First shocking thing: that same crew had worked on other pylons over
the prior couple of months, using the same sloppy processes.

Second shocking thing: when the issue of compensation for stuffups
like this is raised, the boss pushes back by saying this will simply
raise prices for everybody. Does he think that financial penalties are
simply another cost to be passed on to those who were the victims of
those stuffups? They are supposed to be a discouragement against doing
the same sort of thing again in the future!

<https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350429775/report-reveals-shocking-oversight-northland-pylon-collapse>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

First shocking thing: that same crew had worked on other pylons over
the prior couple of months, using the same sloppy processes.

Second shocking thing: when the issue of compensation for stuffups
like this is raised, the boss pushes back by saying this will simply
raise prices for everybody. Does he think that financial penalties are
simply another cost to be passed on to those who were the victims of
those stuffups? They are supposed to be a discouragement against doing
the same sort of thing again in the future!

<https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350429775/report-reveals-shocking-oversight-northland-pylon-collapse>

The entire episode is deplorable.
However, yes the cost of mistakes and the cost of risk is and should be passed on. It is a business expense.
Example from my own background.
Customer wants a guaranteed availability of service/delivery/repair etc with financial penaties for non achievement. That increases the price of the services and so it must.
None of which absolves the supplier of the requirement to perform safely, and according to best practice.
So, sorry but the customer always pays one way or another.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-09-26, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

First shocking thing: that same crew had worked on other pylons over
the prior couple of months, using the same sloppy processes.

Second shocking thing: when the issue of compensation for stuffups
like this is raised, the boss pushes back by saying this will simply
raise prices for everybody. Does he think that financial penalties are >>simply another cost to be passed on to those who were the victims of
those stuffups? They are supposed to be a discouragement against doing
the same sort of thing again in the future!

<https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350429775/report-reveals-shocking-oversight-northland-pylon-collapse>

The entire episode is deplorable.
However, yes the cost of mistakes and the cost of risk is and should be passed
on. It is a business expense.
Example from my own background.
Customer wants a guaranteed availability of service/delivery/repair etc with financial penaties for non achievement. That increases the price of the services and so it must.
None of which absolves the supplier of the requirement to perform safely, and according to best practice.
So, sorry but the customer always pays one way or another.

As it exists the the customer has paid the price of have the power
disrupted. Rising power prices caused by the fine may add insult to injury.

What should be happening is that the Sub-contractor should be fired and Transpower find someone else who can do the task. Maybe not the easyist of tasks but this would send the message to the industry that the customer is
not going to pay for your incompentance.

At the end of the day it is the customer which needs to fix the issue by demanding on mass that as we can not vote with our feet the customers demand
a change in culture.

Having some more auditing of the workers and the procedures would be
helpful.

Remember that Japanese train driver who caused the train to leave the
station some 40 seconds early. He had scron thrown upon him for doing the unthinkable. A very large remorseful was offered by the train drive.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 26 Sep 2024 01:54:27 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

On 2024-09-26, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

First shocking thing: that same crew had worked on other pylons over
the prior couple of months, using the same sloppy processes.

Second shocking thing: when the issue of compensation for stuffups
like this is raised, the boss pushes back by saying this will simply >>>raise prices for everybody. Does he think that financial penalties are >>>simply another cost to be passed on to those who were the victims of >>>those stuffups? They are supposed to be a discouragement against doing >>>the same sort of thing again in the future!

<https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350429775/report-reveals-shocking-oversight-northland-pylon-collapse>

The entire episode is deplorable.
However, yes the cost of mistakes and the cost of risk is and should be passed
on. It is a business expense.
Example from my own background.
Customer wants a guaranteed availability of service/delivery/repair etc with >> financial penaties for non achievement. That increases the price of the
services and so it must.
None of which absolves the supplier of the requirement to perform safely, and
according to best practice.
So, sorry but the customer always pays one way or another.

As it exists the the customer has paid the price of have the power
disrupted. Rising power prices caused by the fine may add insult to injury. That depends on how the power prices are adjusted. If a flat increase

to meet the cost is applied to charges otherwise payable across all of
New Zealand, it may be only marginally noticeable compared with the
normal price escalation for each of the suppliers that deliver
increasing profits to generator shareholders - it may even give an
excuse for a lightly bigger increase than is needed.

Estimating the actual loss by businesses is not a trivial exercise
either . . .

What should be happening is that the Sub-contractor should be fired and >Transpower find someone else who can do the task. Maybe not the easyist of >tasks but this would send the message to the industry that the customer is >not going to pay for your incompentance.

At the end of the day it is the customer which needs to fix the issue by >demanding on mass that as we can not vote with our feet the customers demand >a change in culture.

Having some more auditing of the workers and the procedures would be
helpful.

Remember that Japanese train driver who caused the train to leave the
station some 40 seconds early. He had scron thrown upon him for doing the >unthinkable. A very large remorseful was offered by the train drive.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 22:21:35 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

First shocking thing: that same crew had worked on other pylons over
the prior couple of months, using the same sloppy processes.

Not shocking if you read my posting of 25th-June where I described
this. A mere 4 months ago.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)