Even Ken Jennings Can Be Replaced By a Machine

In my last column, I touched on automation as a reason for improved workplace safety.  Perhaps we should revisit automation as a job killer.  This is not new.  The most famous automation story is the Luddite Revolt of 1811 when English weavers set about to destroy newly-invented looms run by Jacquard’s punched card system.

Eli Whitney introduced the cotton gin in 1794.  Whereas Jacquard’s machine replaced highly-skilled workers, Whitney’s machine replaced unskilled labor.  And further, the cotton ginning machine did more to guarantee consistent quality than increase production.  Hence, there was no revolt in America’s cotton belt.

Automation, nevertheless, continues its march.  We accept it because it works.

When I visited the T. L. Smith factory in Milwaukee in the late 1970s, I expected to see machinists standing at their lathes turning out parts for Telsmith rock crushers.  I always admired machinists and their ability to hone steel.  But on that day in Milwaukee, the machinists were sitting in lawn chairs, reading the paper and drinking coffee.  The machine tools were made by Cincinnati Milacron and, like Jacquard’s loom, were operated by a punched tape drive.

Fixed machines performing repetitive tasks are the easiest machines to automate.  Machines that move in space and time present much more of a challenge.  But the advent of global positioning satellites has made that task less difficult.

In the last few years, highway contractors have been fitting bulldozers with GPS receivers and computers.  The highway construction plans are digitized in three dimensions and loaded into the onboard computer.  The GPS controls tell the computer where the bulldozer is on the X and Y axes.  A laser reference light provides the elevation reference (Z axis).

Studies indicate that computer-controlled bulldozers are up to 50% more efficient and use some 40% less fuel than their human-operated peers.  The savings are obvious.  Two bulldozers do the work of three; each bulldozer uses 30 gallons less fuel per shift.

Companies like Caterpillar are now designing bulldozers that will be totally operated by other machines.   The bulldozer of the future won’t require an OSHA-approved, rollover-proof, soundproofed and air-conditioned operators cab.

The automated bulldozer always knows where it is in space, and it does not rely on a survey crew to set grade stakes as reminders.  So the need of the surveyor has diminished.  But surveying work has already diminished for another reason—the work of a four-man survey crew 30 years ago is now done by one man with an electronic instrument.

Machinists.  Bulldozer operators.  Surveyors.  These are just three good-paying occupations that have to compete with machines.

We have the technology to replace air traffic controllers.  Unfortunately, we will tolerate sleeping Luddites until an air disaster forces our government to have the will to do so.

When Boeing and Airbus began designing aircraft with seats for two pilots, a joke circulated around the industry.  It went: The new planes are so sophisticated that the cockpit only needs two seats—one for the pilot and one for a dog.  The pilot’s job is to feed the dog.  The dog’s job is to bite the pilot if he reaches for the controls.

We’ll never see this happen because we think all pilots are like “Sully” Sullenberger.  But the point of the joke remains.

Now that human medical scans are digitized, why do we need a radiologist to read the image?  We don’t.  The computer can read the image as soon as it is taken.  The computer can see pixels that the human eye cannot.

Is there a limit to replacing humans with machines?

In February, the game show Jeopardy staged a contest pitting an IBM computer vs. the two biggest Jeopardy winners on record.  The computer won.

Impressively.

Many faithful fans derided the computer as having an unfair edge—it could beep the beeper faster than a human.  Well, so what?

Others derided the computer by saying that Jeopardy was essentially a memory test, and that a computer could memorize everything in print.  Well, so what?

Jeopardy is a trivia test, not a simple memory exam.   Remembering trivial facts is a very human pursuit.  Programmed by humans to win a human game show, the computer displayed a degree of human intuition.

Is this not the same underlying concept as programming the Jacquard loom’s punched cards to weave patterns that are pleasing to the eye?

Machines will only become smarter.  Machines will take away more human occupations.  So what will humans of the future do for work?

John Henry (and Ken Jennings), we feel your pain.

How Many Ladders Does it Take to Keep a Workplace Safe?

April 28 marks the 40th anniversary of OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. I was never convinced that the nation needed OSHA.

In 1971, I attended a seminar to learn how the new OSHA law applied to highway construction. The first topic discussed was the chapter of regulations on trenches. We learned that any excavated trench 3 feet deep or deeper required escape ladders spaced every 25 feet.

If a 3-foot-deep trench collapses, the angle of repose of the fallen earth will limit the depth of the dirt and rock in the center of the trench to a foot or less. In a trench that is 4 feet wide or wider, there would be no dirt in the center. Regardless, escape ladders were required.

This “3 foot rule” brought laughter. Well, the men with calloused hands laughed very hard. Those with clean fingernails just giggled nervously but knew not why.

The instructor then directed us to the chapter on ladders. There was page after page of regulations on how to build a ladder. The key language here was that ladders must be 6 feet long or longer.

A 4-year-old child who has ridden the playground teeter-totter knows about fulcrums, but not the architects of OSHA. With this revelation, the laughter was over. It had become crystal clear that the OSHA rules had been written and approved by desk jockeys with no work experience and no common sense.

OSHA required trucks and heavy equipment to have back-up alarms. Every time the machine backed up, the alarm beeped to warn everyone.

Good idea in conference room theory. Not always so good in practice. In a congested area like a highway cut, with three vehicles backing up at the same time (a common event), the alarms confuse everyone. The alarms echo off the walls of a cut, the same as they would in a canyon.

I never have been in favor of back-up alarms. For one thing, back-up alarms lull you into a false sense of security. If the alarm fails to work, and that does happen, you may get run over while waiting to hear a horn beep. When one works around heavy equipment, staying alert is the only safe option.

At the 1971 seminar, we also reviewed the chapter on fire extinguishers. Never have I read a document so vague and so confusing. The only conclusion I could draw was for a business to buy a lot of fire extinguishers and hope they had enough of them when OSHA showed up.

Because OSHA required so many fire extinguishers in the workplace, the agency must have thought that, in case of fire, the workers would play hero, grab fire extinguishers and fight the fire until they were overcome by smoke. I thought it was counter-productive for a safety agency to expect everyday workers to fight fires.

Before OSHA, few fire extinguishers were sold, and the sellers were relegated to peddler status. After OSHA, fire extinguisher peddlers became very successful businessmen.

In February, a congressional committee called OSHA to task for being a job killer. Assistant Labor Secretary David Michaels defended OSHA by saying: “…there is clear evidence that OSHA’s commonsense regulations have made working conditions in this country today far safer than 40 years ago …, while at the same time protecting American jobs.”

Then he went purple, claiming that “OSHA standards … drive technological innovation, making industries more competitive.”

As proof, OSHA reverts to statistics. They cite that workplace injuries per 100 workers have dropped dramatically since 1972. This is a fool’s errand, comparing the workplace of 1972 to the current workplace.

The accident rates fell because we either exported the dirty, dangerous jobs overseas or replaced domestic workers with automated, robotic machinery. For example, comparing the American auto plant of 1972 with today’s plant is like comparing apples to kumquats. (Credit Japan, not OSHA.)

Not just manufacturing has been automated. Computers answer telephones; computers operate other machines. ATMs have replaced thousands of bank tellers. We explore Mars with a robot. And so on.

Injury lawsuits have done more to improve workplace safety than anything OSHA has done. The Mandolidis decision in 1978 alone sent a message to companies to either automate the equipment, export the dangerous jobs or be sued out of existence.

Forty years of OSHA rules notwithstanding, humans are as accident-prone as ever. The demands of the marketplace and resulting advances in technology have made jobsites safer.

The government is broke. OSHA is a luxury we cannot afford.

Happy birthday, OSHA.

Double check your fire extinguishers before blowing out the candles.