Over the past five issues of Hoist, I have addressed a number of the broad issues related to safe, legal lifting. Planning, training, selection of equipment, maintenance and thorough examinations have all been covered and it now seems an appropriate point to consider some of the common themes that have emerged. In particular, what are the root causes of dangerous lifting, and how can they best be addressed? When accidents occur during lifting operations, the immediate causes inevitably vary from one incident to another. However, closer investigation often identifies the underlying issue as a simple lack of investment in the people, equipment and procedures concerned. Dealing with this basic unwillingness to put sufficient resources into lifting operations is therefore the key to achieving really significant, industry-wide improvements in safety.
In the UK, and I suspect in many other countries, there is a notable absence of clear financial incentives for companies to adopt a more progressive and enlightened approach to many of the factors directly related to safer lifting. Training is a good example. A generation ago, UK companies above a certain size were subject to a training levy by their industry training board. Those that invested in training staff enjoyed a rebate, creating a clear economic motivation for improving skills among the workforce. That system became discredited by the bureaucracy involved and, with the exception of the construction industry training board, it was abandoned. However, the principle was right and has not been effectively replaced. A similar incentive still exists in Germany, which is regularly held up as an example of a country with a well trained workforce, particularly in engineering and manufacturing. The driving force behind the German approach is a network of industrial insurance institutes, or BGs, which levy companies according to the standards maintained by the industry sector as a whole, and the individual company in question. There is therefore a direct incentive to train staff not just for the benefit of a particular company, but also for the entire industry. The insurance institutes, which have to bear the costs resulting from workplace injuries similarly have a direct economic interest in ensuring high standards of safety.
In the absence of such a system, UK employers are less likely to take a favourable view of the costs inherent in training staff. When justifying failures in this respect, one of the most common arguments made by employers is that the potential benefits of better qualified staff are often lost immediately, as competitors simply poach the individuals in question for a small rise in pay. Furthermore, with no obvious shared interest in raising the overall skill levels within an industry, the standard of training inevitably varies widely from one company to another.
The consequences of this situation are serious not just for the lifting industry, but the economy as a whole. The ‘productivity gap’ between one country and another is often traced back to inadequately trained staff. A particular weakness is identified at the planning and supervisory levels. Significantly, it is often failures in these two areas that are identified as major contributory factors in lifting accidents.
Reflecting this lack of incentive for long-term investment in staff skills, much of the training that does take place is characterised by a ‘quick-fix’ approach. For example, too many of the courses that claim to provide ‘competence’ in the thorough examination of lifting equipment are vague and lack any form of rigorous assessment. The Lifting Equipment Engineers Association (LEEA) is firmly of the opinion that competence is a combination of proven practical and theoretical knowledge and in-depth experience of the equipment in question. The continued popularity among LEEA members of the association’s well-established diploma course does provide grounds for encouragement, however, and perhaps reflects the fact that there are still a significant number of companies that will invest in more structured training, as long as it is reasonably priced, readily accessible and directly related to their particular requirements.
As with training, the prevailing business climate often seems to discourage the hire or purchase of good quality equipment. The LEEA recently issued a warning on the potential dangers posed by the increasing amount of extremely cheap lifting equipment now coming from Asia, and it certainly struck a chord with many people in the industry. The apparent demand for such equipment suggests once again that there is growing pressure on buyers to put short term cost savings above everything else, including safety and long term economic sense.
However it isn’t just imported equipment that presents problems. The LEEA still regularly comes across companies using ‘home made’ equipment that is poorly designed and constructed. Often they send it to an LEEA member for ‘testing and certification’, little realising their own duties as the manufacturer and becoming upset when the equipment’s shortcomings are brought to their attention. Indeed, as I write this, a member has just called for advice about a typical situation involving an excessively flexible lifting beam designed in-house by a galvanising plant for loading components into pickle tanks and subsequent galvanising.
Lifting equipment requires a programme of thorough examination, inspection and maintenance to ensure that health and safety conditions are maintained and that any deterioration can be detected and remedied in good time. To maintain an adequate level of safety, poor quality equipment is therefore likely to need more frequent attention, which can quickly wipe out any savings in terms of the initial purchase price. Furthermore, the working life of such equipment is typically much shorter.
At every stage of lifting procedures – selection, training, maintenance, inspection, planning and supervision – there is a sound financial case for a higher level of investment in safety. Across Europe, a much more rigorous approach to corporate negligence is being pursued. Recent cases in the UK have seen fines as high as £200,000 ($300,000) handed out for lifting-related accidents. Companies also need to consider the time and expense of such court cases, and the huge potential for negative publicity.
Even relatively minor accidents can have serious financial repercussions. Disruption to production and distribution schedules, the cost of finding replacements for injured staff, and increased compensation and insurance payments must all be taken into account. Staff morale is also likely to suffer. In addition, damage to the load, lifting equipment, plant and building can all prove extremely costly.
However, while the ‘stick’ of tighter legislation and tougher penalties obviously has a role to play, the fact remains that in the UK in particular, an approach based on incentives and encouragement would probably have a greater impact on the overall standards of lifting safety. Through the work of the Training Standards Council and the Learning & Skills Development Agency, the government has clearly identified the UK’s relative weakness in workforce training. As a result, there appears to be no shortage of initiatives to try and address the problem. However, perhaps the most sensible starting point would be an attempt to create a culture in which those that adopt best practice, particularly in terms of staff training, are rewarded, at the expense of those that fail to reach reasonable standards. At the same time, industry sectors need to be encouraged to pursue common goals in the development of a well qualified workforce. It is in no one’s commercial interest to create skill shortages. A system must be developed whereby companies do not fear that their own good work in staff development will simply benefit a competitor that can offer a slightly better salary. A similar approach needs to be taken to tackle the business philosophy which dictates that price is often the only criteria used for the purchase or hire of lifting equipment.
None of these changes are likely to prove easy, but it can only be hoped that more and more people will see the flaws in the financial argument that puts short term economic gain ahead of long term investment in basic engineering and safety values. In the lifting industry, the steady growth in membership of the LEEA suggests that there is recognition of the need for both suppliers and users to pursue and promote good practice. Certainly, with regard to maintaining and improving standards of safety, it has never been more vital for all those in the industry who share the right philosophy to press the case for long term investment in quality rather than short term cost cutting. The benefits for those who accept the argument are likely to include not just better standards of safety, but a healthier financial position too.
