firm supervision at the Coin Op Car Wash - Employees, Risks, Procedures, safety

Business supervision isn't just about shuffling paper work in the office, and a good business employer must motivate the team, see that the procedures are followed, worry about safety, and about risk. You see, a business employer must run a tight ship, and cannot allow for expensive mistakes to cause accidents, claims, or cut into the behalf margins. This is serious stuff, and yet so many managers fail, they cut corners, and it could lead to catastrophe.

For a case study let's look at an example of poor supervision and smart front-line laborer reasoning shall we? You see, not long ago, I received a demand about something that had occurred at a car wash, the coin-op type from an laborer who was chastised by his employer even though he did the right thing. Here is the story;

3000 Psi

"I just started working at a gas center self serve car wash and a hose broke the other day, it was rated at 3000 psi. My employer wanted me to replace it, any way the only hoses they had on hand were hoses for the scrub brushes which are rated at 180 psi. So I refused, reasoning that if my math was in any place close to correct, it would be a ridiculous to put a hose underrated by 2800 psi on the pressure wash system."

So, what we have here is a employer telling an laborer to do something unsafe, then when the laborer refused, he was reprimanded. Hmm? That's a leadership failure if I ever saw one. But was it insubordination on the laborer side of things? Well, if the employer knew otherwise, he could have explained it to the employee, but apparently it was just a bad judgment call by the manager, why I don't know?

Maybe there was an inspection that day from their corporate office, and the employer wanted to appear to have everything in working order? Who knows, but it's a real question you see. Let's supplementary dive into this issue, since I know a thing or two about car washes having founded the Car Wash Guys franchise company. My reasoning on this is:

"I'd have done the same thing unless, he just used a 3000 psi hose last time because that's all it had, but the mechanism or law only required 130 psi let us say, thus leaving fullness of security factor."

The laborer stated that; "it was a the pressure wash law and the five other bays all have 3000 psi hoses, so I will assume I did the right thing."

Question is did he, did the laborer do the right thing and was the employer absolutely wrong in this case. Yes, I believe so, and I supplementary stated; "yes, I agree - and most coin-ops control at in the middle of 800 to 1500 psi, so a particular steel braided 3,000 psi makes the most sense for security issues, giving a 100% security factor, I can live with that."

Okay so, the idea of putting on a 180 psi pressure hose on a law that operates at let's say 1200 psi (average in the industry) is utterly ridiculous in this case, and could have potentially caused injury to a buyer and most likely immediate burst as soon as person let off the trigger nozzle or got it kinked on a tire. The 180 psi hoses I know about in that venue are those used for extra-add-ons like tire dressings and soaps, but those types of hoses shouldn't be used in high-pressure systems.

Therefore, I would like to show this as an example of piss-poor management, and it has no place in business, military, government, or engineering. It also shows how cutting corners causes more risk, and likelihood of future challenges to behalf margins. So, please reconsider all this.

firm supervision at the Coin Op Car Wash - Employees, Risks, Procedures, safety

Friends Link : Motorcycle Store video games Store