In the Spring 2012 IVES Update Newsletter we share our feature article titled “Everything Happens for a Reason”, an article about the Safety Center Inc & IVES partnership, followed by a notice that our newsletter will be going to an e-version only, a What’s Wrong With This? photo, and an Answer to Last Month’s, an Incident Report on a front-end loader and an Ask Bob question. Enjoy!
Everything Happens for a Reason
What goes around comes around. If you do what you’ve always done, you’ll get what you’ve always got. You get out what you put in. Anything worth doing is worth doing right. A job done well is a job well done.
Chances are you have heard or perhaps spoken one or all of these familiar phrases at some point in your life. They are all very old cliches and they got that way by being correct. The truth has a remarkable propensity for remaining useful over time, doesn’t it? Another reason for the longevity of truthful phrases like these is that they are applicable over the entire range of human endeavor, and training is no exception.
Throughout my career as a trainer, I have tried to live the philosophy implied in the wisdom of the aforementioned phrases. This has produced a lot of very good results for me in that I believe the trainees I have worked with received the benefits of my desire and dedication to do things right. I have never subscribed to the theory that a trainer needs to go ‘above and beyond’ to get things done. Although such a trait is admirable, I feel that when a trainer does whatever is required to help a trainee or facilitate a need, it is simply business as usual and not an ‘extra’ effort regardless of the time or the tasks involved.
Certainly, this type of approach is not without limits. There are always those occasions that, despite our best efforts, do not yield the desired results. Personally, I have always had a tough time with those but my disappointment is always based strictly on the result, never my effort.
The reason I am pointing all this out is not to toot my own horn. I am hoping that as you read this you are relating to if not sharing the desire to do things right to the best of your ability. I have never understood companies or individuals that choose to knowingly sacrifice the quality of a training program in favor of saving time or some other consideration. Nor have I been able to understand why some companies choose not to support training programs with ongoing supervision and corrective measures afterward. It seems incomprehensible to me that a company would dispense all of the resources necessary to deliver meaningful training and then abandon the process at its most critical juncture.
To expand on this, allow me to tell you about a time when I was asked to audit the training and performance of operators at a company that claimed to be doing things properly yet was experiencing what they thought were an excessive amount of mobile equipment-related incidents. The first red flag went up shortly after my arrival on site. I was scheduled to meet with the Production Manger, Safety Director and one of the Equipment Trainers to discuss things before starting the audit. I was informed that the Production Manager and the Trainer would be unable to attend the meeting as they were “too busy.” Although the Safety Director seemed to hold safety in high regard, through our brief discussion it was clear to me that she was not only unaware of exactly why I was there but completely preoccupied with other issues that were constantly streaming to her through her cell phone; another red flag. Next, she accompanied me to a small office where I was to undergo a computer based safety orientation that all outside contractors were required to take. However, as I tried to navigate my way through the program it was not cooperating with me or the computer techs that tried to repair it. I was then given a written test and escorted to the plant to start the audit. I never did find out if I passed that test. My escort (I was not introduced) was briefed by the Safety Director on the reason for my presence (he’s conducting a safety inspection) and asked to get me across the yard and to the main building, which he did, then promptly disappeared. More red flags.
During the course of the audit, I noted many, many things but in the interest of brevity, I will skip to a summary of some of the main points contained in the report and some of the related conclusions.
- The absence of the Production Manager and Equipment Trainer at the scheduled pre-audit meeting indicates that they perceived it as trivial and/or too burdensome to add to their daily tasks. Although no one is denying how busy these people were, it seems counterproductive to invite a consultant on site and then fail to place the appropriate priority on utilizing the service.
- The inability of the Safety Director to provide any meaningful particulars on the objective of the audit is disturbing in that it indicates a lack of communication of important safety concerns with the safety and health department.
- Being left un-escorted while touring he plant or briefed on plant pedestrian procedures indicates that either, a) no plant pedestrian procedures are in place or, b) the procedures were in place but not communicated, neither of which is desirable.
- In separate discussion with 4 operators who claimed to be trained and experienced, most were unable to correctly answer 3 basic equipment safety-related questions that any properly trained operator should and none were able to provide details on any site specific policies related to their operational duties. This indicates that either no training is taking place, or the training is inadequate.
- In a discussion with one Supervisor, he told me that he did not know what was taught in the operator training classes. He went on to say that even though there were approximately 6 equipment operators in his department, he did not feel he needed to know what the operators were taught as safety and training were both areas outside of his department and therefore not his “problem.” This indicates a breakdown at a critical level of the overall safety and health program. Supervisor involvement is critical and indeed required in the implementation, monitoring and enforcement of safety rules and procedures.
- I was not able to locate consistent training and evaluation documentation for the 63 equipment operators on site nor was I able to find anyone that could direct me to it. Accurate and consistent documentation is the hallmark of a good safety and health program as well as a vital component in establishing regulatory compliance.
I could go on here but I think the “problem” this company was having here is clear. Everything happens for a reason and in this case, inconsistent or non-existent training coupled with a lack of follow up from management to identify problems or take corrective measures were the reasons for their poor results. This company was just not giving the matter of equipment operator safety training any priority within its safety and health program. To put it bluntly, they were doing a lousy job and getting lousy results. The only positive I could see was that they at least had the presence of mind to recognize their poor results and call for help. However, even this was marginalized by the fact that they made no meaningful attempt to utilize the help when it arrived.
Throwing money at safety issues will not make them go away. Regularly taking the time to identify hazards and do something about them will certainly help but when it comes to training, a specific and concerted effort by all those involved must be made. Trainers have to be qualified and invested in what they do with an honest desire to do things right and ensure understanding and competence is achieved. Supervisors must support the training by taking it upon themselves to know what is being trained and seeing to it that such training is adhered to on an ongoing basis. Company managers must support supervisors, trainers and the entire safety program with the resources required and regularly evaluate the effectiveness of their safety programs and make changes as required.
In short, safety involves everyone so everyone has to get involved. It’s not easy, but nothing worthwhile is ever easy. Another proverbial truth.
Rob Vetter
Director of Training
IVES Training Group
SCI & IVES – The Definition of a Partnership
Back in the late 70’s Colin Ives was struggling trying to get his fledgling company, then known as Ives & Associates, off the ground. Colin’s reputation in the safety arena was golden but it was not enough. Colin came to the realization that he needed help, and not just help knocking on doors and pounding the pavement, he needed the help of like-minded safety professionals that could appreciate the value of what he was trying to accomplish and invest in it. This realization and the solution Colin devised to address it would prove to be critical in the success of Ives & Associates and everything that would follow.
During his years in the safety profession Colin had made many connections with people and organizations he felt shared the same dedication and commitment to safety that he did. However, when it came to whom he could count as an effective and conscientious partner, one organization emerged as the clear choice, Safety Center Incorporated (SCI).
Established in 1934 out of Sacramento, California, SCI’s reputation as a venerable institution within the occupational, environmental and community-based safety and health fields was firmly entrenched throughout California and the surrounding states. Colin knew that the quality and usefulness of his industrial equipment training programs would match up well with the vast array of training programs SCI offered from motorcycle and automobile driver training to drug and alcohol abuse rehab to fall protection and trench safety. He also recognized the incredible degree of synergy that was possible through a relationship in which each organization complimented the other so well, a sentiment that was reciprocated by the forward thinking Directors of SCI, Liz McClatchey and Jerry Bach, its President and Vice President respectively. It was at that moment that the enduring partnership between SCI and IVES was born.
Looking back, it is easy to see that the vision shared by SCI and IVES over 31 years ago has indeed become a reality. Both organizations have grown together and benefited not only each other but business and industry throughout the region.
“I remember back when Colin told me that he felt forming the partnership with SCI was the best decision he ever made,” says Rob Vetter, IVES’ General Manager. He went on to say, “It didn’t take me long to recognize that SCI was, and continues to be, instrumental in the ongoing success of IVES. I can honestly say that we simply would not be the company we are today if not for SCI. I admire what the two organizations have accomplished and am proud to be able to point to our continued association as a shining example of what a partnership should be; honest, respectful and mutually beneficial.”
Check out all that SCI has to offer at www.safetycenter.org or call toll-free at 1-800-825-7262.
IVES Goes “E”
You don’t have to look very far these days to see how much computers have revolutionized the world – and our lives. In the world of today, any information we want to access or receive, from reviewing bank statements to choosing which movie we would like to see, is never more than a convenient click away. If success is qualified through popularity, it would appear that the masses have spoken with respect to the computerization of the world and there is no doubt that the pods and pads are here to stay.
In keeping with that trend, we are happy to announce that the quarterly printed version of the IVES Update newsletter will transition into a monthly electronic version that you can expect delivered to your email inbox rather than your mailbox from this point forward.
If you are presently receiving our monthly Safety Bulletin by email, you will notice it change to the IVES Update. If you aren’t, make sure you sign up now! We hope you enjoy the convenience and features of the e-format over the printed version.
What’s Wrong With This?
Look at the photo below and see if you can spot what this aerial boomlift operator is doing wrong. Look for the answer in the next edition of the electronic IVES Update due in your email inbox in May.
Answer to Last Month’s
Q: In the Fall 2011 edition, we asked if you could spot what the trainer behind the forklift in the photo below was doing wrong while his operator completes a pre-use inspection.
A: Hopefully you spotted the following:
- He is on the opposite side of the truck that the operator
is on. From there, he can’t see what the operator is looking at or doing.
- He is not paying attention. In fact, he appears to be looking at the ground where he will not see anything that will help him evaluate the operator.
- He is carrying a clipboard. This on its own is not an issue but he probably has an evaluation form or an inspection checklist clipped to the board. If it is a checklist, he should give it to the operator to use for his inspection. If it is an evaluation form, he should set it down somewhere or try to keep it out of sight of the operator as much as possible.
Incident Report
FRONT-END LOADER STALLS – COMPANY PAYS THOUSANDS
An operator was injured and taken to hospital after the front-end loader he was using to clean up rocks stalled, then coasted over the edge of a steep embankment. The loader’s supplemental steering and emergency brakes also failed. A later inspection showed it had several mechanical problems as well as an unsafe seat. Regulatory authorities determined that the company failed to ensure the unit was safe to operate and issued fines of over $50,000.00.
Ask Bob
Dear Bob,
During the driving tests on forklift operator refresher classes, I can usually tell if operators are still good enough way before they move 10 loads. Is it okay to have them stop sooner if I think they are good enough?
Randall.
Dear Randall,
We have always suggested forklift operators move at least 4 loads during refresher classes. For the sake of consistency, I recommend that you stick with that for all of your operators. If you go with stopping them as soon as you see what you need to see, you may end up with some moving 2 and others moving 8, which could lead to complaints of favoritism and/or discrimination. It is always best to keep the number of loads moved during an evaluation the same for everyone. I hope this helps.
Bob.
Did you enjoy this newsletter? Sign up for our newsletter to receive more like this!
