the PeoPle - OPERC - Off-highway Plant and Equipment Research ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SPECIAL REPORT Strong feelings are evident, as one industry insider commented: “A proliferation of industry training specialists exists, encompassing more than 20 different schemes. Isn’t this a rather ludicrous situation having all these training providers, accreditation and verification bodies all competing against each other in an already depressed industry, a situation further exacerbated by training providers Isn’t this a rather ludicrous situation having all these training providers, accreditation and verification bodies all competing against each other in an already depressed industry offering similar training schemes with different forms of certification which may be recognised by one body or contractor but not another. This unhelpful situation places both the employer and employees in a state of confusion and out of pocket in an attempt to remain compliant with ever changing training certification. Can anyone be expected to take the construction industry seriously 20 April 2011 It is has been said many times before that a company’s finest resource is the people it employs and on the back of this a huge amount of time, effort and cost has been ploughed into national plant and equipment operator training schemes. For over twenty years there have been those espousing the virtues of a ‘new scheme’, the ‘latest revisions to an existing scheme’, ‘new co-operative agreements’ and so forth, and yet despite this there are more accidents, more fatalities and an industry in complete disarray. for allowing this absurd situation to continue? Perhaps a suitable collective noun for all these bodies would be an ‘absurdity’. He continued; “It is now time for a seismic change in how we test and license the competence of plant operators and we should consider moving away from the current system of card schemes etc. and enact a statutory requirement, by law. When Prescott was Deputy Prime Minister under Blair he threatened the construction industry, after a spate of appalling accidents, with, ‘Either you sort yourselves out or we, as Government, will do it for you!’. Various reports were spawned by this threat, but to no avail. The situation with regard to plant operator competence is as bad now, as it was when Prescott preached to the industry. Accident statistics show no improvement. a call for a single standard for operator training The mismanagement of operator training and competence development is a recurring theme which has recently reared its head again to the dismay and utter frustration of many industry professionals. News of disputes between relevant leading bodies, poor communication and co-operation and a failure to adhere to National Occupational Standards are all indicative of a systemic lack of industry leadership and clear nonpolitical guidance. When is someone going to grab the bull by the horns and sort this mess out? “In all fairness, many well-intentioned organisations did their utmost to make improvements. Sadly, in their naivety, Government, major contractors, safety professionals and others thought a mass registration of workers would cure all ills. These cards carry a photo and inform employers that the individual has passed a very basic health and safety awareness, touch screen or on-line test but that’s all. The only bonus is the reconciliation of income and expenditure for the organisations which administer and manage training, accreditation and verification. If the plethora of card schemes had to cease and follow a statutory licensing procedure would our friends at Westminster give these very same organisations a dispensation to do the tests? Probably yes, but at least we would be guaranteed consistency of standard and equal costing for the employer/plant operator.”
Another industrialist PEP spoke to said: “We have successfully argued for a single standard for some time and the industry developed the very comprehensive National Occupational Standard and NVQs that emerged from this. The problems are that: ● this standard has not been policed adequately enough by a politically independent body who would put transparency at the top of the agenda; ● successive governments clearly do not consult with all parties as equals but rather come to the table with a pre-set agenda and work with those who are willing to implement it; ● just when we are starting to see the benefit of S/NVQs along comes the next wave of money making initiatives - the QCF!; ● independent bodies have been proposed, such as UKAS, as part of a pan-European initiative but the costs of such are preclusive for many of the smaller schemes who remain highly successful despite the cartels that have been established in some quarters of industry; and ● many within industry do not understand the key differences between training and competence let alone have heard of the National Occupational Standard! “It’s a hopeless situation and a complete failure to move forward for the benefit of all – rather it’s the ‘preserve the gravy train routine’ that we have all come to know and despise! Perhaps this is one benefit of the current recession – it provides a perfect excuse to make change and cut bureaucracy. Cut the red tape and you can still preserve quality given the promotion, adoption and administration of the NOS. To be lean, mean and effective, British industry has to turn its back on these communist ideas of running national training provisions. Michael “ Easton Sales and Marketing Director In an interview with Professor David Edwards, Birmingham City University (OPERC founder), he said: “We are all, in industry, as guilty as each other in that genuine attempts to form strategic industry alliances have thus far failed, but I remain hopeful that common sense will ultimately prevail. The diversity and range of skills and knowledge out there is phenomenal but petty politics, duplication of effort, unfair commercial advantages and the ever present pressures of commercial gain represent a huge monolith that impedes industry progress in terms of its operator training and competence provision. The current recession has forced the hand of government to introspective review and to assess where public sector costs and red tape can be reduced so that urgently needed funds can be diverted to aid industrial growth. It is perfectly clear that society cannot afford to invest further in service without industrial output and export to fund that service. To be lean mean and effective, British industry has to turn its back on these communist ideas of running national training provisions He continued: “One way forward is for industry to demand that a logically phased approach to planning the future of operator training is adopted. One of the major problems of Lord John Prescott’s well intentioned actions is that threats incite ‘reactive’ vis-à-vis measured ‘proactive’ approaches. Perhaps at that time, the threat came from government frustration at poor industrial safety performance, but the outcome was an ill-conceived plethora of organically grown safety schemes and cards. These schemes have since progressed organically and largely at their own pace and direction – totally independently of competitors. Today there are as many card schemes out there as there ever was. Rather than forge a cohesive national provision to operator training and competence SPECIAL REPORT development, the various interested parties remain ever more fragmented and the training provision itself is even more finely granulated, confusing and costly. “In its simplest form, the first stage should be for all training provider schemes, awarding bodies, sector skills councils and other relevant parties to form a virtual National Academy with the specific aim of writing, monitoring, controlling and implementing future revisions of the NOS. The last thing industry needs is another government quango! Past ventures to achieve this goal have thus far failed because they were perceived to be exclusive so inclusivity is critical. A deadline should be set for launching a revised national training standard which would then see stage two being implemented - that is, a legal requirement to meet this standard once set, whilst preserving individualism and competition within the sector. Creating one recognised stamp of approval that has been developed in a transparent, fair and equal manner in the absence of the ivory tower syndrome is not an insuperable problem and is easily within our grasp. Implementing such an innovative venture would require a willingness and courage of all parties involved to proportionally share in the benefits and risks. “ April 2011 21
Page 1 and 2: NEW Plant & Equipment Professional
Page 3 and 4: Editorial The ailments of a beleagu
Page 5 and 6: Volvo ce is first uK supplier to be
Page 7 and 8: Lafarge Cement has developed a grou
Page 9 and 10: new Bomag landfill compactor keeps
Page 11 and 12: leading the way in safety at costai
Page 13 and 14: leach lewis heavy wins new Doosan d
Page 15 and 16: Industry professionals training fut
Page 17 and 18: 1 case studies To illustrate how th
Page 19: However, what is a more complex pro
Page 23 and 24: the way I’ve conducted it is to a
Page 25 and 26: call 0370 050 0797 April 2011 25 Co
Page 27 and 28: Birmingham City University, recentl
Page 29 and 30: negative forces There are additiona
Page 31 and 32: Mick Norton, OPERC Chairman On hear
Page 33 and 34: Big role for small fleet of JcB mac
Page 35 and 36: SPECIAL REPORT At PEMIC 2010 - the
Page 37 and 38: achieves ineos safety award Hewden
Page 39 and 40: uK Vibration conference Registratio
Page 41 and 42: Training and Testing Specialist in
Page 43 and 44: It was a very long day ….. Dear E

the PeoPle - OPERC - Off-highway Plant and Equipment Research ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?