Posted By Paul T9
I was looking through some adverts recently and came across one for a manual handling trainer course but was surprised to see that it only had a two year ‘life’ and under this was a refresher course to extend this by another two years. Now correct me if I’m wrong here but I would consider the manual handling legislation pretty much tied down and has not been amended for a while. The lifting techniques are not changed very often as evolution does take a little time so the human body does not change that much. Why the two year life, apart from the obvious one?

Looking at the statistics MHO is a requirement but I can’t help feel sorry for the company who has to keep paying out to keep their Trainer qualified. What are the legal requirements of this as if the trainer is competent to teach manual handling what difference does it make if his certificate is out of date?

Paul

Posted By Peter F
Paul,

I agree with you sometimes it is appears to be a licence to print money. I sure not so long ago a survey was conducted and the outcome deemed that manual handling training actually made no or very little difference to manual handling accident rates. Although you can produce stats to say whatever you want.

Posted By stephen d clarke
Hi,
Agree refresher training for MH trainers is a licence to print money - I would have thought that providing a trainer can show from CPD record that they have kept upto date then that should be adequate.
Steve

Posted By GeoffB4
Don't IOSH do the same thing with their Managing Safety courses.

Posted By Paul T9
Thanks Dave,

I suppose as long as the provider does not have a formal exam at the end they can stipulate that refresher training is necessary to maintain the cert. Just a thought here would a holder of a NGC/Diploma holder be classed as competent to teach MH as it is part of the study programme and CPD does apply?

Posted By GeoffB4
Just to be clear Dave, and to help your credibility, does that generalisation apply to all course providers or just those doing Manual Handling?

Posted By Merv Newman
OK. Merv's general philosophy on training.

Start at the top.

If you are going to propose MH or gloves or COSHH or whatever, the first people to train are site management. Then you work your way downstream.

Why ? You ask.

Simple, says he. (should that be a capital "H" ?)

Most/all training of this type proposes that we change our normal habits. "Bend you knees, not your back as you usually do" Good stuff.

Trouble is that once out of the training room we find it easier to go back to our old habits rather than practice the new ones.

And, if there is no-one (supervisor/manager) to remind us of the new way of doing things then we will keep on taking the easy route.

New techniques need time and repetition to habituate. That is, become the normal way of doing things. If the new ways are not reinforced or, as they are in some circumstances, rubbished, then the training has been a total waste of time. And money.

Let's look at this from a behavioural point of view. If the "new behaviours" are not recognised, rewarded and reinforced then they all go into the wheelie bin.

Back to the thread. Training only employees is a waste of time and money. Frequent refreshers may be required just to remind people of what they are supposed (have been "trained") to be doing. But isn' that a management function ?

Training managers and supervisors provides them an awareness of what should be happening and gives them the confidence to recognise and reinforce whatever the good practices are. When this happens you don't need retraining every two years or so.

Except.

Critical behaviours. Where a failure to follow the correct procedure will VERY likely cause one or more deaths (maybe yours) or destroy the neighbourhood. Retraining, yearly, two yearly, quarterly can be necessary here.

But, again, it must start from, and include, the top levels of management.

Next time you go to fill up the car and you see a tanker filling the tanks. Ask yourself : is that the safe way to do it ?

You may have absolutely no idea. No problem. But it's the thought that counts.

Merv (I think I may have digressed somewhat. sorry)

Posted By Merv Newman
Paul,

I didn't actually suggest that managers and supervisors get their hands dirty !

But since they ARE responsible for employee training it gives them an idea of what they are responsible for.

But I suppose if you delegate it to an employee you will always be able to plead ignorance and have someone to blame.

Merv

Posted By Eamon Murtagh
Responsibility can not be delegated only authority. Training the employee does not mitigate the managers / supervisors responsibility for the safety of the workplace or activity under their control.

Posted By Francis E S Hone
their appears to be no legal requirement to do refresher courses perhaps there should be a government body that checks the standard of teaching in the same way that the DSA Check-Tests driving instructors Teaching ability periodically (no charge for this)
frank

Posted By Raymond Rapp
Paul

If an employee sustained an injury at work and was subsequently off work sick, they could claim through the industrial injuries scheme or alternatively a civil action for breach of statutory law/negligence. The employer should have ELI and any award and costs will be borne by the insurance company - that's its purpose. However, normally only loss of earnings can be claimed and any statutory benefits previously claimed are normally deducted by the court.

Ray

Posted By sylvia
Frances - re: driving instructors check tests. There may not seem be a charge for this, but it does lose the instructor time, and ADIs all have had to pay £200 every four years to remain on the Register, so that's hardly "nothing".

The topic under discussion is just a commercial ploy, nobody "has" to be qualified (just competent) or renewed or anything to provide MH training.

Research, including some done by HSE, suggests that training of general MH is a waste of time, although there may be some merit in training in specific techniques relevant to the job (eg. moving wheelie bins for refuse workers).

'Bend your knees' type training is pointless - staff may just as well be given a leaflet or a 10 minute chat.

There is no specific requirement under the MHO regs to train employees, as there usually is under other regs, so I would be surprised if HSE inspectors ask about training to any degree.

Insurers - well that's a different kettle of fish . .

Posted By Dave Merchant
Remember that under Bennetts v. MoD 2004 (the famous mail bag case) it was held on appeal that a claim could not be made if the person doing the manual handling task used an "abnormal" method, even in the absence of any training. They have a duty under MHR to lift sensibly, to the degree any other person would do given the situation, and so the isolated fact someone suffers an injury does NOT create any liability against the employer. The claimant has to show they performed the task correctly and were still injured by it.