the result of the company "cheaping out". How would you find?

Mike


1st paragraph I agree with

2nd paragraph in most (I will not say all) states workers compensation laws would insulate the company from a tort action (WC is a non-fault based system with a few exceptons like drug/alcohol as a contributing factor or phrases like willful and wanton on the employers behalf not simple negligence, similar in scope to what some states use as the punative damage criteria in other tort actions) Most tort actions from machine gaurding cases are angled more directly at the machine manufacturer and the employer is named more as a matter of preventing the machine manufacturer from slipping away by pointing the finger at the employer and giving the jury a comfortable "out". In the case of a TS gaurd removal accident plaintiff says "easy & cheap to make a lockout so machine will not operate without gaurd installed" def says " normal TS operation requires removal of gaurd for non-through cuts and long standing industry practice of gaurd design" P retorts "Brett Gaurd et al and Sawstop" this merry-go-round runs for a couple of days and the jury ultimately decides based on their gut (like vs dislike for the P and D). Though it is throwing out the Constitution I have long been in favor of professional jurors but that is also a mine field.

[Peter Quinn]

If my boss said he was willing to throw the two PM66's and the old SCMI TS's in a dumpster and replace each with a new SS, I'd agree to help him load the dumpster on my lunch break, or come in after work. I'd agree to drive them to the smelter myself. :D Of course throwing cabinet saws in a dumpster is very unlikely to happen where I work, and using the fence to cross cut like that is even less likely to happen. Can someone call my boss's insurance agent and let them know just how unsafe those old saws are?

I love old iron, but I love my fingers more, and being a guy that has to use these saws to make a living, I'd consider that deal a heck of an upgrade for the end users in that shop. The SS won't stop the moron in question from doing stupid things, but it is a nice saw. My guess is he cuts something off with the saw in bypass. And don't worry about that uni. It will end up in the scrap heap just like every cash for clunker trade in did. NOT.

[Michael Gibbons]

Brian, too bad the college your company's lawyers went to didn't teach common sense as a required course that must be taken first before all others...

[Van Huskey]

Brian, too bad the college your company's lawyers went to didn't teach common sense as a required course that must be taken first before all others...


OK I'll bite, despite the fact that I am pretty sure no lawyer had an actually hand or mind in this decision, though I agree they probably had a significant hand in the general policies and culture behind the choice. If they had a hand in the decision the saw would lkely not be headed out to become a Chevrolet engine block but rather quietly "warehoused" though this may be the real case and nobody below the need to know level has any idea where it is really headed.

So lets assume their attorneys 1Ls took Common Sense 101 instead of Common Law 101 what would they have done differently?

[george wilson]

Mike has it exactly right: the Co. had to do something to at least make it look like they addressed the safety issue. However,they could also be sued if they have an accident,and some lawyer can show that they didn't also provide safety training. The new machine can't always completely eliminate accidents,and the Saw Stop is the ONLY woodworking machine I am aware of that has a brake device. How about all the other machines you can get hurt on?

[Tim Null]

No, in California, Worker's Comp is no fault. You can't sue for punitive damages like in civil court. It was founded to protect the worker and also the employer from those kind of "hot coffee" lawsuits.

So a single finger amputation, which I see on a semi-regular basis, is only worth in the thousands. That is the permanent disability value, which I calculate as a rating expert, and future medical.

[Van Huskey]

No, in California, Worker's Comp is no fault. You can't sue for punitive damages like in civil court. It was founded to protect the worker and also the employer from those kind of "hot coffee" lawsuits.

So a single finger amputation, which I see on a semi-regular basis, is only worth in the thousands. That is the permanent disability value, which I calculate as a rating expert, and future medical.


Curious if you know off hand how many weeks of AWW the Cali WC regs allow for the PPD caused by a single digit amputation of the upper extremity. Many states run from about 20 weeks for the 4th finger to 70 for the thumb. For much of the South that makes a finger "worth" about 12,000 to 60,000 at the max comp rate for the majority of the states. At those numbers plus the medical end $4500 for a SS seems like a darn smart "policy" for a company and an even better deal for the WC carrier. (never mine I edited the post after taking a look at the CA WC code, you seem to covert to WPI, and adjust for FEC, occupation and age a much more complete system than many states use but too complex to give a pat answer to my hypothetical!)


By the "hot coffee lawsuit" I assume you mean old Reed Morgan's Liebeck V Micky Ds case from TX. Athough it s the poster child for punitive tort reform nobody I have every talked to that brings it up actually knows a single fact about that case. Hard to fathom a 50 cent cup of coffee could cause 3rd degree burns on 6% of ones body and 2nd degree over 16%.

The way I see this story is that most people toss out items every day based on a cosmetic flaws, functional flaws, fashion changes and some for a real or perceived hazard. Much of this "trash" would be considered "treasure" to somebody but we don't think twice about doing it. A company made a probably smart decision based on what is probably faulty logic but doubtfully based on a false fear of a tort action but just for worker safety and avoiding a comp claim. The workers got a newer safer saw to use and the company might save themselves a little coin and maybe the services of an excellent employee over the 50 year life of the SS. The wood working community lost a nice old Uni but it isn't like it was a Delage D85 or a Ferrari 250 GTO.

[Tony Bilello]

Brian

Question: Do you know for fact that the real reason no one can "rescue" the saw is because of safety reasons? It could be scuttlebutt. Sometimes employees make things up. I see it happen everyday.
Many companies have a policy that everything that gets discarded for any reason must be destroyed. Some stuff is even destroyed before it hits the salvage dumpster. Might have something to do with the possibility that employees might start deeming good stuff as scrap so they can go dumpster diving at night. Anyway, it just might be company policy that no one can have it.
As far as lawyers and lawsuits go, lawyers dont get rediculous amounts of money for frivilous lawsuits, it's the average American that sits on the jury that awards the money. BTW, I dont like lawyers.
As for the saw, maybe the kickback incident was just an excuse to upgrade to a newer saw. Afterall, it is over 50 years old.

[brian c miller]

I already have a Unisaw in the garage so for me there is not a huge need to acquire another.

I did talk to the plant manager yesterday and it is not for sale under any circumstances. Liability is the main issue, secondly IF the saw would need to be auctioned to give all employees equal opportunity to purchase.

It's sad to see a working saw get scrapped, but getting a new saw is 100% the right thing to do even if operator error caused the issue. Just look at the secondary safety devices in a car: Airbag,crumple zones, seatbelt, ABS, Traction control, blind spot warnings, you're getting sleep warning, automatic headlights & wipers... the list goes on and on.

[Michael Gibbons]

OK I'll bite, despite the fact that I am pretty sure no lawyer had an actually hand or mind in this decision, though I agree they probably had a significant hand in the general policies and culture behind the choice. If they had a hand in the decision the saw would lkely not be headed out to become a Chevrolet engine block but rather quietly "warehoused" though this may be the real case and nobody below the need to know level has any idea where it is really headed.

So lets assume their attorneys 1Ls took Common Sense 101 instead of Common Law 101 what would they have done differently? If they took Common sense 101 first they would have said "O.K., 1st, We understand that accidents DO happen and are normally caused by operator error- it's not the machines fault." 2. "To make the company, employees, insurance companies, courts and other lawyers happy we will buy the most up-to-date-idiot proof machine available and send employees to mandatory training. 3. If any employees want to bid on the old machinery, an auction will be held after work on friday. The winning bidder will sign agreement letter stating he/ she will not hold the company liable for any injuries or death that occur from further use of "MALFUNCTIONING MACHINERY".

We had a death a few years back at the plant I work at. It WAS operator error. He didn't lockout the machine. He tripped an intermittent faulty switch and the machine cycled crushing his head. The company didn't scrap out a 5 million dollar machine. We do however scrap out machinery when it outlives it's usefulness. Scrapping out the Uni for a SawStop won't stop kickback if the clown does the same thing again. It's a feel good measure for the company. I hope the old saw can ''get-lost-in-the-system" and find a new home.

[Mike Henderson]

On your $5 million machine, there would be no reason to scrap out the machine, but there might be a reason to examine the lockout mechanism to see if there's a way of preventing the same type of accident in the future. If your company is like most companies, they had an internal investigation into what happened and probably came up with a number of changes to try to prevent a similar accident in the future.

With the saw, it was cheaper and easier to replace the saw than to try to put equivalent safety features on the old one.

Regarding selling the old saw, the company is likely to only get a few hundred dollars for it, not enough to take the risk, even with a release from the buyer.

Mike

[Van Huskey]

If they took Common sense 101 first they would have said "O.K., 1st, We understand that accidents DO happen and are normally caused by operator error- it's not the machines fault." 2. "To make the company, employees, insurance companies, courts and other lawyers happy we will buy the most up-to-date-idiot proof machine available and send employees to mandatory training. 3. If any employees want to bid on the old machinery, an auction will be held after work on friday. The winning bidder will sign agreement letter stating he/ she will not hold the company liable for any injuries or death that occur from further use of "MALFUNCTIONING MACHINERY".

We had a death a few years back at the plant I work at. It WAS operator error. He didn't lockout the machine. He tripped an intermittent faulty switch and the machine cycled crushing his head. The company didn't scrap out a 5 million dollar machine. We do however scrap out machinery when it outlives it's usefulness. Scrapping out the Uni for a SawStop won't stop kickback if the clown does the same thing again. It's a feel good measure for the company. I hope the old saw can ''get-lost-in-the-system" and find a new home.


1. Attoneys would always argue operator error BUT it is a complete NON-issue here. WC law prevents the worker from bring a civil tort action so it is based on reduced comp premiums and more accident free days. Saving a company money is always common sense and the SS may well do it after depreciation and reduced premiums are factored in. The SS will not prevent the exact injury described but it may in fact save a finger or a hand in its 50 year life. Great common sense here though based on maybe faulty logic and a misunderstanding but not unlike many her show a complete misunderstanding of what attorneys do.

2. This is not an attorney decision, but a company one. But it seems you are arguing the replacement of a 50 year old machine with a new machine that is its equal or superior in operation and is safer both having a riving knife and blade gaurd isn't good common sense? If you are then again we differ I think it is excellent common sense and so will the worker that has his/her fingure saved if it happens.

3. Is by far the most flawed in my opinion. First one has to spend the money to draft the agreement letter, keep management over for the time to aucton it, spend time and effort letting people know about the auction, dealing with processing the money through accounting all for the difference between what they will get and the scrap value. These are the sorts of decisions that COST companies money not common sense.

In the end I would bet my TS that no attorney had a direct hand in this decision and from a macro-point of view it makes perfect common sense as long as one takes in the big picture.

I hate to see a functioning Uni get sent to the scrap heap over improper use, but it is a "hunk of iron" that the company long got their use not a puppy someone is sending to "live on a farm" because it is a pain. I still say it was an excellent common sense decision even if it won't prevent the exact injury described but it is a safer saw and will likely more than pay for itself with these features over its life, darn good common sense from a business point of view anyway.

[Stephen Edwards]

On your $5 million machine, there would be no reason to scrap out the machine, but there might be a reason to examine the lockout mechanism to see if there's a way of preventing the same type of accident in the future. If your company is like most companies, they had an internal investigation into what happened and probably came up with a number of changes to try to prevent a similar accident in the future.

With the saw, it was cheaper and easier to replace the saw than to try to put equivalent safety features on the old one.

Regarding selling the old saw, the company is likely to only get a few hundred dollars for it, not enough to take the risk, even with a release from the buyer.

Mike

Exactly. Furthermore,there's a huge difference between a 5 million dollar machine and an old TS.

I, too, think that it's sad to see the old saw go to the scrap heap. However, that's just the way it IS from a business point of view. They don't have an emotional attachment to the unisaw.

[Steve Mellott]

Last year, I spoke to a company that sells woodworking tools to schools and commercial organizations. Several years ago, most of their customers bought either Delta or Powermatic. Today, ALL of their customers buy SawStop because of their potential liability. If I owned a woodworking company, all my table saws would be SawStop because of the potential liability. (Disclaimer - I am a hobbyist and own a Delta.)

Steve

[Michael Gibbons]

There must be a very good reason that escapes me at the moment why the company wouldn't sell it as scrap to an employee vs a "scrap company" but I can't think of it right now. If the regular scrap company will give .15 a pound let the employee pay .20/lb. At this point, does it really matter who ends up with the Uni if it is considered scrap?

[Joe Jensen]

There must be a very good reason that escapes me at the moment why the company wouldn't sell it as scrap to an employee vs a "scrap company" but I can't think of it right now. If the regular scrap company will give .15 a pound let the employee pay .20/lb. At this point, does it really matter who ends up with the Uni if it is considered scrap?

My company quit letting employees buy or bid on scrap because they were worried employees might send something useful to scrap just to buy it later from the company. Probably some unethical jerk in the past ruined it for others down the road.

[Michael Gibbons]

On your $5 million machine, there would be no reason to scrap out the machine, but there might be a reason to examine the lockout mechanism to see if there's a way of preventing the same type of accident in the future. If your company is like most companies, they had an internal investigation into what happened and probably came up with a number of changes to try to prevent a similar accident in the future.

With the saw, it was cheaper and easier to replace the saw than to try to put equivalent safety features on the old one.

Regarding selling the old saw, the company is likely to only get a few hundred dollars for it, not enough to take the risk, even with a release from the buyer.

Mike Mike, you are exactley right! They do the investigations, OSHA is called, everyone is on pins and needles while the investigations are going on and procedures are reviewed but when it comes down to brass tacks, it's in the 98% range that it was OPERATOR ERROR. The machine was not right-and that was the reason the skilled trades guy was in the machine-to fix it-but he didn't lock out.

[Van Huskey]

My company quit letting employees buy or bid on scrap because they were worried employees might send something useful to scrap just to buy it later from the company. Probably some unethical jerk in the past ruined it for others down the road.

Exactly, that was even jockingly mentioned early in this thread.