Knee pads must be provided in the ppe and adequate lighting and a torch .as you would be under the vehicle I’d recommend a witness .non staff
Conor:
Quite how you got a course for driving hours passed which didn’t teach the EU Drivers Hours Regulations but rather your company’s take on them which carries absolutely no weight in law I do not know. I can only assume the person who signed it off knew nothing about drivers hours regs and expected the trainer to teach them correctly.
I see your point but the idea of DCPC is to receive relevant training - not just rules and regulations. As it was a drivers hours course for one of my customers explains the WTD(RTD) in exact detail - THEN tells them company policy. I.e a full 30m break within every 6 hour period. So start at 6am and you will take a 30m break before 12:00. And you will take a 30m break within 6 hours of the end of that break etc.
We were clear to distinguish between law and company rules. This fits the DCPC syllabus.
Denis F:
waynedl:
Denis F:
waynedl:
Here’s my original post… Identifiable, but not named as per agreement…A, erm, well known parcel firm that has brown coloured uniforms that I’m not allowed to name on social media and loves American sayings winky emoticon
I voted no,
That’s as good as naming them , regardless of wether the trainer is right or wrong you’ve broken the agreement .
I didn’t break an agreement. As good as naming them isn’t naming them. They make the rules… They could’ve said ‘don’t name us or describe us in a way where someone may guess it’s us’…
But, the wording was “Don’t name UPS, but you CAN describe them for example, parcel firm known for wearing brown uniforms” etc… Their wording…Now you’re moving the goalposts
Surely posting something that identifies the company is as good as naming them ?
Something that identifies the company isn’t naming them though is it - as I said, I was even told that I could do that.
It seemed clear that I wasn’t in breach of that rule as he stated ‘although you didn’t name us, I don’t want you working here. Goodbye!’
Which he had the right to do, it was after all, my 1st day lol (2nd if you count the Friday that all this happened)
If you’re on the Facebook page, you’ve only got to see some of the ■■■■ spouted at the moment to understand why I posted.
There’s 1 lad, who’s a dCPC instructor, stating “If you go over 15hrs, you must have 11hrs off, otherwise you’ll get 2 infringements, 1 for exceeding 15hrs and 1 for insufficient rest”, and I’m not joking, this guy gets paid to teach this crap… Hence the reason I posted. (This last example isn’t the same guy as my OP as far as I’m aware)
shep532:
Conor:
Quite how you got a course for driving hours passed which didn’t teach the EU Drivers Hours Regulations but rather your company’s take on them which carries absolutely no weight in law I do not know. I can only assume the person who signed it off knew nothing about drivers hours regs and expected the trainer to teach them correctly.I see your point but the idea of DCPC is to receive relevant training - not just rules and regulations. As it was a drivers hours course for one of my customers explains the WTD(RTD) in exact detail - THEN tells them company policy. I.e a full 30m break within every 6 hour period. So start at 6am and you will take a 30m break before 12:00. And you will take a 30m break within 6 hours of the end of that break etc.
We were clear to distinguish between law and company rules. This fits the DCPC syllabus.
I would have absolutely no issue at all with that shep532. And, as I said, if he said it was company policy, no probs, if he was just a driver or assessor, no probs, the fact he was preaching it as ‘rules’ and was the dCPC instructor, different matter.
When I did my ‘driver training’ at Tamworth for UPS the driver trainer came out with some corkers to, I told him he was wrong and he didn’t like it. Made things awkward, in the end after I pointed out teaching us to comply with policy is different to teaching the other lads who didn’t know any of it was not the law he backed down and admitted defeat 
I wasn’t trying to be the big man but he shouldn’t be teaching their policy as the law and once I’d proved to him his errors(that were in the same regs book bed issued us) he had no choice but to agree I was right but they like it done their way 
I agree the guy in question was in the wrong and it really ■■■■■■ me off that this happens. It devalues the DCPC which CAN be of value when done properly