I would not have believed it, had it not been in the news. Of course, you can believe anything you read in the news. But, whether you believe it or not, the press reports there were two people recently identified as not having a cell phone. In the twenty-first century, I really thought everyone over the age of two had a pocket computer (yes, you can also make a phone call with these little computers).
The first story comes from KCRA channel 3, and introduces us to Monica Laso. She was skiing with her friends in Tahoe. In fairness, Tahoe is not heaven. But in reality, it is pretty darn close. Ms. Laso picked a tremendous location for a ski outing. The food, the scenery, the people, all are outstanding. Ms. Laso rode the gondola up the hill and concluded that she was too tired after all. So instead of skiing back down (some outlets have said snowboard, tom a toe, tom ah toe), she got back on the gondola to ride back down. She says that an employee on the slopes knew of her decision.
Well, "two minutes later," the gondola system shut down for the night. And there sat Ms. Laso hanging from a cable in a little glass room. In the dark, in the cold, she found herself stranded. And, much like the intrepid Gilligan of old, she found herself with:
"No phone, no lights, no motor car, Not a single luxury, Like Robinson Crusoe, It's primitive as can be"
As I said, I thought everyone had a cell phone. But, with no light to send a signal and no phone to call for help, Ms. Laso spent the night screaming at the slope workers below her. About 15 hours later, the slope reopened, the lift restarted, and she was conveyed safely to the foot of the hill. She had been missed by friends, reported as missing, and literally "left hanging." She was evaluated and apparently declined medical care. Hoarse, and likely exhausted, but safe.
The company that operates the gondola seems to feel something went wrong. in this situation. Might there be sensors in such devices to detect people?
Around the same date, 200 miles away in Alameda County, California, another woman had an adventure, according to Daily Express. She too was stranded "for 15 hours." She did not walk out like Ms. Laso, but was "hoist(ed) . . to safety" by helicopter after being "stranded on the bottom of her upturned car." She had "attempted to drive across a flooded road." The water was more than she expected, her car overturned, and she was lucky to both get out and find refuge on the overturned car.
The news reports that "the unnamed woman underestimated how deep the water was." She took a risk, and "when her car turned over," she lost her cell phone in the excitement. Thus, there she found herself.
There are those out there (Statler and Waldorf) complaining this is a blog about workers' compensation. That is true. And the foundation of workers' compensation is work. Fundamental to work, and the avoidance of workers' compensation, is safety. There are distinctions between the two stories, though they also can be viewed in terms of both inference and corollary.
First, how did the two get in danger? One made a sound judgment (too tired to ski) and sought a safe path out. She did so with the help of local officials (the company staff). Despite those sound actions and decisions, she was left stranded. The second woman knowingly drove into moving water on a flooded road ("Danger, Will Robinson"; Lost in Space, 1965). Everyone knows you do not drive into moving water, and make assumptions about roads you cannot see. Those poor decisions resulted in her stranding. In either instance decisions have consequences. The time to think those through is before the consequences.
But, this reminds us that in the workplace it does not matter. Whether the employee makes a sound decision or a poor one, workplace injuries are usually covered. The idea of fault is largely avoided (unless the employer's fault is beyond a certain pale, is "nearly intentional," in which case civil damages in tort may be available).
Second, how did they get out? Ms. Laso simply waited it out. She was lucky that the slopes opened the next day. The motorist had to be winched out, after someone happened to, luckily, spot her. Unlike either lady, the camper who spotted the woman on the car had a cell phone. This reminds us that some challenges can be more easily extricated than others, but you seldom get to choose. When you make decisions, do you contemplate the potential for unexpected or untoward outcomes? Do you consider your flexibility, adaptability, and resiliency?
And what of our ability to be the solution. In these stories were opportunities for others to positively impact the one in need. The slope workers might well have looked up. Or the one that put her on the gondola might have called the base end and let them know of a passenger. How did those employees from the top of the slope get to the bottom after their shift? Like the camper with the cell phone in the second story, any number of people might have aided Ms. Laso.
Third, what about the modern convenience of a cell phone? Well, the lady on the car had hers but lost it in the midst of the car turning over. Even if she had kept it, the odds are the water would have disabled it as she swam out of the car. But Ms. Laso is the one person in America who does not have a cell phone (or she made a conscious decision not to carry it or forgot it that night). In any of these, we see that technology is grand, But, we also see that technology can fail us through inadvertence, incidence, or mistake. Technology is great, but it is no more infallible than we are. As AI and robotics progress, we have to remember that our brains and foresight will still be required for workplace safety.
In the end, the best safety protections we have are likely human. What if Ms. Laso's friends had committed to meet her at the bottom of the ski run after that run? Upon their arrival, they would have found (1) no Ms. Laso, and (2) an immobile lift. They might have raised a louder and more immediate missing person complaint right then. What if the car driver had noted the recent weather, and looped in a friend or family with a call? What if someone had known then of a potential for issue, and to anticipate a follow-up ("I arrived safely"). In either event, a tough situation might have been much shorter if others had been informed. Is it any different when difficult tasks are engaged at work?
In the end, despite all we might do with technology, it is the human element that will most effectively prevent accidents and injuries. There is value in both looking out for the coworker and in being willing to facilitate your coworker looking out for you. And our own awareness about our personal safety is critical. The more that we focus on and prioritize our personal safety, the more likely accidents and injuries will be avoided. Through decreased accident frequency, we can best minimize the need for and impact of workers' compensation.
