We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
At what point is training good enough?
Dry
Posts: 46 Forumite
I started a new job last week. My manager seems nice enough but her attitude to training seems a little off.
For instance, my official manual handling training took all of 30 seconds.
It consisted of her simply telling me that I should not bend my back and always bend my knees when I lift something. And to always ask for help if I feel that I cannot lift anything. There was nothing wrong with what she said. It was all common sense stuff. But after giving me this "training" she then shoved a form in front of me and requested that I sign it stating that I received my manual handling training.
I signed it and I've no reason to think that I will ever need to dispute it but out of interest, would this actually constitute proper training in the eyes of the law?
For instance, my official manual handling training took all of 30 seconds.
It consisted of her simply telling me that I should not bend my back and always bend my knees when I lift something. And to always ask for help if I feel that I cannot lift anything. There was nothing wrong with what she said. It was all common sense stuff. But after giving me this "training" she then shoved a form in front of me and requested that I sign it stating that I received my manual handling training.
I signed it and I've no reason to think that I will ever need to dispute it but out of interest, would this actually constitute proper training in the eyes of the law?
0
Comments
-
Yeah if you signed to say you received proper training.0
-
But how am I, as an employee, qualified to know if it was proper training or not?0
-
Its a matter of whether you are satisfied with the training given and that you are able to carry out your work. You basically said that you are, which is good in a way because your manager would have probably gotten rid of you thinking you are going to be trouble if you didn't.
imo, there isn't much to lifting stuff up, if you are physically weak then you will always have problems lifting heavy things regardless of training.
Give it a go, if you are still having problems, speak to your manager or a colleague who doesn't appear to be the gossiping sort.0 -
I think it depends on what the job entails. If the job involves a lot of moving or lifting , particularly of large, heavy, unusually shared/balanced items then more details might well be appropriate.
If the job only involves handling comparatively small or lightweight items, or uniform items, then the type of trianing you got is probably all you need.All posts are my personal opinion, not formal advice Always get proper, professional advice (particularly about anything legal!)0 -
It'll all be about the context - how much and what kind and weight lifting does the job actually entail?
One thing sounds like may not have been mentioned but is important, don't twist your back with a heavy load, use your feet to turn.0 -
xapprenticex wrote: »Its a matter of whether you are satisfied with the training given and that you are able to carry out your work. You basically said that you are, which is good in a way because your manager would have probably gotten rid of you thinking you are going to be trouble if you didn't.
This kind of training is there first and foremost to protect the employer from litigation. But from a legal perspective, I very much doubt that the 30 second training she gave me would do her much good if I were to make a personal injury claim against my employer. BTW I have no intention of doing anything of the sort. I'm just interested in the law.
Just because I signed that I received the training on offer, it doesn't mean that the training was adequate.
The point you make about refusing to sign making the employer think I'm a troublemaker is a good one. Although that in itself could be used against the employer. Applying undue pressure to agree to unreasonable terms is often frowned upon in court.0 -
This kind of training is there first and foremost to protect the employer from litigation. But from a legal perspective, I very much doubt that the 30 second training she gave me would do her much good if I were to make a personal injury claim against my employer. BTW I have no intention of doing anything of the sort. I'm just interested in the law.
Just because I signed that I received the training on offer, it doesn't mean that the training was adequate.
The point you make about refusing to sign making the employer think I'm a troublemaker is a good one. Although that in itself could be used against the employer. Applying undue pressure to agree to unreasonable terms is often frowned upon in court.
But they didn't apply any "undue pressure", and manual lifting actually is that simple. What did you expect - a half day course? You signed to say you received the training. You did receive the training. You could have refused.0 -
It's really not about what I expect it or what I signed. What matters is whether a judge would believe a 30 second one way discussion on manual handling sufficient to prevent injury in a manual job that requires a lot of regular lifting.
What risk assessments were carried out to ascertain that such a small and training was adequate?
What training did the manager receive to carry out training herself?
Again, I reiterate, I have no intention of making any claims. I detest vexatious and opportunistic litigants. I'm just interested in why employers aren't more careful and don't provide more adequate training just to cover themselves.0 -
It's really not about what I expect it or what I signed. What matters is whether a judge would believe a 30 second one way discussion on manual handling sufficient to prevent injury in a manual job that requires a lot of regular lifting.
What risk assessments were carried out to ascertain that such a small and training was adequate?
What training did the manager receive to carry out training herself?
Again, I reiterate, I have no intention of making any claims. I detest vexatious and opportunistic litigants. I'm just interested in why employers aren't more careful and don't provide more adequate training just to cover themselves.
It is exactly about what you signed. But what is wrong with the training you received? Don't bend your back.. Always bend your knees. Ask for help whenever you think you can't lift something. What was left out of the training?0 -
I signed that I received the training that was on offer. This does not mean that training was adequate.
If I were an employer I would ensure that manual handling training took at least 30 to 60 minutes and included a practical assessment. This would give me an excellent due diligence defence should an employee decide to sue me.
I knew a guy who was awarded 11k for falling off a ladder because the employers training was deemed inadequate. I suppose seeing this happen has made me very aware of how spending a little extra time training can be a very wise investment.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards