Hello there Quality guys,

What is your input about top management not providing or backing employee training, should top management have at least a yearly minimum budget for training employees? I noticed during an audit that no training is being done for the MR, safety training which was requested by the MR at a cost of $250 was turned down by management and the MR is expected to train about safety to the personnel. Any thoughts about what requirements or whether there are noncompliance issues here?

If TM isn't supplying training related competency development and your system requirments then it is generating evidence of not supplying necessary resources to help achieve customer satisfaction.

You seem to be in the same boat as the majority of other employers in the good old U.S. of A., and that is "training" is nothing more than a cost or burden that has to be borne only when convenient and generally after the need for it could have been prevented.

Now we look at the MR doing the safety training. Use the system approach here and ask the question.."Does the MR have the required competency in the subject matter?" If so, no problem, but if not and something should happen that would be of interest to a lawyer or regulatory agency your TM could be in a position of crying and slinging snot in front of "Your Honor".

Additionally under US OSHA and some State regulations there is mandated training for specific laws that not just any "Jack-leg" can give.

It's times like this where the question of competency reaches and lingers like a summer rain-storm over Top Management

Thanks Randy, it woud be reasonably for the MR to refuse to be appointed a safety trainer in the company without having been trained, it seems there is a conflict here. What if the MR self trains by means of books etc. the training needed are the reqs for the basic safety OSHA reqs.
What is your assessment.

I'll tell you what, I have been in the field for nearly 20 years, I'm still learning. I have a BS in Occupational Safety & Health (4.0 and summa cum laude.....Whoopie, gee-whiz, aren't you impressed now?) and I know enough to get you into trouble. Just reading a book ain't gonna cut the mustard, especially when it comes to the world of litigation and smart mouth lawyers. When you take on a role like this you immediately become a "designated defendant/inmate" along with the boss (Top Management) and you had better be able to say more than "I read a book once."

Safety is one of those areas like environmental that carries with it a seriousness that a vast majority of people just do not realize and appreciate. More often than not its under-appreciation is a self inflicted wound by the "professionals" in the field. Kinda like Quality.

You would need to look further into the legal requirements. If for instance your MR is responsible for hazardous waste operations and shipping, does he require some form of state certification for hazardous waste shipping? If he's not fully educated on this and something happens, what's the risk?

Training in safety matters is theoretically possible through book learning, but that's only half the requirement for people who want validate a standard's requirement as satisfied. The other half is some assurance of competence.

As Randy said, for most people and needs, a book isn't enough.

An assurance of acceptable preparation to train would come from a source like holding an OSHA 10-hour card. A 30 hour card is better for preparing to train. See this site (http://www.osha.gov/fso/ote/training/outreach/training_program.html) for an explanation.

I understand the problem of not being able to get funding for training, but OSHA doesn't excuse that and has taken some steps to help provide needed training. There's significant risk in not getting training done appropriately. Please try contacting your state's Department of Labor and ask if there are any training programs available for you.

It seems to me that it would depend on your type of business what kind of training is required.

We do safety training here by a weekly safety meeting that is given by the supervisors. We have not had a lost time injury in several years, and we do manufacturing. So why would we pay someone to do safety training?

MsHeeler

MsHeeler,what if OSHA happens to conduct an audit and requests to verify OSHA trainings that are requiered in the manufacturing industry such a PPE, Hazzard communication, I think there are about 10 that are mininum required,
your company could be found noncompliant if no training is done.
What I was asking before is what are the reqs for a trainer to have to be able to conduct safety and be competent.

MsHeeler,what if OSHA happens to conduct an audit and requests to verify OSHA trainings that are requiered in the manufacturing industry such a PPE, Hazzard communication, I think there are about 10 that are mininum required,
your company could be found noncompliant if no training is done.
What I was asking before is what are the reqs for a trainer to have to be able to conduct safety and be competent.

We just went through a safety audit and did just fine. :cool: I didn't say that none was required, I said why would we pay someone.
That is my point, it would depend on the business.

MsHeeler

IMHO, I think Top Management should budget for competency, not necessarily training.

Budget for resources to determine what the needed competency is and then to attain it. Training may or may not help you attain competency. Training certainly can help or it can be a tremendous waste of time depending on how it is planned, implemented, monitored, and acted upon (PDCA.)

Regards,

Dirk

I think the consensus is that training is situational and should be budgeted for depending on compentency criteria.

For example, we recently had to develop measurement uncertainty budgets for our in-house calibrations. No training was provided, it was left to the employeee to take the inititiative to learn through research and application. An activity such as this should be provided training if you want to achieve good results within a reasonable period of time.

For areas where the company is put at risk, legally, or to product quality, all means should be employed to ensure competency is acceptable, and certainly that all requirements, legal or otherwise are met.

:2cents:

Good points from Dirk and Benjamin. :agree:

Let's be cautious and not go after a fly with a sledge hammer. However, there are a couple of things I want to share with you.

1. I have a book titled Occupational Safety And Health (3rd ed). It's 700 pages.
2. I would find it a little hard to know what to train people on based only on a 700 page book.

I advised to seek out a 10-hour OSHA card training because it can help to prioritize the training. I expect it would help you to understand what's needed and give some clue about how to present it. This training might be free or very low cost through the Dept of Labor--check it out.

In the end we shouldn't fool around with training in Safety. It's one chance we get to defend ourselves in the due diligence question, which can save a whole lot of heartache.

Please keep in mind I am referring to OSHA, not ISO 18001 auditing. An OSHA visit would be triggered by mishaps over a certain threshold. Avoiding that if you can is a very good thing. Showing you personally did what you could to avoid mishap can one day save your rear.

When I was in Ohio during the early 90s, there was a state safety agency available to come visit ytour facility and provide free consulting and training.
The man that came to our plant gave us a lot of OSHA guides, and did some on site training. Check with you state's safety agencies and maybe you can find a similar resource for free training. We are already funding the agencies if we use them or not.

Great input to this very important topic the consensus appears to be that when legal risk issues can be complied with training then by all means TM should support training alternatives. In my experience I have found that training allows the trained employee to feel more at ease during the activities asked to perform and become more efficient and competent, defininetely feel supported by the people he counts on which is TM. This is a topic that pertains also to customer satisfaction in this case internal, and also can affect external customer satisfaction, it is a win-win for the org.

Great input to this very important topic the consensus appears to be that when legal risk issues can be complied with training then by all means TM should support training alternatives. In my experience I have found that training allows the trained employee to feel more at ease during the activities asked to perform and become more efficient and competent, defininetely feel supported by the people he counts on which is TM. This is a topic that pertains also to customer satisfaction in this case internal, and also can affect external customer satisfaction, it is a win-win for the org.You clearly get the big picture. :applause: So, Ralph's advice was very good. Chances are there is free basic safety training available to your people. Now watch out! The training may call out to use some safety gear the management has not yet seen fit to buy... :rolleyes:

It ain't that easy guys.....training is relevant to applicable legal requirements, and legal requirments will depend upon hazards, processes, equipment, and many other factors in the workplace. It is the basic stuff that will bite ya, it's the stuff you'd never figure.

For instance HAZWOPER training to 29CFR1910.120. Did you know that not just anyone can give it? Of course you probably did. But did you know that it is the "employer" that must certify that;
1. the instructor have the necessary competencies for the specific traing
provided
2. the training facility meets the employers requirements
3. the training matches what the employee's job requires (there is more than
1 type of training detailed in the regulation and the employer has to figure
which goes to who)

And a wee bit more.

Then there is specific training on hand tools, air powered tools, electric powered tools, PPE, hazard communication, EAP's, forklifts, hoists & cranes, scaffolding, confined space, asbestos, lead, cadmium, BBP/HIV-HPV, hazardous energy control, low-voltage electrical, high-voltage electrical, elevated work, trenching & shoring, ergonomics, compressed gasses, welding, so on and so forth.

This goes way beyond the basic.

Randy, you're going to scare us into believing we actually need a program!:D

You're right, of course. It's why I'm applying pressure to get the OSHA 30 hour card, or 10 hour card at minimum. It would help show just how big this subject is.

Lots of people hand employees a little booklet and say "there's your training". Been there, seen that...

To re-emphasie my point, I suggest that first you budget to determine competency needs. Any organization must first spend resources to determine what is the needed competency. After this is determined, then one can make a plan to fulfill the needed competency.

If needed competency is not determined first, then make a big bullseye with different types of "training" listed on it. Start throwing darts at the bullseye to determine what kind of training you will provide, if any.

Determining needs costs money too. A 700 page book or a 10 hour class may or may not allow you to determine the needed competency.

Regards,

Dirk

What is your input about top management not providing or backing employee training, should top management have at least a yearly minimum budget for training employees?Good advice has been provided already, but I still feel like jumping in...

The proper competence is obviously one of the resources management is required to ensure the availability of (clause 5.1e), but honestly: If they need a standard to tell them that...? :cool: Well, there is no requirement to stay in business either...

/Claes

A 700 page book or a 10 hour class may or may not allow you to determine the needed competency.

Regards,

Dirk

All a 700 page book will guarantee is the need for manual materials handling training:lol: