Danny Maron, owner/trainer of Ideal Forklift Training in Canada's national capital, is an independent consultant, providing the education lift truck operators require, to businesses and government, to minimise the chance of incidents in the workplace. Before founding Ideal in 2000, Danny was a trainer at Canada's largest forklift dealer.
There have been a couple of brief comments in the
Discussion Forums regarding the signing off on permits once a training course has been completed. I have read that some trainers (and this is totally their choice) prefer to have the client sign off rather than doing so themselves. I commented that I personally sign off on all documentation, which led to some discussion along the lines that I am undertaking a huge liability risk by doing so.
As professional trainers, we are hired to perform an extremely important service: educating the participants in the safety issues pertaining to powered industrial forklifts. We teach them, we test them, and then we watch them operate the truck(s) in question. Once the course is completed, it is up to the trainer to deem that person competent, or determine what level of competency has been achieved, and sign off on the permits as well as the balance of the paperwork. We are the ones observing their operation of the forklifts, and we should be the ones determining their competency.
Having the company sign off, and therefore dumping the liability on the client, is not what we are being paid for. How can the company or its management sign off on paperwork based on the trainer's findings? I would never sign anything based upon someone else's sayso. I would have to presume that since the company wants all their employees 'certified', they will gladly sign all the permits, just to have all the staff working on the floor. And that is not what we are being paid for.
Which leads me to two questions: Are we not getting paid to determine their competency and (possibly) taking the blame if something goes awry? Are we, the seasoned professionals, hired to educate and assess the participants, accepting liability should our teachings be less than adequate?
Yes, there are sub-par trainers out there who should not be doing any training whatsoever. The lawyers and regulators would have to prove negligence on the part of the trainer for improper training, and/or improper assessments for them to be found liable. As competent trainers, I would argue that it is our job to take responsibility, and any attempt to shift this onto the business is immoral and wrong.
That is why we, as professional trainers, carry liability insurance should we accidentally make a wrong call. We should not be making incorrect calls, and if the trainer follows strict policies and testing procedures, the chance of the trainer being held liable is very slim, as is the chance of the operator getting him/herself into trouble.
By not placing your signature on the dotted line, clients may think that you are hiding something, or did not perform the duties contracted for. I am proud to sign my John Henry on the dotted line. It reassures my clients that I am every bit involved in the safety aspect of their business, as they are.