-1

This question has been closed with the ever-popular

"Questions seeking advice on company-specific regulations, agreements, or policies should be directed to your manager or HR department. Questions that address only a specific company or position are of limited use to future visitors. Questions seeking legal advice should be directed to legal professionals. For more information, click here."

This close reason makes no sense, because:

  • This isn't company-specific; any company could have pollution or environmental problems of this sort. I myself have worked at one that was engaging in asbestos removal.
  • The OP isn't asking for legal advice. He/she closed with this:

Has anyone had this kind of problem and can you suggest any way to proceed to get some of these issues fixed?

(Legal advice could be offered nonetheless...but one can say that of any question on this site.)

The question should be reopened.

2

I am not one of the close voters, but here's my take.

  1. Just because a company wasn't identified by name doesn't mean the question isn't company-specific. It's obvious that the OP of the linked question is speaking about his current employer, making it a company-specific question.

  2. The OP isn't seeking legal advice, but he/she is seeking for a confirmation of ISO compliance. Like legal advice, that's something that can only be provided by experts. Personally, I consider questions about compliance with ISO (or any other standard for business operation) to be out of scope for the site.

  3. The OP specifically stated a union was involved, that does mean he's seeking legal advice even if he didn't specifically ask for it.

Frankly, from the perspective of the question having only limited use to future visitors, this question probably deserved closure. I'm impressed that any operating business would choose to be in a building with exposed asbestos. Had the OP asked, "we're in a building with exposed asbestos and my company won't do anything about it, what are my options?" the question should be open. But he's specifically asking, about ISO compliance.

  • 1
    1. Everybody works somewhere. That makes any question about work company-specific. 2. The question wasn't only about ISO compliance. It makes no sense to close the whole question due to a small part of it. The rest can be answered normally (and was). 3. I guess you'd have to ask the OP. But again, it's possible to answer the fundamental issue ("Has anyone had this kind of problem and can you suggest any way to proceed to get some of these issues fixed?") without getting hung up on the union or ISO issues. – user1602 Feb 21 '19 at 9:56
  • However, I edited the question to take out the union and ISO stuff, so please have a look and see whether it alleviates those issues. – user1602 Feb 21 '19 at 10:03
  • 1
    The edited question is more than on topic. The original was as well. Just because something is outside the realm of IT doesn't make it off topic. – Richard Says Reinstate Monica Feb 21 '19 at 14:11
  • @JBH It sounds like you're saying no one should ever edit any question on the site. That can't be what you mean, can it? – user1602 Feb 21 '19 at 15:59
  • 1
    @JBH please remember the "be nice" rule here. If you disagree with an edit, flag it for a moderator, do not be rude to the person doing the edit. – Richard Says Reinstate Monica Feb 21 '19 at 17:42
  • 1
    Also, the question has been reopened thanks to this good edit. It did not change the intent and you don't need an OP's permission to edit. @Kyralessa made a good faith edit that made the question more generic, and thus answerable. – Richard Says Reinstate Monica Feb 21 '19 at 17:51
  • 2
    @RichardU, um, wait a minute. The help center specifically states that editing should "clarify the meaning of the post (without changing that meaning)." By removing the ISO reference in the question, Kyralessa changed the question's meaning. – JBH Feb 21 '19 at 18:52
  • 3
    Kyralessa, @RichardU, this post and another have led me to ask this question about the site's editing policy. Your input would be appreciated. – JBH Feb 21 '19 at 19:38
0

Agreed and voted to reopen.

This is CLEARLY answerable and not company specific. Older buildings, and unsafe working conditions in the USA are covered by EPA, OSHA, and in the case of government employees POSHA.

This seems to me to be yet another case of "IT'S NOT AN IT QUESTION! KILL IT!!!"

You must log in to answer this question.