Lack of safety clothing at work.. suggestions please

peachyprice

Of course he didn't think twice about the implications, what 18yo would.

It's difficult, I'm sure he doesn't want to drop the manager in the doo doo, but a conversation needs to be had, even if it's just between him and the manager.

As you say, he could approach him, tell him he realises on reflection that he really shouldn't have unloaded the lorry without appropriate training, but he really enjoyed it so could be please be trained and signed off.

That way he's letting the manager know the he knows his rights but is willing to go forward.

Prothet_of_Doom

We all have a duty for our own safety, but at 18 it's difficult to see the risks. He won't know that people die in yards because of simple errors of judgement
He should of course be provided and if not demand the right equipment. and training.

However.

Based on experience, I wouldn't use a pallet truck without steel toe caps, prefer boots, but shoes okay. Given that a pair of shoes from machine mart or screw fix or any number of places is about £15, I wouldn't wait for a pair to be provided, just get him some. Last longer than trainers if he's standing and walking all day.
A hi viz is £2 so whilst you are there, just buy him one.

DKLS

When I was taught how to use a hand pallet truck, it mainly involved how to use it as a big skateboard around the warehouse.

Prothet_of_Doom

http://www.machinemart.co.uk/shop/product/details/dickies-redland-super-safety-boot-size-size-2

size 13 - VAT free £20..

Prothet_of_Doom

DKLS wrote: »

When I was taught how to use a hand pallet truck, it mainly involved how to use it as a big skateboard around the warehouse.

:eek::rotfl:

There isn't much to learn, but trapping yourself (toes) under it, or letting it crush you on a slope because they have no brakes, and the load is more than you can stop, are pretty much the main issues.

bitemebankers

Imp wrote: »

Documenting training is purely for the protection of the employer, so they can put the blame for any accident on the employee.

This is exactly what it's for.

DKLS

Prothet_of_Doom wrote: »

:eek::rotfl:

There isn't much to learn, but trapping yourself (toes) under it, or letting it crush you on a slope because they have no brakes, and the load is more than you can stop, are pretty much the main issues.

The warehouse manager used to divvy up the jobs depending on the results of each mornings pallet truck race.

Actually thinking back that wasnt the best place for H&S, I saw a guy chop his thumb off with a band saw and a forklift driver peiced the MDs new jag whilst he was in it. :eek:

xxdeebeexx

Prothet_of_Doom wrote: »

http://www.machinemart.co.uk/shop/product/details/dickies-redland-super-safety-boot-size-size-2

size 13 - VAT free £20..

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Thank you

We all have a duty for our own safety, but at 18 it's difficult to see the risks. He won't know that people die in yards because of simple errors of judgement

I agree but, I also believe that the Manager has a duty of care for my son. He should have been looking out for my boy and made sure that he was properly equipped to do the favour that he was asking of him. (My son is employed to work on the shop floor stacking the bread shelves - no need for safety boots )

The load arrived late and there was no one to do the offloading so my son was roped in. If the truck wasn't unloaded then the goods had to return to sender.
The manager was simply looking out for himself.

I am disappointed with the manager - I understand that my son is responsible for his own safety but, some things you don't know until you know them - the manager used my boys lack of knowledge to his own advantage.

dx

dickydonkin

peachyprice wrote: »

Rather a contradictory statement that. There is everything wrong in being shown how do do something and being allowed to get on with it without documented training. If OP's son had had an accident and lost his leg he would have no recourse against the employers liability insurance.

He very likely would.

There are some incorrect and crass comments on this thread.

Are you suggesting that every single task that a worker carries out requires written documentation to confirm that s/he has been trained to do it?

Obviously, higher risk activities would require suitable training and added to the employees training records, however, it would be unrealistic and burdensome to document every mundane activity which would very likely be incorporated into the 'on the job training' which would/should be documented anyway.

Using your example, if the OP's son had been trained and this was documented, and he still 'lost a leg', there has obviously been a serious safety failure.

Now that may be down to lack of or inadequate training, the injured person ignoring a safe system of work or indeed a combination of many other causes, however, there will always be an underlying cause(s) to an accident and many (not just one) failures leading up to it.

From experience, this tends to be lack of/poor training, no or unsuitable risk assessment, no or unsuitable safe system of work, lack of monitoring or supervision, poor maintenance, poor general safety culture etc.etc.

Playing Devils Advocate here, but certainly up until a few years ago, many of the - shall we say -'budget' supermarket regional distribution centres (RDC's) required visiting delivery drivers to unload their own vehicles with mechanical handling equipment.

I always argued with a friend who used to deliver to these places that if anything went belly up regarding the drivers using this equipment when not trained to do so, then the supermarket in question would very likely be hauled over the coals - particularly when the drivers were told that if they don't unload their own vehicle, they are instructed to leave the site.

Quite bizzare when you consider the supermarkets owners would require their own warehousemen to be trained on this equipment.

Could the supermarkets not see that they were still placing their own staff at risk by allowing visiting drivers to operate equipment they that they were not trained on?

Just shows you what these people think of visiting drivers, but the reality is that in law, the supermarket owners were responsible for EVERYONE who may be affected by their activities.

I suspect this probably still goes on.

In respect of the OP's initial post relating to Training and PPE for operating mechanical handling equipment, then without doubt, her son should have had training for this activity due to the potential of issues of workplace transport and the very busy environment in which the work takes place - including appropriate task specific manual handling training.

It wouldn't need be too in depth and could probably be done as a 'tool box talk' where use is infrequent. This gives an idea of what may be required.

Feet and mechanical handling equipment are not compatable - so without question, appropriate safety footwear would be mandatory (as most warehouses are). Incidentally, you can get trainers with steel toe caps that are fine - I found that younger workers opted for these rather than the traditional boots, but using these would need to be compatable for the tasks in hand.

Bearing in mind many RDC's now are 24/7 operations, during the night, even with suitable lighting, warehouse workers/drivers may be difficult to see - particularly when they are in the back of a trailer they are loading/unloading or working in external areas during the night, so again, HI-VIZ jackets should be a mandatory requirement.

We all have a duty for our own safety, but at 18 it's difficult to see the risks. He won't know that people die in yards because of simple errors of judgement

An excellent point which I was going to raise but you beat me to it.

Imp wrote: »

Documenting training is purely for the protection of the employer, so they can put the blame for any accident on the employee.

bitemebankers wrote: »

This is exactly what it's for.

What a load of rubbish!

When carrying out a health and safety audit, it is important to ensure there are suitable training records. Furthermore, if the HSE or local authority are carrying out a pro-active inspection or indeed an investigation as a result of a safety failure, they too would very likely examine training records.

Documented safety training records are not 'disclaimers' - it is just good practice and forms part of an organisations safety management system and ignore them at your peril.

Another benefit is that that such documents will provide information to any new managers who may need to know who has or has not been trained and who may require refresher training.

Of course such documents would be required if a situation arises where someone has been injured - whether for accident investigation purposes, a civil claim, or even prosecution, but is it really such a bad thing that a company can show they had a duty of care to their staff by providing training?

ILW

pollypenny wrote: »

You don't have to drop much in order to break a toe! Trainers are not suitable for most jobs.

Health and safety regulations are there for a purpose , in spite of being much mocked.

He must speak to his supervisor.

Are you saying shelf stackers in a supermarket should be wearing safety boots at all times?