Rank: Super forum user 
|
Training by shadowing People learn in many different ways, some like reading and text while others are more visual and some like hands on etc. Reading an article in the latest IOSH magazine, about the fine Aldi got for a crush injury to an employee’s foot, £1m pounds. The incident apparently happened with a powered pallet truck. They were criticised for not carrying out proper formal training, but instead trained the person by them shadowing another employee. They went on to use a slightly bigger powered pallet truck. This at some point rolled backwards onto his foot. The thing is there are many trades which are learnt by shadowing an experienced person or at least it is part of the training. Additionally, shouldn’t people be expected to have a certain level of intelligence. Yes, it was a slightly bigger machine, but I would expect operated in exactly the same way or at least so very similar that it should be easy to work out. I passed my driving test in a fiesta and was then able to go and drive any car of my choosing (influenced mostly, only by lack of money). What are people’s thoughts on Shadow training.
|
 1 user thanked chris42 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Chris
Cognitive v Kinisthetics, the age old dilemna. However, we have major issues in that we have legislation to be applied that reference training requirements e.g. PUWER.
Given the methodology used - shadowing - for this case we need to determine the competency of the individual 'shadowee', did he/she come with a level of knowledge, experience, ability, training, attitude and communication skills with which to ensure the relevant training was acknowledged and understood? Was this indivdual able to get the necessary information across to the individual that was safety critical; was there any confirmation from the IP that the information was received and understood via feedback, was this documented and signed off?
We could all shadow an accountant, but doesn't mean in a few weeks we are accountants!!
Overall, shadowing could form part of a training programme for the pallet truck (supervised element in the workplace), but it isn't a replacement for formal training. Formal training for such kit would include but not limited to elements such as;
- Controls and instruments
- Starting/moving/stopping and steering the truck
- Battery care and maintenance
- Weight assessment
- Vehicle loading/unloading from a loading dock and other environments
- Bulk and industrial pallet racking (dependent on truck type)
There has to be some formal element of assessment on the use of the truck, which is structured, thus ensuring the individual was capable of operating it safely and the use of the equipment didn't danger anyone or anything.
Happy to discuss
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Interesting. I have to admit that I probably would have agreed with shadowing being an acceptable way to learn how to use the machine in that instance. Obviously I am wrong. I suppose it comes back to the fact that an accident happened therefore the training was insufficient. I am stunned by the size of the fine though. I would think that fine is proportional to the size of the business. Even so, a lot of small or medium size businesses would struggle to cope with that level of fine even if it were scaled down. Very interesting indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Originally Posted by: chris42 
The thing is there are many trades which are learnt by shadowing an experienced person or at least it is part of the training.
But there's the rub, Chris. In this instance, Aldi was in no position to confirm whether the 'other' employee was any more competent than the employee who was injured. A dereliction of duty (HASAWA) by the employer.
The fine is typical of new sentencing guidelines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Shadowing is a great way to teach people, especially if the main domain is the psychomotor skills but it has to be done properly. The teacher must know what the learning outcomes are. They must assess the effectiveness of the learning and monitor the trainees as they become fully competent. In this case the person was shown the pallet truck once and essentially told to get on with it. You cannot assume that the trainee has understood what they have to do. If you simply ask them “Do you understand” most people will say “Yes” to avoid looking stupid. You have to test them.
|
1 user thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Yes Ron, the fine does seem quite typical since the introduction of the new sentencing guidelines. Each month in the Magazine you see at least 3 or 4 companies with that level of fine (obviously bigger company’s make the headlines.
The IP was with someone shadowing them for a week, so I would have thought they had been shown the ropes and actually used it a good bit in that time. Lots of people do these sorts of jobs because they are not good in classrooms or taking tests, completing paperwork etc. So, in order to prove any form of kinaesthetic competence they need to sit a little test or would Aldi have just needed to ensure the person doing the “Training” signed off a competence record and that the person doing the training had some form of training qualification themselves.
We seem to end up with no employee can be allowed to show another employee how to do something (anything) without them having some form of qualification in that area. Additionally, every time a new piece of equipment even if basically the same (let’s say different make) requires a training record.
Don’t we end up with say a time severed carpenter, who knows how to operate a wood lathe, has to go on a training course because you buy another that can handle a piece of wood 100mm longer. A car mechanic, sorry I did my apprenticeship with Ford I can’t possibly fix that Kia.
Don’t get me wrong I agree there should be some form of record, that they are good to go, but really hasn’t this gone a bit far. I’m obviously wrong with this thought process, as it evidently didn’t work and someone was hurt, because after a week’s shadowing on a similar machine they didn’t know how to put the brakes on.
Interesting discussion cheers
|
1 user thanked chris42 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Read a lot;dont post much these days but I couldnt resist this one. @chris42 "time severed carpenter". Brilliant, just brilliant typo. As to the topic. There is nothing wrong with learning by shadowing. However, in this day and age I think you must a paper trail that confirms what needs to be taught, what has been taught and most important what the trainee accepts they have learnt. Simple lesson plan with sign off by both trainer and employee is all that is required. I doubt it would take more than half an A4 sheet to cover that.
|
2 users thanked pete48 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
A lot of organisations claim that they train people by shadowing but they don’t. They just send some poor sod out with someone who they guess can so the job right. (They don’t actually know if they understand the job just assume and assuming is cheaper than actually knowing) and hope an understanding of the job rubs off on the novice. The key thing is that they never assess the “learning” and nobody ever says “This guy does not understand what he should be doing and we should give him more support”: they just assume that after a period of time they are “trained”.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi,
"Shadow" training is an important element of supplementing basic skills training, some people call it on the job training or familiarisation training following completion of a safety scheme qualification for example. However, shadow training is not a replacement for training that is required by law.
Bottom line and the reason why Aldi were fined is that under law and particularly when using rider operated lift trucks, users, supervisors and managers are required to have received adequate training including: operational methods, risks associated and precautions to take.
The ACoP L117 Rider Operated Lift Trucks - Operator training states: "employers should not allow anyone to operate, even on a very occasional basis, lift trucks within the scope of the ACOP who have not satisfactorily completed basic training and testing as described in the ACOP, except for those undergoing such training under adequate supervision."
The L117 ACoP talks about two follow on types of training from basic, one is specific job training normally integrated with basic and tailored to the employer's particular needs. The other is familiarisation training or what you refer to as "shadow" training.
The L117 ACoP text relates to stacking rider-operated lift trucks, although the employer’s duty under PUWER to provide training also extends to operators of all other types of lift truck.
Obviously training is proportionate and commensurate with the equipment selected and risks associated. However, when proscribed under law like the example you have given, it must be followed or suffer the consequences should you not and there is an accident.
I hope this helps?
|
1 user thanked Woolf13 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
“However, shadow training is not a replacement for training that is required by law”. Like many of us, I suspect, I have found many cases where ‘training’ is not properly managed but is left to Fred “who has been doing it for years and will show you how to go on”. If ‘shadowing’ is being interpreted as such then I would agree it would not be sufficient. However I think we must clarify that properly structured hands on shadowing/training is a very effective method of learning and is not precluded by law. Maybe my comment about half an A4 sheet was a little dismissive but if you check out the appendices in L117 there is nothing that cannot be achieved via a hands-on, in the workplace, approach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.