There is no safe or unsafe weight.

Are you getting stuck in the 'everything in the universe must be 25kg or less trap?

'25kg is normaly safe for a man at waist height and so on as the diagram in the MHOR suggests but this is not law - this is guidance.

Whoever loaded the 30kg boxes may well have been more than capable of doing so - you may never know.

Hi Stuie,
The Manual Handling Approved Code of Parctice state:

173 The requirement to provide 'general indications' of the weight and
nature of the loads to be handled should form part of any basic training, so
that employees have sufficient information to carry out the operations they
are likely to be asked to do.

174 Where it is reasonably practicable, employers should give precise
information. For employers whose businesses originate loads (manufacturers,
packers etc) the simplest way of providing this information is by marking it
on the loads.

PH2

Thanks PH2 - just what I was looking for.
Stuart

With transport packages, standardized symbols are frequently used to communicate handling needs. Common universal symbols are listed in ASTM D5445 "Standard Practice for Pictorial Markings for Handling of Goods" and ISO 780 "Pictorial marking for handling of goods".
I'm not aware of any UK or EU law which makes this mandatory (although law may exist for heavier items transported by road, rail or sea), and I believe this to be voluntary, however you can use buying power / specification of requirements to ensure goods supplied to you have the information you stipulate and require.
Of course, none of this is in the MH ACoP - entirely outwith scope.

Spartacus' question:
has anyone got any advice how I can put into place a system where our technicians can lift weights higher than these guidelines (namely mechanical components of around 20-25kg mostly whilst on their knees to fit), or larger weights at lower levels? If we don't find a safe way of working which doens't involve sending two men to jobs we will lose more contracts than we have already.

goes to the heart of the issue, far, far more incisively than the 'standard' Stuie accepts.

A report by Brian Pearce, published by the HSE, examined over 200 court judgments about musculoskeletal disorders highlighting the apparent contradictions. Yet, the ergonomic issues account for most of the apparent contradictions in particular circumstances as Pearce demonstrated: voluminous ergonomic research supports the very point that Spartacus makes - unless you overstaff well beyond the 'as far as reasonably practicable' criterion, you can't rely on any arbitrary cut-off point to safeguard against a postural or musculoskeletal injury arising from manual handling.

Spartacus doesn't state what happened in cross-examination in the case of the claim where his company lost a claim but asks for 'any advice how I can put into place a system where our technicians can lift weights within' the parameters he prescribes. A cost-effective approach I can recommend
a. gathering reliable statistical data on each of the relevant factors specified in the HSE MHO Regs for each employee handling over a period of at least 10 weeks
b. using Ms Excel or another programme to carry out the technique of multiple regression analysis to indicate the relationships between the variables involved in handling, as the NIOSH did in their research that originated in releveant regulations and as they still do (you can hear talks by their staff through the website of the Human Factgors and Ergonomics Society)
c. if you can't do this analysis, pay a CMIOSH who is a qualified ergonomist, to do it for you and to do the next two stages
d. read the Civil Procedure Rules of evidence published by the Ministry for Justice about appropriate use of evidence in court;
d. write your guidelines based on your statistical analysis and your reading of the Civil Procedure Rules,
e. update your guidelines appropriately over time in the light of annual statistical analyses and of any relevant changes to the Civil Procedure Rules.

ClaireL's comment:
Not being funny but it's job to convince them. If they don't beleive what you say then there are far greater concerns.
raises far-reaching questions about the quality of decision-making by senior management.

A valid ergonomic analysis indicates how 'weight of a load' is only the proverbial tip of the iceberg in injuries associated with manual handling. The safety profession is faced with greater concerns than 'weight of the load' and labels in MHO claims, as I learned as a 'joint' expert witness - for the report
I wrote fuelled indignation by both sides to litigation, till they actually read what I wrote (essentially, while the employer was not the devil incarnate, the injured employee was not an angel as he had explicitly refused help from a very fit and muscular colleague, on the grounds of her gender).

Comparable issues arise in cases of harassment and other forms of verbal injury were 'words said' can be alleged to have meanings that may never have even crossed the mind of a defendant.

Prior to 1977, there were similar problems about valid decision-making by managers about selection. A breakthrough in the UK occurred then with the publication of 'the Occupational Personality Questionnaire', which presented personality assessment in plain language rather than in clinical language. Within not much more than a decade this and other (possibly more valid) well-researched measures had become standard in selection, as British methods of occupational asssessment were accepted as pathfinding - they form the basis of the emerging European standard.

Confusion, conflict and avoidable litigation are predictable outcomes of persistent failure to use relevant statistical analysis to support risk controls about MHO (and many other risk areas) and to report findings in plain English.

In principle, it's only a question of the length of time before the occupational safety/health profession uses valid measurement as a reliable, cost-effective way of improving managerial decision-making. Effectively, the relevant statistical techniques are the same as those used in selection as well as in economic and market forecasting; just a modest step technically even if it may appear to be a big one for the safety profession.

Spartacus

A valid ergonomic analysis indicates how 'weight of a load' is only the proverbial tip of the iceberg in injuries associated with manual handling. The safety profession is faced with greater concerns than 'weight of the load' and labels in MHO claims, as I learned some time ago serving as a 'joint' expert witness - for the report I wrote fuelled indignation by both sides to litigation, till they actually read what I wrote (essentially, while the employer was not the devil incarnate, the injured employee was not an angel as he had explicitly refused help from a very fit and muscular colleague, on the grounds of her gender).

Comparable issues arise in cases of harassment and other forms of verbal injury were 'words said' can be alleged to have meanings that may never have even crossed the mind of a defendant. Prior to 1977, there were similar problems about valid decision-making by managers about selection. A breakthrough in the UK occurred then with the publication of 'the Occupational Personality Questionnaire', which presented personality assessment in plain language rather than in clinical language. Within not much more than a decade this and other (possibly more valid) well-researched measures had become standard in selection, as British methods of occupational asssessment were accepted as pathfinding - they form the basis of the emerging European standard.

Confusion, conflict and avoidable litigation are predictable outcomes of persistent failure to use relevant statistical analysis to support risk controls about MHO (and many other risk areas) and to report findings in plain English.

In principle, it's only a question of the length of time before the occupational safety/health profession uses valid measurement as a reliable, cost-effective way of improving managerial decision-making along the lines to which you aspire.

For the relevant statistical techniques are the same as those used in selection as well as in sales, economic and market forecasting; not an enormous advance technically though perhaps at present it may appear to be a big one for the safety profession to step up to in the absence of books on relevant statistical analysis specifically about safety. Yet there are numerous relevant books on business statistics available, both online and in university bookshops and libraries.

Clairel's statement 'If they do not believe what you say that is a really big issue IMO' illustrates a root challenge to the OSH profession.

The evidence of the behaviour reported by Spartacus and of many, many others over the past decade indicates that days in which the infallibility of the safety/health profession - or any other! - are drawing to a close if not simply over.

Since any computer literate person can now look up safety/health legislation and decide on their own interpretation, like other professionals CMIOSH folk are challenged to present data of an evidential nature. Neither Clairel nor Spartacus have shown recognition of this simple reality.

In relation to safe manual handling, it's not difficult to use the evidence of one of the pioneering researchers on the subject by the NIOSH ergonomist Thomas Waters; 'Manual Materials Handling, in 'Occupational Ergonomics. Theory and Applications.' edited by A Bhattacharya and James D McGlothlin, CRC Press, 2nd ed., 2012, which also presents several other chapters relevant to the issues of cost-effective uses of reliable well-validated data. The Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, ed
G Salvendy, John Wiley, 4th edition, 2012.

When evidence-based information of this calibre is now readily available, what Clairel terms 'a really big issue' is not who is believed but the evidential criteria on which judgments are made. After all, the basic criterion in civil as well as criminal proceedings is not the status of witnesses but the quality of their evidence.

Clairel

Please read what I actually wrote about not what you misread....The simple fact is that I did NOT state that 'no one is believed nowadays'

In the context of Spartacus request it is reasonable to assert is simply that professionals have lost their credibility. If you need to check, please read 'The Trusted Advisor' (Maister, Green and Galford, Free Press 2000) and the stream of debate these highly accomplished critics has generated.

Please read accurately that the only comment I have made about you personally is that you have failed to read accurately what I have written; I have neither means nor motive to ascertain whether you listen more accurately than you read.

Kieran - I confess I didn't know whether or not to be impressed by some of your postings on this thread. This was mainly because, as a relative "thicko", I didn't readily understand them, and furthermore couldn't be bothered to re-read and analyse them in the hope of understanding them.

The above comments are intended as constructive criticism and not a personal attack. On a wider basis, they reflect the need for people, including professionals in OS&H and any other line of work, to try and ensure that their communications are understood by those who hear or read them.

Clairel - If you are looking at this forum before/during your hols, here's hoping that you enjoy your hols, and that those of us who enjoy your incisive postings on this forum won't be deprived of them for too long!

There is some HSE guidance:-

http://www.hse.gov.uk/msd/labellingloads.htm

MHOR does not place a duty on manufacturers or suppliers to mark weights on loads. But they do have duties under sections 3 and 6 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 to protect people not in their employment who may be affected by handling loads they have supplied.

Therefore it is good practice for manufacturers and suppliers to mark weights (and, if relevant, information about the heaviest side) on loads if this can be done easily.