Nobody, it turns out. In the absence of federal regulations, anyone can hang out a sign, print up business cards, and call himself a forklift driver trainer.
James Cooke is a principal analyst with Nucleus Research in Boston, covering supply chain planning software. He was previously the editor of CSCMP?s Supply Chain Quarterly and a staff writer for DC Velocity.
By any standard, Joe Monaco is well qualified to train drivers in the safe operation of forklift trucks. Not only does he boast more than 20 years of experience, but he also runs the Monaco Group Inc., a Martinville, N.J.-based training company that has created a voluntary national licensing system and registry. He's earned a national reputation for his research into the effectiveness of various driver training methods— research that helped influence the government's driver training standards.
But Monaco may be more the exception than the rule. Though he brings impressive credentials to the job, there's nothing in the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations that requires other trainers to bring similar qualifications to their work. In fact, the agency has no licensing or certification requirements whatsoever. Anyone can hang out a sign, print up business cards, and call himself (or herself) a forklift driver trainer.
"All the standard requires is that the trainer has some practical knowledge to train and evaluate an employee on the safe operation of a truck," says Patrick Kapust, a safety specialist with OSHA. "We have no specific requirements."
That has some shaking their heads. "OSHA should definitely regulate trainers," says Joseph Lurie, a senior partner in the Philadelphia law firm of Galfand Berger LLP, which handles forklift injury cases. "If you need a license to drive a car, you would think something as important as training someone in operating a lift truck should have the same type of requirement."
Yes, we have standards
Up until the '90s, the government's position on what constituted adequate driver training was even hazier. Companies were supposed to make sure that forklift drivers were trained in the safe operation of their vehicles, but the government didn't dictate how they did it, much less who did it.
By 1995, forklift accidents had become a leading cause of workplace fatalities, killing more than 100 workers and injuring 38,000 each year. OSHA began formulating standards for training employees in the safe operation of industrial trucks. Three years later, in December 1998, it finally issued guidelines that spell out an employer's training obligations and outline detailed requirements for training workers on the proper use of powered industrial trucks. Those standards took effect in March 1999.
The regulations specify what topics must be covered by a driver training program—a blend of basic "how-to" operational instructions and safety information tailored to the specific site. They also specify how that instruction should be provided and when employers must send drivers for refresher training. And they outline how—and how often—trainers should evaluate drivers (see the accompanying sidebar).
What they don't do, however, is provide much guidance on who can provide the training. The regulations state only that the training should be done "under the direct supervision of persons who have the knowledge, training and experience to train operators and evaluate their competence." Trainers are not required to be certified or licensed.Nor are they required to master a specific body of knowledge regarding lift truck safety.
As for why, the agency says that it lacks the legal authority to regulate trainers and would need that authority from Congress. It should be noted, however, that other federal agencies provide oversight of training and certify workers in specific occupations. The Federal Aviation Administration, for example, regulates flight instruction schools in the United States and certifies airline mechanics.
The buck stops here …
With little in the way of guidance from OSHA, many DCs have opted to handle driver training themselves, developing inhouse training programs that typically rely on veteran drivers to show rookies the basics of lift truck operation. Others have chosen to outsource their driver training— either to a company that specializes in such instruction or to a local forklift dealer that offers training as an ancillary service.
Still others take a hybrid approach. In order to save money, they hire a forklift training firm to educate one of their employees, who then acts as an in-house trainer. "A lot of companies train an inhouse trainer," says Kenneth Hutchins, owner of Industrial Truck Safety, a training firm located in Houston. "Once they are taught by us, they can certify other operators. They come to us with basic skills and we train them on OSHA standards."
But hiring an outside specialist is no guarantee that the job will be done right, says Jim Shephard, president of Shephard's Industrial Training Systems Inc., a Bartlett, Tenn.-based company that provides site-specific operator training programs for all types of powered industrial equipment, including lift trucks. Shephard notes, for example, that many trainers don't offer refresher training, which he considers essential to safe forklift operation.He also worries that in many cases, employers are more interested in the time and cost of an operator training program than in the trainer's qualifications.
It's important to note that hiring an outside specialist does not absolve the employer of responsibility if a forklift operator is killed or injured. Regardless of who actually conducts the training, the employer is ultimately accountable for seeing that workers receive the proper instruction. If an accident occurs, one of the first things OSHA does is conduct an inquiry to determine whether appropriate training was provided. If it concludes that the employer failed to comply with its regulations, it's the employer—not the trainer—who is fined.
"In terms of our standard, an employer can use a third-party trainer, but we would cite the employer," says Kapust. "We (OSHA) have no jurisdiction over the trainer.
You'd have to change the [law]. Employers have a duty to provide a workplace free of recognized hazards, and that's who OSHA issues citations to."
Since the regulations took effect in 1999, OSHA has followed up on all forklift accidents and levied fines on employers found to be in violation of its standards. From fiscal year 2005 through July 2007, the agency issued 5,256 citations to employers. An OSHA spokesperson reports that the average fine imposed for those violations was $1,000.
Courting lawsuits
Beyond the prospect of OSHA fines and citations, there are other potential consequences for employers who fail to ensure that their workers receive proper training. If a worker is killed or seriously injured, employers may also face civil suits. (It should be noted that in some states, the employer cannot be sued if an injured employee receives workers' compensation benefits.)
And it's not just employers who have to worry about the possibility of being sued. Although third-party trainers have not typically been the targets of civil suits, they should not assume they're immune, warns one lawyer. "Anyone that undertakes training has to do so with the proper degree of care, and if they don't, they're liable for negligence," says George W. Keeley, a principal in the Chicago law firm of Keeley, Keene and Reid. "If you train somebody, and if you don't do it correctly, and some poorly trained person hurts somebody, then certainly you can include the trainer in any … legal action."
But some observers say there's no need to let things get to the litigation stage. By regulating trainers, the federal government could help prevent problems caused by inadequate training from developing in the first place. If Washington is serious about promoting workplace safety, they argue, Congress should give OSHA jurisdiction over forklift trainers. That means granting OSHA the authority (and the additional staff) to oversee forklift trainers, with the goal of assuring that every trainer (or training firm) has the qualifications and experience to coach others in the safe operation of powered industrial trucks.
the word from OSHA
Eight years ago, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) laid out specific guidelines for training forklift operators. The regulations spell out an employer's obligations to assure that each driver is competent to operate a powered industrial truck safely. They also mandate a training program based on the individual operator's experience and skill level, and the hazards present in the specific workplace.
The training must consist of both classroom instruction—which the agency says may include lectures, video tapes, interactive computer learning, and written material—and practical instruction. For new drivers, it must cover the proper operation of the vehicle—steering and maneuvering, truck controls, motor operation, and the like. Training must also cover what the agency calls "workplace-related topics," which include the surface conditions where the vehicle will be operated, the composition and stability of loads to be carried, and pedestrian traffic at the site. When the training is completed, the trainer must evaluate the forklift driver's performance in the workplace.
That performance evaluation is particularly important, says training specialist Joe Monaco, president of the Monaco Group Inc. He reports that a study of 300 forklift operators he conducted 10 years ago found that the driver's ability to pass a performance test was a better indicator of future accident-free performance than the ability to pass a written test. (Monaco says OSHA considered those findings as part of its deliberations on what requirements to include in its rules.)
As for the performance test itself, Monaco urges employers to ensure that the test reflects the worker's day-to-day job responsibilities. "The test is not just having someone run around the racks and pick up pallets," he says. "The performance test should look at the actual job a person is required to do, like loading a truck or shuttling pallet loads from the warehouse to the production line. It's performance on the job that we need to simulate on the test."
For the full OSHA standards, go to www.osha.gov. Click on "Standards," search for "Forklifts," and click on the link for "1910.178 Powered Industrial Trucks."
Congestion on U.S. highways is costing the trucking industry big, according to research from the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), released today.
The group found that traffic congestion on U.S. highways added $108.8 billion in costs to the trucking industry in 2022, a record high. The information comes from ATRI’s Cost of Congestion study, which is part of the organization’s ongoing highway performance measurement research.
Total hours of congestion fell slightly compared to 2021 due to softening freight market conditions, but the cost of operating a truck increased at a much higher rate, according to the research. As a result, the overall cost of congestion increased by 15% year-over-year—a level equivalent to more than 430,000 commercial truck drivers sitting idle for one work year and an average cost of $7,588 for every registered combination truck.
The analysis also identified metropolitan delays and related impacts, showing that the top 10 most-congested states each experienced added costs of more than $8 billion. That list was led by Texas, at $9.17 billion in added costs; California, at $8.77 billion; and Florida, $8.44 billion. Rounding out the top 10 list were New York, Georgia, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Tennessee. Combined, the top 10 states account for more than half of the trucking industry’s congestion costs nationwide—52%, according to the research.
The metro areas with the highest congestion costs include New York City, $6.68 billion; Miami, $3.2 billion; and Chicago, $3.14 billion.
ATRI’s analysis also found that the trucking industry wasted more than 6.4 billion gallons of diesel fuel in 2022 due to congestion, resulting in additional fuel costs of $32.1 billion.
ATRI used a combination of data sources, including its truck GPS database and Operational Costs study benchmarks, to calculate the impacts of trucking delays on major U.S. roadways.
There’s a photo from 1971 that John Kent, professor of supply chain management at the University of Arkansas, likes to show. It’s of a shaggy-haired 18-year-old named Glenn Cowan grinning at three-time world table tennis champion Zhuang Zedong, while holding a silk tapestry Zhuang had just given him. Cowan was a member of the U.S. table tennis team who participated in the 1971 World Table Tennis Championships in Nagoya, Japan. Story has it that one morning, he overslept and missed his bus to the tournament and had to hitch a ride with the Chinese national team and met and connected with Zhuang.
Cowan and Zhuang’s interaction led to an invitation for the U.S. team to visit China. At the time, the two countries were just beginning to emerge from a 20-year period of decidedly frosty relations, strict travel bans, and trade restrictions. The highly publicized trip signaled a willingness on both sides to renew relations and launched the term “pingpong diplomacy.”
Kent, who is a senior fellow at the George H. W. Bush Foundation for U.S.-China Relations, believes the photograph is a good reminder that some 50-odd years ago, the economies of the United States and China were not as tightly interwoven as they are today. At the time, the Nixon administration was looking to form closer political and economic ties between the two countries in hopes of reducing chances of future conflict (and to weaken alliances among Communist countries).
The signals coming out of Washington and Beijing are now, of course, much different than they were in the early 1970s. Instead of advocating for better relations, political rhetoric focuses on the need for the U.S. to “decouple” from China. Both Republicans and Democrats have warned that the U.S. economy is too dependent on goods manufactured in China. They see this dependency as a threat to economic strength, American jobs, supply chain resiliency, and national security.
Supply chain professionals, however, know that extricating ourselves from our reliance on Chinese manufacturing is easier said than done. Many pundits push for a “China + 1” strategy, where companies diversify their manufacturing and sourcing options beyond China. But in reality, that “plus one” is often a Chinese company operating in a different country or a non-Chinese manufacturer that is still heavily dependent on material or subcomponents made in China.
This is the problem when supply chain decisions are made on a global scale without input from supply chain professionals. In an article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Kent argues that, “The discussions on supply chains mainly take place between government officials who typically bring many other competing issues and agendas to the table. Corporate entities—the individuals and companies directly impacted by supply chains—tend to be under-represented in the conversation.”
Kent is a proponent of what he calls “supply chain diplomacy,” where experts from academia and industry from the U.S. and China work collaboratively to create better, more efficient global supply chains. Take, for example, the “Peace Beans” project that Kent is involved with. This project, jointly formed by Zhejiang University and the Bush China Foundation, proposes balancing supply chains by exporting soybeans from Arkansas to tofu producers in China’s Yunnan province, and, in return, importing coffee beans grown in Yunnan to coffee roasters in Arkansas. Kent believes the operation could even use the same transportation equipment.
The benefits of working collaboratively—instead of continuing to build friction in the supply chain through tariffs and adversarial relationships—are numerous, according to Kent and his colleagues. They believe it would be much better if the two major world economies worked together on issues like global inflation, climate change, and artificial intelligence.
And such relations could play a significant role in strengthening world peace, particularly in light of ongoing tensions over Taiwan. Because, as Kent writes, “The 19th-century idea that ‘When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will’ is as true today as ever. Perhaps more so.”
Hyster-Yale Materials Handling today announced its plans to fulfill the domestic manufacturing requirements of the Build America, Buy America (BABA) Act for certain portions of its lineup of forklift trucks and container handling equipment.
That means the Greenville, North Carolina-based company now plans to expand its existing American manufacturing with a targeted set of high-capacity models, including electric options, that align with the needs of infrastructure projects subject to BABA requirements. The company’s plans include determining the optimal production location in the United States, strategically expanding sourcing agreements to meet local material requirements, and further developing electric power options for high-capacity equipment.
As a part of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the BABA Act aims to increase the use of American-made materials in federally funded infrastructure projects across the U.S., Hyster-Yale says. It was enacted as part of a broader effort to boost domestic manufacturing and economic growth, and mandates that federal dollars allocated to infrastructure – such as roads, bridges, ports and public transit systems – must prioritize materials produced in the USA, including critical items like steel, iron and various construction materials.
Hyster-Yale’s footprint in the U.S. is spread across 10 locations, including three manufacturing facilities.
“Our leadership is fully invested in meeting the needs of businesses that require BABA-compliant material handling solutions,” Tony Salgado, Hyster-Yale’s chief operating officer, said in a release. “We are working to partner with our key domestic suppliers, as well as identifying how best to leverage our own American manufacturing footprint to deliver a competitive solution for our customers and stakeholders. But beyond mere compliance, and in line with the many areas of our business where we are evolving to better support our customers, our commitment remains steadfast. We are dedicated to delivering industry-leading standards in design, durability and performance — qualities that have become synonymous with our brands worldwide and that our customers have come to rely on and expect.”
In a separate move, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also gave its approval for the state to advance its Heavy-Duty Omnibus Rule, which is crafted to significantly reduce smog-forming nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from new heavy-duty, diesel-powered trucks.
Both rules are intended to deliver health benefits to California citizens affected by vehicle pollution, according to the environmental group Earthjustice. If the state gets federal approval for the final steps to become law, the rules mean that cars on the road in California will largely be zero-emissions a generation from now in the 2050s, accounting for the average vehicle lifespan of vehicles with internal combustion engine (ICE) power sold before that 2035 date.
“This might read like checking a bureaucratic box, but EPA’s approval is a critical step forward in protecting our lungs from pollution and our wallets from the expenses of combustion fuels,” Paul Cort, director of Earthjustice’s Right To Zero campaign, said in a release. “The gradual shift in car sales to zero-emissions models will cut smog and household costs while growing California’s clean energy workforce. Cutting truck pollution will help clear our skies of smog. EPA should now approve the remaining authorization requests from California to allow the state to clean its air and protect its residents.”
However, the truck drivers' industry group Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) pushed back against the federal decision allowing the Omnibus Low-NOx rule to advance. "The Omnibus Low-NOx waiver for California calls into question the policymaking process under the Biden administration's EPA. Purposefully injecting uncertainty into a $588 billion American industry is bad for our economy and makes no meaningful progress towards purported environmental goals," (OOIDA) President Todd Spencer said in a release. "EPA's credibility outside of radical environmental circles would have been better served by working with regulated industries rather than ramming through last-minute special interest favors. We look forward to working with the Trump administration's EPA in good faith towards achievable environmental outcomes.”
Editor's note:This article was revised on December 18 to add reaction from OOIDA.
A Canadian startup that provides AI-powered logistics solutions has gained $5.5 million in seed funding to support its concept of creating a digital platform for global trade, according to Toronto-based Starboard.
The round was led by Eclipse, with participation from previous backers Garuda Ventures and Everywhere Ventures. The firm says it will use its new backing to expand its engineering team in Toronto and accelerate its AI-driven product development to simplify supply chain complexities.
According to Starboard, the logistics industry is under immense pressure to adapt to the growing complexity of global trade, which has hit recent hurdles such as the strike at U.S. east and gulf coast ports. That situation calls for innovative solutions to streamline operations and reduce costs for operators.
As a potential solution, Starboard offers its flagship product, which it defines as an AI-based transportation management system (TMS) and rate management system that helps mid-sized freight forwarders operate more efficiently and win more business. More broadly, Starboard says it is building the virtual infrastructure for global trade, allowing freight companies to leverage AI and machine learning to optimize operations such as processing shipments in real time, reconciling invoices, and following up on payments.
"This investment is a pivotal step in our mission to unlock the power of AI for our customers," said Sumeet Trehan, Co-Founder and CEO of Starboard. "Global trade has long been plagued by inefficiencies that drive up costs and reduce competitiveness. Our platform is designed to empower SMB freight forwarders—the backbone of more than $20 trillion in global trade and $1 trillion in logistics spend—with the tools they need to thrive in this complex ecosystem."