Thoughts for a first-time checker

[Seabat]

Hello people,

So, bit of background, I've been hired as a silviculture assistant with a forestry company in Alberta this summer, and a lot of what I'm going to be doing is planting quality inspections, stock handling inspections, etc. etc. Most of the silviculture team, naturally, are either returning employees or have treeplanted before. I've never actually done treeplanting as a job, though I have had it demonstrated to me before- My background is in biology, I used to do research and am now taking a technical degree in forestry, hence why I got the position.

Now, I know, I know, checkers-with-no-planting-experience, I get it. I'm well aware of the opinions that many treeplanters have of checkers, and I'm also aware of how tough the job is and how quality inspections can determine pay for treeplanters. That's not the point. The reason I'm posting here is so I can hear from some experienced treeplanters before I start grading plots (I've also watched the video series on here) so I can do an effective job without shorting the planters money, and also without letting them get away with faults that my company would want to know about.

So, with that in mind, anyone have any thought on how a first-year checker might be most effective and fair? I'm sure the planters that I grade down the line would be appreciative, and seeing how it's in my best interest to actually do a good job, I'd appreciate any advice.

Cheers

[Scooter]

Are you the only summer student, or are you working with someone else? Working with someone else for a week who has done the job before would be very helpful for you, but whether or not that's going to be the case, who knows.

In a lot of cases, you probably don't do the official plots. You'll probably only do an audit series. Maybe as low as 5%, or maybe as high as 20%.

My initial suggestion would be that if you see quality that doesn't make sense to you, talk to the supervisor and ask if you can go out to look at trees together with him/her. Most planting supervisors have enough experience to know whether or not their planters are doing things properly. If you think the supervisor is being uncooperative, you always have the option of asking your boss (the forester) to spend a day looking at trees with you, for additional guidance. In such a case, I wouldn't necessarily tell the supervisor that you think the trees are good/bad, because it might prejudice their decision. Just say that you'd value having a chance to make sure you're on the same page with them in terms of checking.

Some foresters may end up being less strict about quality than others. They know that if they are a bit less strict about quality, they're going to get better prices from their contractors. So don't assume that being especially strict is in the best long-term interests of the Client/contractor relationship. Consistency from year to year is important.

If you move around to different mills in the future, you may find that quality standards vary a lot. This makes sense ... in some parts of Alberta, mortality is quite low, and just about anything grows. In other areas, the foresters have to really fight about planting the trees in a certain manner to ensure that some of them survive.

In the end, the absolute level of quality is less important than the fact that the forester and checkers and planters are all on the same page, whatever that page may be.

[Seabat]

Are you the only summer student, or are you working with someone else? Working with someone else for a week who has done the job before would be very helpful for you, but whether or not that's going to be the case, who knows.

In a lot of cases, you probably don't do the official plots. You'll probably only do an audit series. Maybe as low as 5%, or maybe as high as 20%.

My initial suggestion would be that if you see quality that doesn't make sense to you, talk to the supervisor and ask if you can go out to look at trees together with him/her. Most planting supervisors have enough experience to know whether or not their planters are doing things properly. If you think the supervisor is being uncooperative, you always have the option of asking your boss (the forester) to spend a day looking at trees with you, for additional guidance. In such a case, I wouldn't necessarily tell the supervisor that you think the trees are good/bad, because it might prejudice their decision. Just say that you'd value having a chance to make sure you're on the same page with them in terms of checking.

Some foresters may end up being less strict about quality than others. They know that if they are a bit less strict about quality, they're going to get better prices from their contractors. So don't assume that being especially strict is in the best long-term interests of the Client/contractor relationship. Consistency from year to year is important.

If you move around to different mills in the future, you may find that quality standards vary a lot. This makes sense ... in some parts of Alberta, mortality is quite low, and just about anything grows. In other areas, the foresters have to really fight about planting the trees in a certain manner to ensure that some of them survive.

In the end, the absolute level of quality is less important than the fact that the forester and checkers and planters are all on the same page, whatever that page may be.

Hmm, thanks for the feedback, scooter! To address your points:

Yea, I'll be working on a team of several summer students, most of whom are either returning or have extensive planting experience (which is one of the reasons I'm trying to get up to speed before the season starts). I will definitely refer to them if I have any questions, and I imagine I will spend a significant amount of time with the supervisor getting up to speed on what the expectations and quality standards are at the beginning of the season. Good suggestion about talking to the planting supervisor too- I will definitely keep that one in mind if I see anything that doesn't make sense.

I'm not really familiar with how the quality standards vary across the province, but I'll be working in the west-central part of the province, sort of in the lower foothills region. To my knowledge these are relatively productive forests for Alberta, so I imagine quality standards there would be a bit more relaxed?

[Scooter]

I'll be working in the west-central part of the province, sort of in the lower foothills region. To my knowledge these are relatively productive forests for Alberta, so I imagine quality standards there would be a bit more relaxed?

That's probably an accurate statement. The only contractor down there that is fairly strict about expectations is Spray Lake, but they're dealing with different issues than where I think you're working. They have a lot of mortality issues due to Chinooks and desiccation that I didn't see even at the "next license up" moving north.

[Cyper]

It seems like you're under the impression that your plots will have something to do with how much the planters get paid? - "and I'm also aware of how tough the job is and how quality inspections can determine pay for treeplanters."
It's contrary to Labour Standards to reduce a planter's wages for quality issues. Any fine you come up with is supposed to stay with the contractor. If the work is bad enough to require replanting or fixing up, that will cost the planters time that they most likely won't get paid for, even though in theory they should be paid for that too.

[Scooter]

It's Alberta. Different rules. Mind you, all the BC companies that I've worked for in Alberta follow the same rules as in BC, ie. they eat any quality/density payment reductions themselves.

However, having said that, I know that some of the Alberta-based companies DO dock the planters' pay for poor planting.

[Cyper]

From the Alberta Employment Standards Code - It's no different than B.C. - you cannot deduct pay for bad quality:

Deductions from earnings
12(1) An employer must not deduct, set off against or claim from the earnings of an employee any sum of money unless allowed to do so by subsection (2).
(2) An employer may deduct from the earnings of an employee a sum of money that is
(a) permitted or required to be deducted by an Act or regulation, including a regulation under this Act, or a judgment or order of a court,
(b) authorized to be deducted by a collective agreement that is binding on the employee, or
(c) personally authorized in writing by the employee to be deducted.
(3) Despite an authorization in a collective agreement or a written authorization by an employee, an employer must not deduct from earnings a sum for
(a) faulty work, as defined in the regulations, of the employee or damage caused by the employee,
(b) cash shortages or loss of property if an individual other than the employee had access to the cash or property,
(c) cash shortages resulting from a failure to collect all or any part of the purchase price from a purchaser, or
(d) any other circumstance specified by the regulations.

[Seabat]

Hmmm, good point, I suppose it would be the planting company that's getting paid based on quality, and not the planters themselves, unless they have to replant an area which would cost them time.

I was more concerned about assessing quality issues in general, regardless of who is financially responsible for that. After all, *someone* wouldn't be happy if it were done poorly.

[Scooter]

... an employer must not deduct from earnings a sum for
(a) faulty work, ...

That's interesting. Thanks for pointing that out. Maybe someone should post that whole set of clauses in the company thread for any Alberta-based planting company that has deducted money from a planter's paycheque due to quality fines.

[Greg M.]

... an employer must not deduct from earnings a sum for
(a) faulty work, ...

That's interesting. Thanks for pointing that out. Maybe someone should post that whole set of clauses in the company thread for any Alberta-based planting company that has deducted money from a planter's paycheque due to quality fines.

Good discussion gang...It should be pointed out that while labour laws exist to prevent worker explotation..if the workforce is unaware of their rights then complaints to the proper governing body simply do not occur and if there are no complaints (because the workforce does not know what their rights are) then there are no investigations..and no penalties and those companies continue to operate..

[RPF]

As a seasoned Forester/checker (over 30 years experience) I would recommend planting trees for at least a week - just to get a taste of how challenging tree planting can be. Until you immerse yourself in the actual job, it's tough to understand the job fully. It will give you a better appreciation of the job. I think it would make you a better checker and possibly help you establish a better relationship with the planting contractor.

Myself, I planted trees for two seasons while studying forestry at university. Those were the best summer jobs and I think made me a better checker in the long run...

[ohsnap]

1) Most definitely get on the same page as the rest of your checking crew. There is nothing more frustrating than having five different people come 'judge' the adequacy of trees throughout a contract when not one of them agrees on what is contractually required. It's a longstanding joke that the more checkers there are for a contract, the more confused and frustrated everyone will be.

2) Learn to plant a tree properly for whatever contract standards you're pushing; and quickly enough that it isn't painful to watch you do it. If you're dealing with planters directly and you're going to tell a planter their quality isn't passable, some of them will make a point in having you show them what you want specifically.

3) Don't use a tape measure. I will never understand why clients do this. If an inch really means that much to tree survival then I will throw in my hat now.

4) If you're confused about what's going on in the plot you're taking, look outside the plot for clues on why the planter moved through the land the way they did. A plot thrown a foot or two away can come out completely different.

[Scooter]

I should point out two more things:

1. Don't go into plots looking for faults. If you have the mindset that you're going to find faults, then it's more likely that you'll find them, which means that you're creating a bias for yourself. Remember, most blocks come in at quality of 90% or higher (across the province) so under that scenario, less than 1 in ten trees (industry-wide) is considered to be a fault. It is normal for most trees to be of acceptable quality, and many plots won't have faults. Also, if you do find a bad plot, don't necessarily assume that the next plot will also be bad. Almost every plot on a block will have been planted by a different planter, if you're doing a grid with plots at 1 per hectare. So quite often, every plot will be different. Mind you, if you find a couple bad plots in one area (beside each other), it's a good practice to go find the foreman right away and let them know, because that may be a large section that one planter worked in. At that point, the important thing is usually to get the technique that is causing a problem corrected as quickly as possible. If this feedback isn't given to the foreman right away, it's possible that the planter responsible for those couple of bad plots may end up planting more bad trees (knowingly or unknowingly) for another day or so. That's not a good situation for anyone.

2. I've seen a couple of cases over the years where a new checker was extremely tough, thinking that finding lots of faults would impress their boss. I didn't quite understand the mentality. Perhaps the checker assumed that by recording a lot of faults, the company would get paid less, and the forester would be happy about lower costs for the project? Well, these situations didn't turn out well. All that resulted in these cases were lengthy, painful meetings where the forester, the checker(s), the planting company manager, the camp supervisor, and the foreman of the block all went over the block painstakingly. The bottom line is that a situation like this shouldn't have developed in the first place. Everyone should have come to an agreement about the appropriate standards right from the start.

[Seabat]

Thanks everyone for the great feedback! Really appreciate it, and I will keep all of it in mind.

I will definitely not be going in trying to find faults- as a demo in my college program we planted trees for a day, and man, you guys have a tough job! (I'll definitely make a note to have one of the other students teach me how to do it properly, though)