Qualifying an employee

[mickeyrench]

Are employees considered quilified worker after watching arc flash videos and told of the different boundries and then taken in the field and shown how to use a voltage tester? Seems like a weak class.

 

[jxofaltrds]

Are employees considered quilified worker after watching arc flash videos and told of the different boundries and then taken in the field and shown how to use a voltage tester? Seems like a weak class.

Try reading this: http://ohsonline.com/Articles/2009/06/01/Qualified-or-Just-Experienced.aspx

 

[zog]

Are employees considered quilified worker after watching arc flash videos and told of the different boundries and then taken in the field and shown how to use a voltage tester? Seems like a weak class.

According to the NFPA 70E, a ?Qualified Person" is one who is trained and knowledgeable of the construction and operation of the equipment or the specific work method, and be trained to recognize the hazards present with respect to that equipment or work method.

Such persons shall also be familiar with the use of the precautionary techniques, personal protective equipment, insulating and shielding materials, and insulated tools and test equipment. A person can be considered qualified with respect to certain tasks but still be unqualified for others.

An employee that is undergoing on the job training and who, in the course of such training, has demonstrated the ability to perform duties safely at his or her level of training and who is under the direct supervision of a qualified person shall be considered to be a qualified person for the performance of those duties.

In addition, to be permitted to work within the limited approach of exposed energized conductors and circuit parts the person shall be trained in all of the following:
Qualified employees shall be trained and competent in:
The skills and techniques necessary to distinguish exposed live parts from other parts of electric equipment
The skills and techniques necessary to determine the nominal voltage of exposed live parts
The minimum approach distances specified in this section corresponding to the voltages to which the qualified employee will be exposed, and,
The decision making process necessary to determine the degree and extent of the hazard and the personal protective equipment and job planning necessary to perform the task safely
A few notes to add to the 70E definition.
Only the employer can deem an employee qualified after they have had the proper training and have demonstrated profinency using the skills and method learned.
There is no such thing as NFPA 70E certification, going to a training course does not make an employee qualified.
The most misunderstood part of the "qualified" term is that it is all emcompassing, you are "qualified" to work on a specific type or piece of equipment.
Neither a J-card, a masters license, or an engineering degree make you a "qualified person"
The word "electrician" is not anywhere in the definition of a "qualified person" meaning these rules apply to all employees and you dont have to be an electrician to be "qualified"

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

To add to Zog's post,

All of the training is for naught, if there is no documentation. The documentation of the student also has to be signed and dated by the student, as well as the trainer.

OSHA is taking a hard look at the term "Qualified" and the training that is the industry standard these days, which is mostly classroom training. At least the documented training. They want to see more field training as well. It should be interesting to see what they develop over the next few years in regards to the changes they contemplate making for training.

 

[zog]

All of the training is for naught, if there is no documentation. The documentation of the student also has to be signed and dated by the student, as well as the trainer.

Very good point, same goes for your ESWP's, if they are not documented they dont exist.

 

[renosteinke]

I really have to object to this entire concept of 'qualified,' of OSHA's involvement in the matter, and the very concept of "documentation."

Let's take them in reverse order.

"Documentation." Oddly enough, this is the very thing being harped upon by both OSHA and seminar vendors. Why, you are not qualified unless you have it documented - and our seminar will make you qualified, provide thqat documentation. Excuse me? Didn't someone just say that taking a course does not make you qualified? Are these seminars then without standing? If so, what of the REQUIRED OSHA 30 hr. courses? Is OSHA requiring me to take something they don't recognize? There are some issues inherent in this situation.

Which brings up OSHA's involvement. By instituting rules, etc., OSHA is setting itself up as the AHJ. That has some issues of it's own, but the first question is "AHJ for what?" Just what is 'safety training?' Would it be the same for everyone, without regard to trade, etc?

Which brings us to the concept of "qualified." I'm sorry, but the laws already determine who is qualified: whomever has the license to do so is deemed to be 'competent.' Now, some may wish to parse the difference between 'qualified' and 'competent,' but I would say that the terms are one and the same. I don't care how many safety seminars and technical classes someone has been to; without the appropriate license, they are not deemed to be 'competent.'

If OSHA is maintaining that their authority pre-empts state licensing, we have an whole new issue to discuss.

Finally, there's the "only the employer can determine if someone is qualified." Yea, Right ... subject to the unlimited discretion of OSHA, who will later pass judgement on whether there is 'acceptable documentation' to second-guess the employers' decision ... and this is in the form of the employer having to prove his innocence. Notice that? OSHA doesn't need to prove the employer failed; the employer has to prove he complied. There's something wrong with that precept.

A great illustration of these contradictions can be found in Nevada. While the State requires forklift drivers to have a "license' (certificate they took a class), OSHA rules plainly state that such a license has no merit whatever. Oh, no, you need to be re-trained, re-certified on every different machine in the plant - and do it all over again if you change jobs. In the abstract, that's a lot like requiring someone to repaet drivers' ed every time they get a new car.

If we're in a world where a 'competent' person is deemed 'unqualified,' it's time for Rod Serling to be moved from the grave to the White House.

 

[cornbread]

And you wonder why jobs keep getting shipped overseas.

 

[zog]

"Documentation." Oddly enough, this is the very thing being harped upon by both OSHA and seminar vendors. Why, you are not qualified unless you have it documented - and our seminar will make you qualified, provide thqat documentation. Excuse me? Didn't someone just say that taking a course does not make you qualified? Are these seminars then without standing? If so, what of the REQUIRED OSHA 30 hr. courses? Is OSHA requiring me to take something they don't recognize? There are some issues inherent in this situation.

The context of this post is the term qualified as relating to the NFPA 70E, it has nothing to do with the OSHA 30hr course which is required for working on certian jobs. Apples and Oranges.

Just what is 'safety training?' Would it be the same for everyone, without regard to trade, etc?

Clearly defined in the 70E, and the training is task and equipment based, could be the same for anyone doing a certian task but typically electrical workers and operators have different training needs.

Which brings us to the concept of "qualified." I'm sorry, but the laws already determine who is qualified: whomever has the license to do so is deemed to be 'competent.' Now, some may wish to parse the difference between 'qualified' and 'competent,' but I would say that the terms are one and the same. I don't care how many safety seminars and technical classes someone has been to; without the appropriate license, they are not deemed to be 'competent.'

An electrical license has nothing to do with being deemed qualified in the 70E. And someone qualified per the 70E definition is not qualified to do any electrical installation work that requires a license. Again, apples and oranges.

Finally, there's the "only the employer can determine if someone is qualified." Yea, Right ... subject to the unlimited discretion of OSHA, who will later pass judgement on whether there is 'acceptable documentation' to second-guess the employers' decision ... and this is in the form of the employer having to prove his innocence. Notice that? OSHA doesn't need to prove the employer failed; the employer has to prove he complied. There's something wrong with that precept.

You are exactly right, the employer better have justification for qualifiing thier people, documented classroom and hands on training meeting the 70E requirements. But I don't see anything wrong with that, they are putting the burden of proof on the qualifier, just like anything else in this world.

 

[jim dungar]

Qualification and documented training for 70E is not drastically different than for most other safety programs, including things like: LOTO, respirator use, confined space entry, and fall protection. It is always the responsibility of the employer to prove that the covered employees meet the requirement of their safety program.

 

[zog]

And you wonder why jobs keep getting shipped overseas.

Hmmm, maybe because we pay people $50/hr to put a door on a car. And our healthcare system is a total mess. I have a hard time with the logic we are losing jobs over a training course and some PPE.

 

[cornbread]

I'm competing with in my own company. I have management asking me why our maint cost higher than a sister company? We are commited to following 70E, but it hard when other plants within our company play by different rules. I'm lucky, we have a great safey record and I often use that as the justification for a slightly higher maint cost. That can all change with new management. Until all play the same rules its hard to compete with someone taking short cuts on safety.

 

[zog]

I'm competing with in my own company. I have management asking me why our maint cost higher than a sister company? We are commited to following 70E, but it hard when other plants within our company play by different rules. I'm lucky, we have a great safey record and I often use that as the justification for a slightly higher maint cost. That can all change with new management. Until all play the same rules its hard to compete with someone taking short cuts on safety.

Safety and maintenence programs that are veiwed as "costs" are a sign of poor management IMO. Good safety records save money on your insurance costs, and we all know how expensive accidents can get.

PM programs prevent unplanned outages and downtime, not to mention equipment failure and replacement.

The way some managers look at these programs amazes me, where dod they get thier management degrees? Online? Maybe they should save themselves $80 a year by not changing the oil in thier cars, and sell the gold contacts out of thier cars airbags to make a few bucks. Same logic.

 

[cornbread]

In my case its not so much poor management as it is young management. They have not been around the horn so to speak. Sending your folks home each night in the same condition they arrived in....is priceless. I can only hope they listen to a old man that has seen a few bad accidents in his days and hopefully will never see another.

 

[petersonra]

Essentially "qualified" means qualified to do a particular task safely.

I think video training is a good way to take care of qualifying people to do things that have a low risk level, and to give them information about the scope of their qualification.

Personally, I think the biggest problems come about not with people who don't know, but with people who don't know they don't know.

 

[renosteinke]

Even introducing the concept of "qualified" into a safety discussion is a step backwards, and will result in a worse safety record, not better. In short, OSHA, 70E, and the documentations requirements are going to get people hurt.

We go back to the entire track record of industrial safety .... which has gone through several generations of development. Focusing on 'training' is a step back from where we have already been.

What have we found that surpasses such requirements? "Culture" is the best word for it. It involves a basic change in attitudes, most of which have nothing to do with 'safety' as such. Find a place where folks are energetic, enthusiastic, and feel they 'own' their jobs, and you'll find low accident rates. Cross the street where it's all "by the book," and more folks are getting hurt.

Placing the burden to prove compliance has two issues with it.
The first is ... if the employer 'own' the credential, then the guy working leaves that job with nothing but his hat in his hand. How many would tolerate losing it all, and having to start over from square one, every time we changed jobs? Would engineers allow the employer to own their PE license? The very concept take schools out of the market entirely. Absurd? Try moving and taking your EC / Masters ticket with you. I'll say that for the craft unions: they saw to it that their members had 'portable' credentials.

The second is the very idea of having to prove you are in compliance with the law. I see that some of us have forgotten that this place was founded on the exact opposite principle of 'innocent until proven guilty.' I will concede that the past 40 years ahs seen more and more 'exceptions' made to this principle, to where it's distressingly common for us to be asked to "show our papers."

But, what's a few disagreements over details, among friends, comerades even?

 

[jim dungar]

The first is ... if the employer 'own' the credential, then the guy working leaves that job with nothing but his hat in his hand. How many would tolerate losing it all, and having to start over from square one, every time we changed jobs? Would engineers allow the employer to own their PE license? The very concept take schools out of the market entirely.

You are confusing licensing with qualifications - they are apples and oranges.

Documentation of qualification to a specific employer's safety program has nothing to do with professional licensing.

15 years of wiring single family homes with NM cable does not make a licensed electrician qualified to immediately work in a nuclear generating station.

 

[zog]

Essentially "qualified" means qualified to do a particular task safely.

exactly!

I think video training is a good way to take care of qualifying people to do things that have a low risk level, and to give them information about the scope of their qualification.

Video training has only been proven to be successful in boring the <blank> out of people and transfering little knowledge in limited applications. It is only an easy solution for people trying to meet the minimum of the requirements.

Personally, I think the biggest problems come about not with people who don't know, but with people who don't know they don't know.

That is about the best quote I have seen on here in a while, can I use that?

 

[richxtlc]

I have noted that many are referring to 70E when referring to qualifications and training documentation, OSHA 1910.332 specifies what is required to be considered "qualified" and the required documentation to prove that the training was received. OSHA does not specify how the training is to be accomplished, OJT, classroom or a combination of each. It leaves this up to the employer.
The burden of proof is on the employer to prove that an employee is qualified to specific tasks within the parameters of the work site. OSHA standards are the minimum requirements, the State and Local jurisdictions can and many do, make these standards more stringent. The lower down the food chain the more restrictive that standards tend to be. Unlike 70 and 70E they are not law until adopted and each jurisdiction can revise, edit or accept as is these documents. They all do not have to be on the same page, each state can have a different 70 document as law in that state, 1999, 2002, 2005, or 2008. All states have the same level of OSHA at the federal of state level. The state OSHA may be more stringent then the federal OSHA, but can never be less.

 

[zog]

15 years of wiring single family homes with NM cable does not make a licensed electrician qualified to immediately work in a nuclear generating station.

Man, this thread is a quote goldmine, can I use that too?

Have to add to that quote, it goes both ways. Most of what I do is in nuclear plants, but you sure don't want me wiring anyones home

 

[zog]

OSHA does not specify how the training is to be accomplished, OJT, classroom or a combination of each

OSHA does not say how anything [/q] is to be accomplished, just what is required to be accomplished.