>
> British organizations do not have to follow a US fire standard, but yes,
> they should have one that meets the requirements of British structures.
I understand it's BS 5454
As for the attitude of the Iron Mountain representatives..... That is
> puzzling. They make their money by telling us that they will be
> performing the contracted services, but when an incident happens, they
> try to put us in the wrong. What is wrong with this picture?
And I found this a bit iron(ic)
http://ironmountain.com/news/2006/impr06072006.asp
An employee's attitude will most often follow the attitudes of the
> employer. That is to say, if an employer is off-handed about safety,
> then the employees will have the same attitude.
I'm not suggesting they were off-handed about safety, as they did an
excellent job of getting their employees out of the facility... it's risk
management and protection that I think someone fell down on.
And I am not singling out just Iron Mountain, I am talking about any
> business. They are there to make the largest profit possible. That
> means charging the most for the least effort. Whatever happened to
> pride of accomplishment and good value for money spent?
Who was talking about Iron Mountain? I'm sorry... I was just speaking about
COMMERCIAL SERVICE PROVIDERS when I made my comments, not necessarily
directing them at any one company. Now, if it happens there is a certain
company who is in the middle of a couple of incidents at the present time,
then I guess my comments could apply to them... but, as I said in my
original comment a "certain vendor", or in the spirit of the Harry Potter
series of novels "he who shall remain nameless".
One of the other comments from a newspaper (and yes, I do understand that
they can be taken out of context and/or misrepresented) was that the owner
of the facility felt that they had adequate insurance.
Well, I'd like to remind folks of the fire in West Pittston, PA in another
commercial storage facility a couple of years ago, where two plaintiffs were
awarded judgements in excess of $20M each because the jury found the
facility was inadequately protected and the sprinkler system, even though it
should have worked as designed, was not designed to protect the facility in
the type of an incident that could potentially take place. This was a case
of human error, where one portion of the system was not turned on... but
even if it had been, the result may have been the same.
This vendor also had the statement in their contracts that the clients would
be provided a reimbursement of $1 per box in the event of a loss,
essentially enough to replace the box itself, but not nearly the cost of
blank paper to fill it. much less the replacement cost of the value of the
information assets OR what they had paid to store them over the duration of
their contract prior to them being destroyed. The judgement was based on
data supplied by two client of what it would cost for them to regenerate the
records from other sources, or to redo the research to produce the documents
again.
And no one is suggesting that this will happen here, or should happen here,
or that there is any evidence to suggest the system was inadequate or failed
to function as designed, it's just to point out what happened in ANOTHER
CASE of a similar incident.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > I always find it "interesting" how a certain vendor
> > characterizes the losses
> > of their clients and what they feel their personal
> > responsibility is related
> > to those losses.
>
--
Larry Medina
Danville, CA
RIM Professional since 1972
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
|
