Having people sign a
release without actually conducting training first doesn't do much for
safety, nor for liability I'd wager when the reasonable, recognized best practice is to control access and train users, then verify understanding and competence, then sign documentation of the training that includes language about the trainee agreeing to follow that training in order to be authorized to use the machines. Reinforce with signage, supervision and re-training at regular intervals. Your physical plant people saw signs of a dangerous work practice and took perhaps a drastic step to curb it, but if you're only considering ways to satisfy/trick them into giving the tool back then you're going about it the wrong way. I feel your pain - it's a tough situation to be in when you have work to do and don't have the support you need to improve
safety and security - but the way to get what you want is to identify the people who have the
power to help you and blow them away with your understanding of the
safety and liability problems and your plans to solve them, not just
shift liability to the users. Concentrate on how to legitimately keep people from getting hurt and then lots of liability stuff tends to automatically be taken care of.
I'm assuming that if you had the resources you needed, you would be in favor of improving
safety rather than covering up or passing off the problems. I've had good results achieving this in educational settings, and perhaps you can too.
If employees are using the tools then you have explicit "shall" and "must" language from
OSHA regarding tool guards - 1910.212 or 213?
OSHA's woodworking tool training language uses more "should" language in my recollection - not as strong, but still there, and there is again explicit "shall" and "must" language requiring hazard assessments and
PPE training. That's a very strong starting place for convincing your money people to get behind you.
Looking beyond employee users, find out who handles insurance at the college, explain the state of things, and ask them to follow up with the insurance provider who will definitely take issue with some things and require fixes to maintain coverage. Explain the fixes in
advance so they can agree to them rather than make up their own, because the easiest fix for them to make up is to just get rid of the tools.
These are all politically sensitive things - it's important to approach with an attitude that disarms people who may feel defensive, while also being crystal
clear about how
safety, liability, and the successful operations of the institution are being affected. Bring some easy and cheap solutions to the table right away:
- I've never met a tool that can't be locked out one way or another. It isn't expensive. Products exist for older tools that don't come with the feature already, or for tools with annoying little plastic bits that get lost when you pull them out of the
switch. I like things with padlocks. Do that, and then start the harder discussion about who gets the keys and who supervises work.
- If employees are using these tools, a hazard assessment and training program is required. Not having one can get the institution in big trouble. Figure out who will do the training and keep the records. This too is not very expensive, but takes some time to get up and running. Offer to do it.
- Reach a consensus about what non-employees should be allowed to access. This might be different for students versus outside users, or maybe not. When our community theater uses my shop they get the walls, floor and ceiling, and that's it. They have to bring their own tools and even step ladders because I have an ever-longer list of experience-based reasons to not let them touch mine. I also supervise their residency, and when I see an unsafe work practice I make them stop and correct it. If they don't, they get booted out right away. I bet your institution, like mine, doesn't want a headline to read "Mother of Three Dies in Eastern Wyoming College Machine Shop" regardless of who is at fault. The degree of access and supervision may be variable from place to place, but the motivation for the rules ought to be pretty universal.
- If there's revenue generation at stake from rentals, explain that you're not trying to muck that up but rather position the college to maintain and improve this asset they have. If someone gets killed in their shop that's going to chill the heck out of their revenue stream while the headlines and investigations and lawsuits are playing out. If they improve security and training in the facility, they can actually
enable more use than before. Things won't get lost and broken. Rental clients will behave themselves better and make less work for staff.
And if you're the TD for the space, why aren't you the one administering
safety programs within? Why is the physical plant butting in? It sounds like you're throwing up your hands in exasperation, and I bet you've got good reasons to, but someone has to take charge and it shouldn't be trades guys who don't have a clue about theater work. If you demonstrate not just your competence but also your unique understanding of this particular facility and its activities then you ought to be allowed to take
your saw back and impose some order to keep people and property safe in
your facility. Easier said than done, but again I've had lots of success building that trust from the
ground up and you could too. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your position at the college, but it sure sounds like you should be the one making the rules.