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."
Most of the apparel sold in North America is manufactured in Asia, meaning the finished goods travel long distances to reach end markets, with all the associated greenhouse gas emissions. On top of that, apparel manufacturing itself requires a significant amount of energy, water, and raw materials like cotton. Overall, the production of apparel is responsible for about 2% of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions, according to a report titled
Taking Stock of Progress Against the Roadmap to Net Zeroby the Apparel Impact Institute. Founded in 2017, the Apparel Impact Institute is an organization dedicated to identifying, funding, and then scaling solutions aimed at reducing the carbon emissions and other environmental impacts of the apparel and textile industries.
The author of this annual study is researcher and consultant Michael Sadowski. He wrote the first report in 2021 as well as the latest edition, which was released earlier this year. Sadowski, who is also executive director of the environmental nonprofit
The Circulate Initiative, recently joined DC Velocity Group Editorial Director David Maloney on an episode of the “Logistics Matters” podcast to discuss the key findings of the research, what companies are doing to reduce emissions, and the progress they’ve made since the first report was issued.
A: While companies in the apparel industry can set their own sustainability targets, we realized there was a need to give them a blueprint for actually reducing emissions. And so, we produced the first report back in 2021, where we laid out the emissions from the sector, based on the best estimates [we could make using] data from various sources. It gives companies and the sector a blueprint for what we collectively need to do to drive toward the ambitious reduction [target] of staying within a 1.5 degrees Celsius pathway. That was the first report, and then we committed to refresh the analysis on an annual basis. The second report was published last year, and the third report came out in May of this year.
Q: What were some of the key findings of your research?
A: We found that about half of the emissions in the sector come from Tier Two, which is essentially textile production. That includes the knitting, weaving, dyeing, and finishing of fabric, which together account for over half of the total emissions. That was a really important finding, and it allows us to focus our attention on the interventions that can drive those emissions down.
Raw material production accounts for another quarter of emissions. That includes cotton farming, extracting gas and oil from the ground to make synthetics, and things like that. So we now have a really keen understanding of the source of our industry’s emissions.
Q: Your report mentions that the apparel industry is responsible for about 2% of global emissions. Is that an accurate statistic?
A: That’s our best estimate of the total emissions [generated by] the apparel sector. Some other reports on the industry have apparel at up to 8% of global emissions. And there is a commonly misquoted number in the media that it’s 10%. From my perspective, I think the best estimate is somewhere under 2%.
We know that globally, humankind needs to reduce emissions by roughly half by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050 to hit international goals. [Reaching that target will require the involvement of] every facet of the global economy and every aspect of the apparel sector—transportation, material production, manufacturing, cotton farming. Through our work and that of others, I think the apparel sector understands what has to happen. We have highlighted examples of how companies are taking action to reduce emissions in the roadmap reports.
Q: What are some of those actions the industry can take to reduce emissions?
A: I think one of the positive developments since we wrote the first report is that we’re seeing companies really focus on the most impactful areas. We see companies diving deep on thermal energy, for example. With respect to Tier Two, we [focus] a lot of attention on things like ocean freight versus air. There’s a rule of thumb I’ve heard that indicates air freight is about 10 times the cost [of ocean] and also produces 10 times more greenhouse gas emissions.
There is money available to invest in sustainability efforts. It’s really exciting to see the funding that’s coming through for AI [artificial intelligence] and to see that individual companies, such as H&M and Lululemon, are investing in real solutions in their supply chains. I think a lot of concrete actions are being taken.
And yet we know that reducing emissions by half on an absolute basis by 2030 is a monumental undertaking. So I don’t want to be overly optimistic, because I think we have a lot of work to do. But I do think we’ve got some amazing progress happening.
Q: You mentioned several companies that are starting to address their emissions. Is that a result of their being more aware of the emissions they generate? Have you seen progress made since the first report came out in 2021?
A: Yes. When we published the first roadmap back in 2021, our statistics showed that only about 12 companies had met the criteria [for setting] science-based targets. In 2024, the number of apparel, textile, and footwear companies that have set targets or have commitments to set targets is close to 500. It’s an enormous increase. I think they see the urgency more than other sectors do.
We have companies that have been working at sustainability for quite a long time. I think the apparel sector has developed a keen understanding of the impacts of climate change. You can see the impacts of flooding, drought, heat, and other things happening in places like Bangladesh and Pakistan and India. If you’re a brand or a manufacturer and you have operations and supply chains in these places, I think you understand what the future will look like if we don’t significantly reduce emissions.
Q: There are different categories of emission levels, depending on the role within the supply chain. Scope 1 are “direct” emissions under the reporting company’s control. For apparel, this might be the production of raw materials or the manufacturing of the finished product. Scope 2 covers “indirect” emissions from purchased energy, such as electricity used in these processes. Scope 3 emissions are harder to track, as they include emissions from supply chain partners both upstream and downstream.
Now companies are finding there are legislative efforts around the world that could soon require them to track and report on all these emissions, including emissions produced by their partners’ supply chains. Does this mean that companies now need to be more aware of not only what greenhouse gas emissions they produce, but also what their partners produce?
A: That’s right. Just to put this into context, if you’re a brand like an Adidas or a Gap, you still have to consider the Scope 3 emissions. In particular, there are the so-called “purchased goods and services,” which refers to all of the embedded emissions in your products, from farming cotton to knitting yarn to making fabric. Those “purchased goods and services” generally account for well above 80% of the total emissions associated with a product. It’s by far the most significant portion of your emissions.
Leading companies have begun measuring and taking action on Scope 3 emissions because of regulatory developments in Europe and, to some extent now, in California. I do think this is just a further tailwind for the work that the industry is doing.
I also think it will definitely ratchet up the quality requirements of Scope 3 data, which is not yet where we’d all like it to be. Companies are working to improve that data, but I think the regulatory push will make the quality side increasingly important.
Q: Overall, do you think the work being done by the Apparel Impact Institute will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the industry?
A: When we started this back in 2020, we were at a place where companies were setting targets and knew their intended destination, but what they needed was a blueprint for how to get there. And so, the roadmap [provided] this blueprint and identified six key things that the sector needed to do—from using more sustainable materials to deploying renewable electricity in the supply chain.
Decarbonizing any sector, whether it’s transportation, chemicals, or automotive, requires investment. The Apparel Impact Institute is bringing collective investment, which is so critical. I’m really optimistic about what they’re doing. They have taken a data-driven, evidence-based approach, so they know where the emissions are and they know what the needed interventions are. And they’ve got the industry behind them in doing that.
The global air cargo market’s hot summer of double-digit demand growth continued in August with average spot rates showing their largest year-on-year jump with a 24% increase, according to the latest weekly analysis by Xeneta.
Xeneta cited two reasons to explain the increase. First, Global average air cargo spot rates reached $2.68 per kg in August due to continuing supply and demand imbalance. That came as August's global cargo supply grew at its slowest ratio in 2024 to-date at 2% year-on-year, while global cargo demand continued its double-digit growth, rising +11%.
The second reason for higher rates was an ocean-to-air shift in freight volumes due to Red Sea disruptions and e-commerce demand.
Those factors could soon be amplified as e-commerce shows continued strong growth approaching the hotly anticipated winter peak season. E-commerce and low-value goods exports from China in the first seven months of 2024 increased 30% year-on-year, including shipments to Europe and the US rising 38% and 30% growth respectively, Xeneta said.
“Typically, air cargo market performance in August tends to follow the July trend. But another month of double-digit demand growth and the strongest rate growths of the year means there was definitely no summer slack season in 2024,” Niall van de Wouw, Xeneta’s chief airfreight officer, said in a release.
“Rates we saw bottoming out in late July started picking up again in mid-August. This is too short a period to call a season. This has been a busy summer, and now we’re at the threshold of Q4, it will be interesting to see what will happen and if all the anticipation of a red-hot peak season materializes,” van de Wouw said.
The report cites data showing that there are approximately 1.7 million workers missing from the post-pandemic workforce and that 38% of small firms are unable to fill open positions. At the same time, the “skills gap” in the workforce is accelerating as automation and AI create significant shifts in how work is performed.
That information comes from the “2024 Labor Day Report” released by Littler’s Workplace Policy Institute (WPI), the firm’s government relations and public policy arm.
“We continue to see a labor shortage and an urgent need to upskill the current workforce to adapt to the new world of work,” said Michael Lotito, Littler shareholder and co-chair of WPI. “As corporate executives and business leaders look to the future, they are focused on realizing the many benefits of AI to streamline operations and guide strategic decision-making, while cultivating a talent pipeline that can support this growth.”
But while the need is clear, solutions may be complicated by public policy changes such as the upcoming U.S. general election and the proliferation of employment-related legislation at the state and local levels amid Congressional gridlock.
“We are heading into a contentious election that has already proven to be unpredictable and is poised to create even more uncertainty for employers, no matter the outcome,” Shannon Meade, WPI’s executive director, said in a release. “At the same time, the growing patchwork of state and local requirements across the U.S. is exacerbating compliance challenges for companies. That, coupled with looming changes following several Supreme Court decisions that have the potential to upend rulemaking, gives C-suite executives much to contend with in planning their workforce-related strategies.”
Stax Engineering, the venture-backed startup that provides smokestack emissions reduction services for maritime ships, will service all vessels from Toyota Motor North America Inc. visiting the Toyota Berth at the Port of Long Beach, according to a new five-year deal announced today.
Beginning in 2025 to coincide with new California Air Resources Board (CARB) standards, STAX will become the first and only emissions control provider to service roll-on/roll-off (ro-ros) vessels in the state of California, the company said.
Stax has rapidly grown since its launch in the first quarter of this year, supported in part by a $40 million funding round from investors, announced in July. It now holds exclusive service agreements at California ports including Los Angeles, Long Beach, Hueneme, Benicia, Richmond, and Oakland. The firm has also partnered with individual companies like NYK Line, Hyundai GLOVIS, Equilon Enterprises LLC d/b/a Shell Oil Products US (Shell), and now Toyota.
Stax says it offers an alternative to shore power with land- and barge-based, mobile emissions capture and control technology for shipping terminal and fleet operators without the need for retrofits.
In the case of this latest deal, the Toyota Long Beach Vehicle Distribution Center imports about 200,000 vehicles each year on ro-ro vessels. Stax will keep those ships green with its flexible exhaust capture system, which attaches to all vessel classes without modification to remove 99% of emitted particulate matter (PM) and 95% of emitted oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Over the lifetime of this new agreement with Toyota, Stax estimated the service will account for approximately 3,700 hours and more than 47 tons of emissions controlled.
“We set out to provide an emissions capture and control solution that was reliable, easily accessible, and cost-effective. As we begin to service Toyota, we’re confident that we can meet the needs of the full breadth of the maritime industry, furthering our impact on the local air quality, public health, and environment,” Mike Walker, CEO of Stax, said in a release. “Continuing to establish strong partnerships will help build momentum for and trust in our technology as we expand beyond the state of California.”
That result showed that driver wages across the industry continue to increase post-pandemic, despite a challenging freight market for motor carriers. The data comes from ATA’s “Driver Compensation Study,” which asked 120 fleets, more than 150,000 employee drivers, and 14,000 independent contractors about their wage and benefit information.
Drilling into specific categories, linehaul less-than-truckload (LTL) drivers earned a median annual amount of $94,525 in 2023, while local LTL drivers earned a median of $80,680. The median annual compensation for drivers at private carriers has risen 12% since 2021, reaching $95,114 in 2023. And leased-on independent contractors for truckload carriers were paid an annual median amount of $186,016 in 2023.
The results also showed how the demographics of the industry are changing, as carriers offered smaller referral and fewer sign-on bonuses for new drivers in 2023 compared to 2021 but more frequently offered tenure bonuses to their current drivers and with a greater median value.
"While our last study, conducted in 2021, illustrated how drivers benefitted from the strongest freight environment in a generation, this latest report shows professional drivers' earnings are still rising—even in a weaker freight economy," ATA Chief Economist Bob Costello said in a release. "By offering greater tenure bonuses to their current driver force, many fleets appear to be shifting their workforce priorities from recruitment to retention."