226 cles, such as aerial lifts, chippers, chain saws, and sprayers. Since roughly one-third of the companies surveyed have no formal training program it is not too surprising many workers are using chain saws and chippers with little more than on-the-job training (Table 1). Aerial lift and sprayers are operated more frequent- ly with training while motor vehicle training is relatively rare. Table 1. The percentage of surveyed commercial tree care companies that provide formal training for the vehicles, machines, and tools utilized in their field work. Equipment Aerial lift Chain saws Chippers Sprayers Vehicles Training provided 77.6% 59.3% 53.4% 86.4% 24.2% Table 2. The frequency of formal training programs for sur- veyed tree care companies. Training frequency More than once a month Once a month Once every two or three months Twice a year Once a year Less often than once a year No formal training provided Percent of companies 5.8% 23.5% 8.6% 9.6% 7.9% 6.7% 37.9% The most commonly identified training frequency was “none,” followed by “once a month” (Table 2). Some respondents wrote on their questionnaire that they considered every day or job a training event, though this cannot be considered formal train- ing. The most common means of providing formal safety train- ing was an employee conducting the training in a field setting (Table 3). These were typically identified as ‘tailgate’ sessions where a selected topic would be covered in a brief, less than 30-minute time period. The least used training method was utiliz- ing a trainer from outside of the company in a classroom setting. Aerial rescue procedures had been established for only about 40% of companies and even fewer practiced aerial rescue (Table 4). Companies that did training in aerial rescue typically practiced climber rescues (Table 5). The majority of companies that did train- ing practiced from a height of 9.1 to 10.6 m with the goal of bring- ing the dummy to the ground in less than five minutes. This training was typically performed by an employee in a field setting. Instruc- tors from outside the company were the least likely to be used. The most common fatal accident involved contact with an energized conductor as a single event (Table 6). However, the event or exposure category with the highest number of fatali- ties was contact with an object or equipment. No fatalities were identified in two categories: assaults and violent acts, and fire. Table 3. The method of formal training program delivery for surveyed companies providing instruction to field workers. Method most often used to deliver training In-house trainer in field setting In-house trainer in classroom setting Outside trainer in a field setting Outside trainer in a classroom setting Percent of companies 66.2% 14.3% 13.0% 6.5% Ball and Vosberg: Safety Training and Fatal Accidents Table 4. The frequency of aerial rescue training among surveyed companies. Training frequency More than once a month Once a month Once every two or three months Twice a year Once a year Less often than once a year No training Percent of companies 0% 5% 0% 6.9% 14.5% 0.4% 73.2% Table 5. The situations and method of delivery for aerial res- cue training among companies that provide this instruction to their field workers. Situation practiced Rescue by climber Rescue by aerial lift operator Both situations practiced Most often used method of delivering training In-house trainer in field setting In-house trainer in classroom setting Outside trainer in a field setting Outside trainer in a classroom setting Percent of companies 52.1% 8.6% 39.3% Percent of companies 65.5% 4.7% 29.1% 0.7% DISCUSSION The Bureau of Labor Statistics (2007) reported there were 55,000 tree trimmers and pruners employed in the United States. They define these workers as individuals who main- tain trees for aesthetics or right-of way clearance. This num- ber appears to be is a very low estimation of the number of tree workers. Manta (2007), an internet company and research firm, estimated there are 16,195 tree companies in the United States. Manta also lists the number of tree care companies in each state with the most populous state, California, having the most tree care companies, 1,486; while Alaska had the least, 30 companies. The Manta data did not identify the number of workers. A survey combining tree care with other landscape maintenance and installation services estimated total employ- ment at 514,962 in 76,458 companies (Hall et al. 2007). A re- cent analysis of companies in the tree care field by O’Bryan et al. (2007) determined there were almost 82,000 in the United States. The O’Bryan et al. study referred to these as establish- ments rather than companies, however, the definitions used by O’Bryan et al. and the authors of the current study were similar. O’Bryan et al.’s study included 56,394 companies that had a single worker, approximately 68% of the total number. Only approximately 19% of the companies in the present survey had two or fewer employees. Small companies, single- or two-per- son operations, may be less likely to have a Yellow Page adver- tisement, even a line ad, and would so be missed in this study. The importance of knowing the number of tree workers is that the Bureau of Labor Statistics provides information on oc- cupational fatalities as ratios of fatalities per 100,000 full-time equivalents. This use of ratios allows for meaningful compari- son among occupations employing differing number of work- ers. For example, the two occupations with the highest num- ber of fatalities in 2008 were commercial fisheries at 50 deaths ©2010 International Society of Arboriculture
September 2010
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Ai generated response may be inaccurate.
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
Your form submission was a success.
Downloading PDF
Generating your PDF, please wait...
This process might take longer please wait
