Volume
3 Issue 2 |
||||
| This Issue Feature Article: Strategic Partnerships New York Air Quality Previous Issues Newswire
Volume 2 Issue 1 Advertising Features Safety Superstore The articles contained in Newswire are summaries only and should not be considered definitive. Appropriate advice must be obtained before proceeding. The following are some of the training courses available from Expert Ease International
Confined spaces
Confined spaces entry
Advising
your CEO Developing Permit Systems
Permit Issuers and Receivers
Risk Assessment
Mail us for details or visit us
Safety Exchange In this months update the Safety Exchange has received a major overhaul, making it even easier for members and visitors to access all of the very valuable information offered by contributors to this site. Just follow the link below to experience the changes and make use of the information. The following PowerPoint presentations were added to Safety Exchange in July 2002 1.
Manual Handling We are always on the look out for more packages. If you have PowerPoint’s that you wish to offer colleagues in exchange for other materials, drop web-safety.com a line. Safety Exchange. Read any good books lately? Have you watched a video, read a book or been on a training course recently that you feel you could write a review of? Please do. Submit to info@web-safety.com and we will consider it for publication on the website. Alternatively if you have written any papers or designed a presentation that you would wish to share with the safety community then forward those to us. We always acknowledge original sources. |
Strategic
Partnerships and Alliances One of the main cases put by businesses for not providing training is the high cost of sending employees to courses. There are unavoidable costs, whatever the business and whatever the course the employee attends. These are costs associated with employees being away from the workplace, hire of temporary staff to fill the gap and even the costs associated with the time required to implement the benefits of the training the employee has received. Because of the nature of these costs, employers are more likely to be able to meet them when it comes to compliance and performance improvement training. What is more difficult
to meet, especially for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) is the
cash cost of training, those costs associated with purchasing the training
program itself, the cost of the trainer and any assessments that are
required by the program. In a report commissioned by Expert Ease International in
1998, it was estimated that the cost of a high quality course might range
from $2-3000/£1300-2000 per day. By
anyone’s reckoning this is a considerable cost and when multiplied out
by the numbers of employees, the different types of safety training that
each may have to undertake in a year, re-fresher courses and
certification, this represents a phenomenal cost to any business,
particularly SMEs. With costs like this,
many small businesses cannot afford it and are willing to take the risk of
being caught than try to find the money to pay for training.
Statistically, the likelihood of a random safety inspection not
associated with an accident or complaint is such that employers can get
often away with it, that is until an accident occurs. In other cases,
employers buy low cost (and low quality) training from the “suitcase”
trainer, and then feel that they have met their statutory obligation. Accident analyses
demonstrate that lack of, or inadequate training is a major contributory
factor in most workplace incidents. For
example, 60% of those killed or injured in confined spaces incidents are
untrained workers. The quandary then
is how to meet the training requirements of companies, without heavy
budgetary demands. This is where the partnerships
and alliances between key safety stakeholders have an important t role to
play. At a basic level training providers can facilitate SMEs in a
given area through the provision of group purchase training.
This works ideally when a generic program has been developed which
requires little if any modification as it is offered from company to
company, for example, the Principals of Safety Management, or techniques
for conducting DSE assessments. Begin
by discussing the needs of businesses in a local area, and then develop a
program to meet their needs and invite them all to participate on a cost
share basis. This
keeps the costs well down, and the added benefit is the interaction
between the various businesses participating.
In the long term a business network may develop within which
further programs can be developed and employers have a much more cost
effective way of utilising their limited training budgets. There
are variations to t his model, where for example the numbers being trained
in one company are low enough for trainer to suggest bringing employees
from another company who require the same program.
This can half the costs for the first company and provide the
second with an opportunity that they may not have seen. Of
course the trainer may well ask, “What’s in it for me.
I’m training five companies in one session, when I could have
trained them in five session, making more money for my business?” A
valid point until except that for the most part, the employers would not
have been purchasing the training in the first place because of the costs.
This model opens training opportunities for the provider, and with
over 12 million small businesses in the USA and Europe, the potential
market is vast. There
are even more cost effective options for developing training programs for
companies, and Expert Ease International has been developing effective
models for the delivery of training through professional and trade
associations and other bodies that service large numbers of client
employers. Utilising
the opportunities provided by the Internet EEI has been developing on-line
training programs that are purchased individually by companies.
More recently, the company has established a program of developing
on-line programs on behalf of associations and business services
companies, such as insurers. Through
a partnership, EEI develops programs that meet the needs of large numbers
of members/clients of the partner. These
programs are fully badged to the partner with their corporate imagery, and
relevant photographs etc. The programs are then launched on the partner
company’s Intranet system or Internet web site. The
advantages for small business are enormous: · Training can be undertaken at a time (day or evening) convenient for the employer and employee, ·
Training can take place at the office desk or in the home, ·
Participants can follow the program at their own pace, ·
As many or as few employees can undertake the program at no extra
cost to the employer, ·
Participants can return to the program as often as required for
re-fresher training, or to use it to assist his/her daily work
performance, ·
Training times can be scheduled by the employer to ensure that
he/she is never left short staffed, ·
The employer will always be able to afford as much training as
required by law and good practice (this is especially so for safety
critical activities), ·
With self-assessment built
into programs, employer and employee can monitor their progress through
the programs, and ·
Employee awareness can be
assessed through on-line assessments and test (competency testing will
require assessors on-site to observe & assess, but the cost is off-set
by the savings from on-line training). The
following link is to a training program developed for an insurance company
that wanted to make on-line training available to their premium holders.
Sample
On-line Training Program A
simple generic program such as that illustrated for 1000 members can cost
as little as £2/$3 per member per year.
The options are for associations’ etc. to pass on these cost to
their members, or to pick up the cost as part of the membership benefits
they offer. What
this type of partnership does is ensure that training programs are being
developed and delivered to large numbers of SMEs who would not otherwise
have been able to afford training. by Philip McAleenan New York air quality measurements Baseline
indoor air quality measurements collected from 136 Metropolitan New York
region commercial office buildings between 1997-1999. A recent article in
the American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal reports on a study on
indoor air quality. Between January 1997 and December 1999, 648 surveys in
136 commercial buildings in the metropolitan New York region were
undertaken as part of an ongoing proactive indoor environmental quality
programme. Samples were taken in 'non-problem' buildings, during normal
business hours either quarterly or semi-annually. Over 15,000
samples were tested for various parameters, including carbon dioxide,
carbon monoxide and total volatile organic compounds. The results
were compared to various standards and/or guidelines for the indoor
environment. · 98% of carbon dioxide readings were under 1,000ppm · 99.9% of carbon monoxide readings were under 10ppm · almost 88% of total volatile organic compound readings were above the proposed European guideline value of 0.3mg/m3. Many readings more than tripled the proposed limit and although much of these readings may be due to outdoor sources, internal sources clearly contribute to the findings.
For
more details - AIHA Journal Vol. 63, 2002
(Source
for this article: Barbour H&S Briefings Click
for details of how to receive the Barbour H&S and/ or
Environmental briefings weekly) Pressure Equipment Directive Update A report on the latest meeting of the Pressure Equipment Directive Working Party on Guidelines has been placed on the STRD web-site today. This meeting took place in Copenhagen over 18-19 June 2002. Follow the link to the Downloadable Documents page. The document is 6th in the list. Workers’ Compensation Reform - Australia The Federal Government today announced it would examine streamlining Australia’s various workers’ compensation and occupational health and safety schemes. While the Government considers primary responsibility for workers compensation should remain with the States, it believes there may be benefits in establishing nationally consistent arrangements for workers’ compensation and occupational health and safety (OHS).
Mr Abbott said; 'Currently, national businesses must enter up to eight separate workers’ compensation schemes. This can impose a great deal of cost and complexity. 'Employees, even those working for the same employer, have varying levels of entitlements depending upon the State or Territory in which they work.
'It is in the best interest of employers and employees to have workers’ compensation arrangements that provide a high level of return to work for injured employees, premiums that reflect safety experience of the workplace and provide injured employees with an appropriate level of compensation.'
Senator Campbell said; 'The Government will soon ask the Productivity Commission to inquire into how Australian industry can be made more efficient and competitive in this area and how workers can best be protected.'
Mr Abbott said; 'The nation’s performance in workplace safety needs to improve. The diverse State and Territory OHS arrangements, with their complex and inconsistent regulation, can add costs to business, create uncertainty for employers and employees and hamper improvements in workplace safety.' Mr Abbott and Senator Campbell said the Government would consult with State and Territory governments soon on the draft terms of reference for the inquiry.
Source: Minister for Workplace Relations - July 24 2002 OSHA recently revised three fact sheets on selected topics: Powered Platforms provides information to help employers prevent injuries to window washers and other building maintenance workers, and includes information on engineering requirements, fall protection, stabilization systems, emergency plans, and training; Formaldehyde identifies what employers and workers should know to prevent harmful exposures, and also highlights record keeping requirements; and Ethylene Oxide addresses permissible exposure limits for workers and respirator use. Source: OSHA QuickTakes August 2002
|
|||
|
|
||||
