Rank: New forum user 
|
So at our workplace we have a skilled and unskilled workforce.
Skilled - Time served, full apprenticeship in a mechanical field.
Unskilled - on the job process training only, usually operating production machinery.
With abrasive wheels we have always trained some of our skilled workforce to carry out the checks and changing of wheels.
We're being preasurised into now training the unskilled to carry out changing of wheels and inspecting the equipment. But these unskilled have zero skills with using hand tools nor do they have the same competence of the skilled workforce.
Can this be imposed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Can this be imposed? By who and why? I find your post a little bit dismissive of persons I take to be your colleagues.
If your concern is managment attempting to down skill they will still need to demonstrate employee competence with equipment in the event of an accident - PUWER applies.
Personally I always applaud attempts to upskill, multiskill and develop employees.
|
 6 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Can this be imposed? By who and why? I find your post a little bit dismissive of persons I take to be your colleagues.
If your concern is managment attempting to down skill they will still need to demonstrate employee competence with equipment in the event of an accident - PUWER applies.
Personally I always applaud attempts to upskill, multiskill and develop employees.
|
6 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
The answer to your question is in the question. You say the employer wants to 'train' the staff you term 'unskilled' to undertake the work. As such, after training and with some experience, these individuals will be 'skilled' at inspecting and maintaining abrasive wheels. From an H&S point of view, what's the problem? The tone of your question and the distinction between so called 'skilled' and 'unskilled' suggest there is more to this question than wanting a purely H&S answer. I suspect that you are looking for an H&S justification to try and stop a change of approach from management that is not welcomed by the 'skilled' team. The 'skilled' team wouldn't happen to be union members and the 'unskilled' not, would they? Bottom line: The employer has to make sure that staff undertaking a task are competent to do that task. How that competence is achieved doesn't matter as long as it is achieved.
As said in the first answer, upskilling and multiskilling of staff is a good thing; it is not a problem providing it is undertaken correctly.
|
4 users thanked antbruce001 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
This sounds like a throw back to the bad old days of demarcation disputes. You would have skilled fitters belonging to one union, who had better pay and conditions and unskilled operatives who had less pay and were not allowed to do the “skilled” jobs like setting up equipment. And the unions guarded this difference. Is it?
|
2 users thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
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.