Rob Vetter is technical director and managing partner with the Ives Training Group, in Blaine, WA, USA, a leader in North American mobile equipment training systems since 1981.

---

Good forklift operator training does not begin and end with the training program. The work begins well in advance of the training and, in practical terms, never ends.

The training cycle should (but rarely does) follow a top-down model that starts with upper management buy-in of training and the intrinsic values thereof. These values, once embraced by the big-wigs, must be adopted into the corporate management philosophy of the company/business and passed down to the middle managers at the human resources, personnel and production levels. The cycle then continues on to the line supervisors so that the entire management team is seen as one that "walks the talk" and doesn't just pay lip service to safety and, by association, operator training.

Moving on to the level where the action takes place - those who actually carry out the labour that produces the products and/or services that ultimately turn a profit for the company - the trainers and operators. I've probably left out a few levels - safety managers and committee members, employee representatives etc. to name a few - but the point is, most of the components that fuel the training cycle are on the management side. The operators, the recipients of the training and the carriers of the action, are usually perceived as the final link in the chain and left on their own after training is received. But the truth is that the cycle continues on from there, with labour and management moving forward. Operators take their training and supposedly adhere to the tenets relayed therein. Supervisors monitor operations and correct unsafe conditions and/or behaviour and report to management. Management reacts to the reports received and adjusts, amends, adapts and lays out the means to overcome identified obstacles, and the cycle repeats itself on an ongoing basis.

But is the cycle described in the preceding paragraphs actually happening or does the following scenario seem more familiar? Upper management, while appearing to be deeply concerned with safety, is actually consumed with maximising profitability, efficiency, etc. and, as such, often pass on their safety responsibilities to overloaded middle managers. They, in turn, are often so distracted by production and personnel issues that they either drop the ball completely, or simply go through the motions necessary to give the appearance of tending to safety concerns and, ultimately, leave much of the task to supervisors.

These equally overworked supervisors are usually pulled sideways with fulfilling production quotas and putting out fires that by the time training reaches the front line, it is either cursory at best or non-existent at worst. Somewhere the cycle breaks down and it's usually because somewhere in the chain the perceived value of training is not appreciated. So let's break the cycle and expound the virtues of training as they pertain to each level.

Upper Management

There is one thing that is sure to get the attention of the brass: money. Surprised? Don't be. These people are supposed to be focused on the bucks - it's what they're paid for and they must be made to see the value of training in monetary terms. Pointing out what training and ongoing diligent safety practices can do to drive net costs down and profitability up may just get them on board. Try citing reductions in costs related to: production downtime; damage and repair to equipment, product, buildings and structures; workers' compensation claims and insurance premiums; regulatory compliance assessments; and litigation and court imposed penalties (civil and criminal) as a few of the avenues where dollars could be saved.


Middle Management

Middle managers can also gain financial benefits from safety training as many of them receive bonuses, profit sharing or some kind of dollar-related perk based on the performance of their respective departments. If they can show upper management improvements in efficiency, many of which may result from the implementation of proper training, the "uppers" are happy, which means so are the "middles."

Supervisors

Supervisors usually have annual performance reviews with the promise of monetary rewards but supervisors also have another compelling reason to drive safety and training: they are directly responsible for it. In the event that a damage or injury-producing incident results in an investigation by regulatory authorities, supervisors are typically front and centre.

Workers and Operators

Although this group has no direct responsibility or derives no direct benefit from safety training, they do have a direct responsibility to adhere to their training and it's perhaps the single most compelling reason of all: the quality of their lives, if not their very life itself, depends on it.