The first steel mill I worked for, the test requirements were more of a suggestion than a rigid specification. I, a trained and skilled engineer with the capacity to make informed decisions, had to run all rejections by my boss who would tell me “it’s close enough” even if it wasn’t. Sometimes it bit us in the ass with warranty failures, but the warranties were probably cheaper than internal rejections (and what is brand perception worth?).
My second steel mill job, I was the one making the rejection decisions. I did the hard thing and rejected our failures but I also troubleshot them to prevent recurrence, making our product and capability better over time.
It very much matters who you buy your steel from; two mills can have vastly different performance for the same products based on how they handle these situations.
I’m curious: is this a major lawsuit waiting to happen, or is the mill somehow protected from that?
I’m picturing a situation where bad steel is provided, used by the purchaser, and later the product they put the steel in fails, causing a serious accident, death, or other severe issue. does the mill’s responsibility somehow end at warranty replacement or have they created a bigger liability for themselves?
A lot of companies seems to do that a lot, cut corners on the quality a little bit, push out the extra reserve capacity, etc. Then when a complaint occurs y’all quality engineers get the short end of the stick. What doesn’t cost the company costs us more time, effort, mental and physical health.
The first steel mill I worked for, the test requirements were more of a suggestion than a rigid specification. I, a trained and skilled engineer with the capacity to make informed decisions, had to run all rejections by my boss who would tell me “it’s close enough” even if it wasn’t. Sometimes it bit us in the ass with warranty failures, but the warranties were probably cheaper than internal rejections (and what is brand perception worth?).
My second steel mill job, I was the one making the rejection decisions. I did the hard thing and rejected our failures but I also troubleshot them to prevent recurrence, making our product and capability better over time.
It very much matters who you buy your steel from; two mills can have vastly different performance for the same products based on how they handle these situations.
I’m curious: is this a major lawsuit waiting to happen, or is the mill somehow protected from that?
I’m picturing a situation where bad steel is provided, used by the purchaser, and later the product they put the steel in fails, causing a serious accident, death, or other severe issue. does the mill’s responsibility somehow end at warranty replacement or have they created a bigger liability for themselves?
A lot of companies seems to do that a lot, cut corners on the quality a little bit, push out the extra reserve capacity, etc. Then when a complaint occurs y’all quality engineers get the short end of the stick. What doesn’t cost the company costs us more time, effort, mental and physical health.
Was it CMC Arkansas? Cuz boy did we get some steaming shit from them.
deleted by creator