Law about qualificactions to fell trees

[daltontrees]

12 hours ago, krummholz said:

Where are you getting this from?

I understood that training can be consolidated (i.e. before certification) on the job if supervised by someone with the relevant ticket(s) and suitable experience, initially on a 1:1 ratio, then 1:2, with the supervisor then being able to work in the vicinity.

 

From INDG317:

 

"Where training is being consolidated through workplace-based experience, the trainee should be supervised by a person competent in the use of a chainsaw for the work being done by the trainee and who holds the relevant competence certificate or award."

I just made it up.

No, of course I didn't.

PUWER Regulation 9.(2) Every employer shall ensure that any of his employees who supervises or manages the use of work equipment has received adequate training for purposes of health and safety, including training in the methods which may be adopted when using the work equipment, any risks which such use may entail and precautions to be taken.

This suggests that the supervisor must not only be a competent user themselves but must be trained to train. It's not quite the same as being certificated, which at best would rely on the trainer remembering all that he was taught.

[GarethM]

23 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

I just made it up.

No, of course I didn't.

PUWER Regulation 9.(2) Every employer shall ensure that any of his employees who supervises or manages the use of work equipment has received adequate training for purposes of health and safety, including training in the methods which may be adopted when using the work equipment, any risks which such use may entail and precautions to be taken.

This suggests that the supervisor must not only be a competent user themselves but must be trained to train. It's not quite the same as being certificated, which at best would rely on the trainer remembering all that he was taught.

The made up word they always used in electrical was "reasonably practicable" for doing your best.

 

Rules and legislation are designed to be somewhat ambiguous, as once written are statute. That's why they aren't able to say explicitly this company.

 

It's the same in education, usually atleast one level above is considered okay in adult education.

[daltontrees]

50 minutes ago, GarethM said:

The made up word they always used in electrical was "reasonably practicable" for doing your best.

 

Rules and legislation are designed to be somewhat ambiguous, as once written are statute. That's why they aren't able to say explicitly this company.

 

It's the same in education, usually atleast one level above is considered okay in adult education.

I don't think it's deliberately ambiguous. It's more that it is impossible to be precise with only words. And a lot of tests arise from the common law concept of reasonability, probably the most important word in law. It is also desirable that rules are not overly prescriptive so they leave scope for adjustment to context and curcumstances. 'Practicable' is another important word, it denotes that it's no excuse to do a thing if it's cheap and easy and yields good results, and no obligation if its hard, expensive and with questionable returns. There is a societal iterest in allowing life and the economy to get on with things withut fear of being liable for every trivial and fantastically unimaginable harm situation.

 

In H&S law and practice, risks can be categorised as acceptable, tolerable or unacceptable. There's no need to address the first, no excuse for not addressing the last, and a requirement to reduce 'tolerable' to 'as low as reasonably practicable', with I think an onus of proof that what has been done or not done to manage risk was appropriate in the curculmstances.

 

So in the current example, say a groundkeeper has a permanently disfiguring cjainsaw accident, meaning being unable to work again. Let's say if the employer was found liable the compensation would be £250,000. Let's say that it probably wouldn't have happened if the guy had recieved proper training from an external organisation and had passed assessment. And that the cost of training and the exam would have been £1,000. So there's a multiplier of 250 times cost of risk to cost of prevention. That I think is a reasonable and proportionate cost for the employer. I wpoiuldn't want to eb an employer trying to argue that the cost of training was disproprtionately high relative to risk.

 

[krummholz]

3 hours ago, daltontrees said:

I just made it up.

No, of course I didn't.

PUWER Regulation 9.(2) Every employer shall ensure that any of his employees who supervises or manages the use of work equipment has received adequate training for purposes of health and safety, including training in the methods which may be adopted when using the work equipment, any risks which such use may entail and precautions to be taken.

This suggests that the supervisor must not only be a competent user themselves but must be trained to train. It's not quite the same as being certificated, which at best would rely on the trainer remembering all that he was taught.

 

I disagree that the above suggests that the supervisor/manager needs to be trained to train, merely that they know what they're looking at when supervising works.

But hey! Let's agree to disagree

[daltontrees]

1 hour ago, krummholz said:

 

I disagree that the above suggests that the supervisor/manager needs to be trained to train, merely that they know what they're looking at when supervising works.

But hey! Let's agree to disagree

You asked. I'm not out to persuade anyone.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong, though. Supervision has to include being satisfied tha the supervisee (don't know if that's an actual word) knows what they're doing before you let them start, and stopping them doing things wrong before there is an accident or before bad habits set in, and explaining how to do it right and why. Sounds like training to me.  Certainly not enough for the supervisor merely to be competent himself. That's not my opinion, that's my interpretation of the Regulation and of the midset of HSE inspectors.

[john87]

10 hours ago, daltontrees said:

You asked. I'm not out to persuade anyone.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong, though. Supervision has to include being satisfied tha the supervisee (don't know if that's an actual word) knows what they're doing before you let them start, and stopping them doing things wrong before there is an accident or before bad habits set in, and explaining how to do it right and why. Sounds like training to me.  Certainly not enough for the supervisor merely to be competent himself. That's not my opinion, that's my interpretation of the Regulation and of the midset of HSE inspectors.

What you mean by "trained to train" a PGCE??

john..

[maybelateron]

But then should the people who train trainers be trained and qualified to train trainers?

 

Just being an agent provocateur

 

 

[openspaceman]

5 hours ago, maybelateron said:

But then should the people who train trainers be trained and qualified to train trainers?

 

Just being an agent provocateur

 

 

Actually that is just how the pyramid of safety selling works, trainer charges trainee, after number of trainings verifier charges trainer, after a number of verifications verifier gets checked. Then once a year all the trainers, assessors, verifiers get charged to attend an update session hosted by the top dogs.

[GarethM]

6 minutes ago, openspaceman said:

Actually that is just how the pyramid of safety selling works, trainer charges trainee, after number of trainings verifier charges trainer, after a number of verifications verifier gets checked. Then once a year all the trainers, assessors, verifiers get charged to attend an update session hosted by the top dogs.

If that was a financial triangle, I think those are illegal. Just saying.