Posted By halesowen Baggie I am currently conducting a risk assessment for warehouse picking operations. Compiling this assessment I have taken 10 minutes out with each person to get every pickers thoughts with regard to the hazards that they encounter every day while performing this function. All pickers use a reach truck to pick from various warehouse locations. Every picker is monitored for productivity with regard to pick rates. My concern is that to a man every person I have spoken too has highlighted that these pick rates make them rush their work to keep within productivity rates. (some have put the rates down to previous accidents with people cutting corners) What are members thoughts on how I should get this in the risk assessment as management are not going to lower pick rates or suspend them.(Ive already asked).

Posted By Jonathan Breeze Baggie, If there is an accident or injury, then the pick rate will decrease correspondingly, right? Perhaps you could identify the cost of accidents in terms of "picked items" or "lost time" and use this to propose an optimum rate? Alternatively, you could lobby for most frequently picked items to be placed in the most accessible picking bays in order to reduce the probability of these items causing an injury through complex lifting operations. It seems to me to be as much an Operational Research/ Statistics/ Ergonomics issue as a pure Health & Safety one.

Posted By Mitch Great minds, great minds!!

Posted By halesowen Baggie The trouble I'm having is that the picker has to pick 15 jobs an hour (this is what the productivity rate is based on). Every day is really different with no 2 days remotely the same. A single pick job could contain 1 line (one product that could be anything in number) or 50 lines (50 different products with all differing amounts). ..therefore one day could be really easy (picking 15 jobs all containing 1 line of 1 toilet roll each) as opposed to 15 jobs containing many lines.

Posted By Bob Youel Productity rates can be a major factor re accident rates so this area should be looked at as part of the risk assessment process speak to your production manager as if there is an accident and it can be traced to production rates that that individual may be at risk

Posted By Mitch What if the senior management fail to act in this time, as it seems from your inference they will do?

Posted By Mitch Unfortunately it looks like you are going to have to sit back and wait. Alternatively you can take to approach of other sectors that have development restricting targets and productivity schemes thrust upon them. For example get the pickers to work together for their own safety, co-operate on the work tasks and redistribute (between themselves) the workload to balance out the workload thus reducing the continuous need to rush everything (this technique is used widely in the financial sector, for sales targets, to relieve stress). If this principle can be applied it could lead to a cultural change at management level once the benefits have been identified.

Posted By Konstanty Budkiewicz From previous postings you will be aware that many of us have met your scenario, and many have advised of workable solutions. This response concentrates on aspects of your written safety case and proposed remedial actions. From my perspective our professional priorities are; the maintenance of Safety, Operational Capability, and where possible to conduct those aspects at minimum overall economic cost. When raising remedial actions concerning safety, it is good practice to speak in terms of ”operational” and “economic” impact. These are the terms used and understood by your managers. I suggest that your proposed action plans speak in terms of “the foreseeable impact of reduced operational output from the pickline”. With regard to stress on the pickline, this may also have an economic impact. From your RA evidence, you can already identify that current management arrangements feed stress into the ergonomic and manual handling aspects. This level of stress can have a quantifiable effect on the following: time keeping; sickness rates; staff retention; staff turnover and associated tribunal constructive dismissal grievances. As a ball park figure, I model the HR cost of £1500 pounds to recruit engineers – ask HR how much a pickline operative costs to recruit (adverts, interviews and reference checking etc), and then calculate staff turnover costs. This may focus the operational mangers on “hidden” economic costs of the current level of stress on their financial bottom line. In some organisations I have also witnessed a mix of heightened theft rates, sabotage of operational equipment, property/services damage and graffiti in such affected work areas (all are stress signs: all have attendant cost). Your bottom line remains that: pickline workers sustain no significant harm; your undertaking runs the pickline at maximum operational efficiency and lowest operational cost: try to sell your case in these terms. Kon CMIOSH

Posted By Kieran J Duignan In response to your question: how I should get this in the risk assessment as management are not going to lower pick rates or suspend them.(Ive already asked), I wonder whether relying on the risk assessment is the most fruitful approach in view of your account that you are apparently knocking on a closed door. The apparent categorical refusal is an indicator that you're operating in a company where 'negative reinforcement' guides policy about employee safety, i.e. safety behaviour is guided by a policy of 'any employee can go elsewhere if they disagree'. A 'positive reinforcement' strategy dwells on what is most meaningful and intrinsically appealing to employees. Where an organisation takes the view that freedom from injury and illness is not part of what they regard as meaningful and intrinsically appealing to employees, a safety professional can take stock of how to create channels of dialogue and communication that encourage the necessary change in culture. Obviously, culture change is neither easy nor straightforward but, with patience, efforts by a safety professional with integrity, patience, a touch of humour and intelligence have been known to gain allegiance on the part of senior people who initially opposed him (or her).

Posted By Pete48 Mmmm, hang on a minute guys and gals. Why am I not surprised that production workers don't like production targets and claim it is unsafe? I would expect to get that sort of feedback from all but the very, very good set ups. Just because it is from everyone doesn't make it any more reliable without support9ng evidence. It may indicate a problem but it doesn't prove it. So do you have the evidence that these targets are actually causing accidents? If it exists that is your justification for challenging them. If it doesn't you risk being a "cant do that elf and safety merchant". You can put what you like in a risk assessment, but unless it is backed up with facts, it is only an opinion. If that opinion is so far away from your colleagues in production, take care! In my days as a Production Manager you would have gotten short shrift for such unsubstantiated opinion on a formal document. Sorry to sound so harsh but we can over-complicate these things sometimes.

Posted By Brett Day Why not a target based on the number of items picked with a weighting for large, heavy or odd shape / sized loads?

Posted By steve e ashton Piece-rate pay arrangements have 'traditionally' been associated with cultures where H&S takes a back seat. If the workers are measured or paid on 'how much' or 'how many' (bricks laid, connections made, metres painted, orders picked) then, in accordance with human nature, they are going to find ways of speeding up and cutting corners to get paid more (or to earn bonus, or to avoid penalty....). H&S and quality will suffer. Its axiomatic and inevitable. So - whilst I can understand your irritation and frustration - now might be a good time for you to breathe a sigh of relief and put this one behind you. If the corporate H&S team cannot see the problem as clearly as you it might be worth trying to find some way of communicating your vision to them. Otherwise, move on... You have tried to evaluate, prioritise and resolve a particular risk - forget the 'complete a risk assessment' bit. Don't ever forget that a risk assessment is a means to an end not an end in itself. (Compliance with legislation does not count as an end for me...). Reducing risk is the end you are aiming for. What matters is what happens next and whether it is effective in reducing the levels of risk. The bottom line is that your are trying to help the company prevent loss through product damage or picking errors or staff injury... If the company doesn't appreciate your efforts - tough on them. Good luck with your imminent move. Steve

Posted By Pete48 Hi Baggie, my point was that unless you have direct evidence that a primary cause of x accidents is "rushing to complete" etc then you don't have anything. Production is about maximising production, there will always be a potential conflict with personal safety. Maybe the problem is not the target but the lack of supervision or the blind eye to poor practice to reach the target. Have those appeared as accident causes? I agree with both Merv and Steve in their comments about the cultural impact of this type of measured work but it is a widespread reality and I just felt that you were going down a road that was not going to lead to success. You have put yourself into conflict with management from what I have read on this forum; that doesn't help you or the company. Beware my friend, the green grass on the other side may well have snakes in it as well! Good luck with the move.