define what YOU mean by a young person?

Walker,

When I say young person I mean under 18 years old, to cut a long story short concerning school leaving ages and trainees and/or apprenticeships etc 16 to 18.

marshi

As far as I am aware there are no restrictions on the employment of young people for refuse collection duties etc. There are of course obligations to ensure a suitable and sufficient risk assessment is undertaken.

The organisation I work for operate some training programmes around the "refuse collection and street services" type of work, we have done so for a number of years - we provide enhanced levels of training and supervision and also limit the type of work they may get involved in until they have developed competency in other areas of the business.

In general terms we have an ageing workforce and succession planning is critical. Training schemes such as those alluded to above are important to the ongoing provision of service. We use risk assessment as the enabler for all of this.

I hope this helps

Stuart

Simple......there is new guidance on young people and work experience INDG364
Very useful :)

Pikeman
is that not discriminating against young people , young people get a rough time at the present and any young person that wants to work should be allowed to as long as they receive information instruction and training along with mentoring and shadowing until they are fully understand the specific risks associated with the task undertaken otherwise as people retire who is going to empty my bins , by the way I am not a young person well my mind is ?


Chris

what is meant by the line 'Following a near miss through inexperience the operative was clipped by a passing vehicle' as in my long term experience of such operations management culture tends to be the problem as against inexperience by the young [and older] operatives as no allowances are made for inexperience or anything else and poor practice starts with the client as all they are interested in is how much is done within a certain time

Pikeman, children regularly take part in dangerous activities: Scout activities, sailing, swimming, archery, horse riding, delivering newspapers, riding bicycles on the road etc.? It's how they learn about risk through information, instruction, training and supervision (levels of supervision being relative to competence of course).

In terms of dangerous working, following your strategy we could also ban youngsters from construction sites, engineering workshops, window cleaning, agriculture....

My thoughts align with Chris C's!

Check this out http://www.hse.gov.uk/st...ndustry/waste-recycling/

I did not say they could not work in the waste industry, only that they should not work in kerbside collection and waste disposal, the most hazardous activities. This would be a risk based approach. Show me one waste company that allows 16 year olds to do kerbside collections and I will eat my hat...............note that this refers to people under 18. After that they are adults but you would still consider the lack of maturity, "youthfull exuberance" and experience in your risk assessment.

For my part, I disagree with Pikeman and others. Kerbside collection is not inherently dangerous. It has a poor record because it is poorly managed and poorly supervised, with routinely appalling peer-driven culture - often involving a task-and-finish approach.

Agree with canopener that's there an important distinction to be made between "waste industry" and kerbside collections.
Recycling Industry has a relatively poor record.
There have been some appalling accidents involving kerbside uplift. Most recently I recall the fatality to a member of the public caused by a vehicle reversing in the early hours down a narrow lane.
The driver (lone worker) wasn't aware he'd struck the individual until he saw the body at the front of the vehicle. The flaws in the system of work were readily apparent and management failings rife.

After intermittent involvement with waste collection activities over many years both as an enforcer and H&S adviser I strongly agree with the responses by ron hunter at #20 and canopener at #21.

For forum users unfamiliar with "task & finish" mentioned by ron it's a system by which collection crews start collecting waste or recyclables from designated dwellings or businesses at set times but can finish as soon as they complete their rounds. Some employees working on task & finish rounds also have second jobs during afternoons and/or evenings. As pay levels for waste collection work are probably not generous, the need or desire for second jobs is understandable. Therefore, employees on 'task & finish' tend to have an incentive (or peer pressure) to complete their rounds as quickly as possible. As a result there is considerable temptation to 'cut corners', Examples include collecting from properties on both sides of relatively busy roads. Also, though collectors should guide the drivers of refuse collection vehicles (RCVs ) while reversing, some tend to skip this important task and continue with getting wheelie bins ready for emptying. Also, as some RCVs can become full before a round is completed, crews have to go with their RCVs to discharge their loads at a waste tip or collection/processing depot. This can take up significant time, especially if the journeys are unexpectedly prolonged, e.g. by road accidents or congestion.

Another factor is inadequate supervision and monitoring of collection crews to reinforce the standards and systems which are taught via training. RCV drivers tend to be nominally in charge of their crews but can have insufficient authority and also face temptation themselves or peer pressure from crews to 'cut corners'.

Though supervisors are usually former collection employees, some don't seem to understand their changed role or wish to risk unpopularity from the crews ("the lads" - Though crews are usually male, I've occasionally seen women doing collection work) and therefore fail to use their experience to be effective supervisors through proper monitoring. Also, some managers don't seem to care how the collection work is done provided that targets are met. Moreover, some managers deal with external reports of unsafe behaviour via disciplinary hearings which predictably result in sackings. This style of management looks good on paper and reputedly encourages other employees to behave safely. As there's usually no difficulty in recruiting and training replacements for sacked employees, sackings tend not to impair a collection service provided that they're not too frequent. Furthermore, it seems highly hypocritical for employees to be sacked for misdemeanours which are allowed to persist unchecked for significant periods of time!

Almost 20 years ago an unguided RCV operated by a company under contract to my local authority employer reversed over and killed an elderly member of the public. Some months later I was surprised to see one of the company's RCVs reverse unguided onto a school site. I was even more surprised to learn from the driver and mate (sat in the RCV cab instead of guiding the driver) that they knew of the recent fatality and also that the company had done almost nothing about precautions for reversing following the fatality. Part of the company's complacency may have stemmed from a stance then held by HSE of classing the RCV fatality and other serious incidents on public highways as 'road traffic accidents' (RTAs) which came within the remit of the police for investigation and any subsequent enforcement action. With no direct authority over the contract company I complained vociferously to my employer's client managers for refuse collection and also challenged HSE's stance. This resulted in a belated investigation by HSE of the fatal accident and an improvement notice requiring the waste company to revise and monitor arrangements for the safe reversing of RCVs.

As for the first question posed by marshi at #1, there is apparently no specific legislation or guidance which forbids younger people from doing refuse collection work - just general requirements about risk assessment & management which ought to include appropriate training, supervision and monitoring. The same approach surely applies regarding other types of work, e.g. in construction and agriculture, which tend to be regarded as hazardous.

My earlier posting at #24 contained some fairly negative views about refuse collection, In order to provide some balance it seems appropriate to provide some thoughts about the significant improvements which have occurred over the past 30 years or so:

1. During the mid-1980s, as a result of negotiation and agreement between HSE, local authorities and private waste companies, etc., the operators of RCVs agreed to remove all steps and handles from the backs and sides of RCVs and effectively eliminate the common but hazardous practice by which refuse collectors tended to ride on the outsides of RCVs. Though some operators tried to argue that step-riding was safe for 'short distances' at 'low speeds', significant injuries could still occur either during falls from slow-moving RCVs or through RCVs being struck, especially from behind, by other vehicles. Also, some refuse crews had no idea about the definitions of 'short' and 'slow'. For instance a HSE colleague of mine driving between visits found himself following a RCV doing about 50mph with several crew members on its backstep. After about 2 miles the RCV stopped and my colleague was able to have a suitable word with the driver and crew and later their employer.

2. Pressure from HSE on makers, importers and purchasing operators of RCVs led to overdue improvements in RCV design such as hold-to-run controls for refuse scooping and compacting mechanisms, and the elimination of blatantly serious trapping areas created between fixed loading rails and moving paddles of refuse scooping mechanisms.

3. Years ago metal and later plastic dustbins were the norm for household refuse - usually heavy, difficult and awkward for collectors to lift and carry. The same problems remained when dustbins were replaced by plastic sacks which also exposed collectors to additional risk from broken glass, needles and other sharp items inside the bags. However, the introduction of wheelie bins combined with unloading systems on RCVs has almost certainly reduced the incidence of musculo-skeletal problems for refuse collectors.

These are just 3 improvements which spring to mind. As I've no involvement nowadays with waste collection except as a householder, please can anyone suggest any other notable improvements which have occurred?