Posted By Jim Sweetman Jim, At the risk of sounding like one of the 'Old Boys Forum', or any other 'Inner Sanctum', I'm obliged to respond by saying what you put in you get out. In line with her article in December's SHP, which goes a long way to clarify the situation, Hazel Harvey may respond to this thread and give a more informed response than mine. Your viewpoint is by no means unfamiliar, yet it is infrequently raised at branch meetings and other related occasions. This may be because only a small number of IOSH members appear at these gatherings, and I've rarely heard the comment raised at the meetings that I have attended. Similarly, all questionnaires, and similar surveys, that I have seen have suffered from a very low level of response. The significant demonstration of membership disinterest that I experienced was when I attempted to pull together a forum to carry out a self-assessment for the (then) MAPS Division and feed back to the MAPS Deivision Executive Committee. This was some considerable time before the idea of Special Interest Groups emerged. The four of us, who attended this forum, appeared to be trying to put the world to rights. When things happen, people seem to raise their voices - as seen by some of the recent threads, yet everyone is deafeningly quiet when some input or effort is required to contribute to making things happen. If members are happy to sit around, all they are likely to get is a magazine to help pass their time whilst they are sitting around. It was recognised a considerable time ago, in the process for applying for chartered status, that the Privy Council would take a dim view of a professional institution with a high percentage of non-corporate members - hence the development of the TechSP grade. The initiative for Associates to upgrade has been around for some years now but the 'take up' appears to be somewhat limited, as identified by the number of non-corporate members to who you make reference. Alternatively, as an initiative, you may consider campaigning for members to have chartered non-corporate status. To pick on your point about MIOSH and RSP, are you aware that one is a membership status and the other a recognition of competency? It is a shame that we continually get 'sour grapes' because things aren't handed out on a plate. Mastters would be more amenable if members showed more enthusiasm and help themselves out rather than expect to be helped by everyone else. Jim

Posted By Stuart Nagle In respect of Jim Sweetmans comments I would like to put some points I think may be relevant, as below: 1) As a member of another Professional 'Chartered Institution' I would state that apathy amongst less well qualified members often the results from the feeling of being the downtrodden and overlooked in favour of those better qualified 2) Where an institution has a vast majority of non- corporate members: a) Often the majority of funding for the institution is raised from the non-corporate members rather than the corporate members b) you are correct that this would affect any decision of the privvy council to enable that body to award 'Chartered Status' to members (it not be mainly 'Professional' in the eyes of the privvy council) 3) As far as I am aware, RSP is only available to members who are MIOSH - and not avalable to those who are not (MIOSH) - I do not necessarilly believe that those who are not MIOSH (corporate members) are incompetent 4) campaigning for non-corporate chartered status would I belive be a non-starter with the privvy council 5) I am sure members at all levels are more than willing to help themselves and do not need handouts. Most I am sure would be more than willing to study for higher qualifications, NEBOSH etc if the costs of these courses were more reasonable, they appear to me to be exceptionally high in comparrison to other similar level qualifications (even degrees !!). Lastly, but I expect by no means least, an institution is, or should be, what its members are and what its members want, no more - no less. To deride any form of membership or make any grade of member feel less worthy is derogatory not only to those members concerned but to the interests and standing of the institution as a whole. If anything, I believe IOSH should support members by bringing training costs to achieve corporate member status into the real world, or develop/help develop a reasonably costed direct entry examination for those who wish to elevate themselves but can ill afford to do so. This would go some considerable way to increasing the ratio of corporate to non-corporate members. As for those who can save and afford to pay for more expensive training, and those fortunate enough to be sponsored by employers, fine, but I am sure this is a bigger issue than many realise. Perhaps we could hear from those in this discussion area who who have had the opportunity/finance to study as opposed to those who have not to see what levels of response we get to that?

Posted By Neal Robertson In response to previous comments, nice to see so many lively debates !! The only time I sit around reading SHP magazine is usually at home after dinner or on a weekend. Many members would love to be more involved in local branches and other IOSH activities, but I for one can`t always justify a 90 mile round trip and an afternoon away from work to attend my nearest branch, unless I can find some work related reason to be in town. (Don`t get me wrong, my employer is quite supportive and appreciates the value of CPD etc. but would naturally prefer me to be on site developing and implementing safe systems and helping prevent accidents) Costs for training will always be an issue - sponsorship is not easily found in the current economic climate. If I had £6000 spare I would gladly pay for my own MSc, but in the real world small items like mortgages and children get in the way. Some sort of direct entrance exam & compulsory CPD would be a boon to me and countless others in similar positions.

Posted By Ron Young Reading this and other threads about membership levels, perhaps we need to be told for definite. Are there moves afoot to install a chartered level and if so, will this be a new level, or will it just dilute what we already have?

Posted By Stuart Nagle In response to Hazels comments above, which seem a little bias toward the corporate member and their high status, which we know already, as we're continually being told this, I though it would be interesting to evaluate the comment on the contributions made by members in respect of membership fees, where it appears to me that Hazel is implying that the institution is supported mainly from corporate member contributions. We are all aware (I think) that there are many more Non-coporate members than corporate, so an appraisal of contributions based on a snapshot of 27,000 members (excluding - sorry you people - the Fellows, of which there are few, or so I am informed) the situation appears to look like this on a 60/40 (60% N/C 40% C) split (using hazels figures on membership fees as above): Non Corporate - £47.00 X 16200 = £761,400 Corporate - £65.00 X 10800 = £702,000 Differential in contributions on this example = £59,400 (equivilent to the contributions of 1263 N/C members) I believe the ratio of N/C's to C's is actually higher than 60/40 so obviously the differential of contributions of the N/C's would in fact be greater by proportion than the example above. Whilst I fully appreciate and understand the 'categories of membership - divided by acedemic attainment and experience' and that the 'RSP and Fellow categories (are) demonstrated by competence and eminence respectively', what I do not really understand is that IOSH appears to realise most of its finance through membership from non-corporate members yet does not appear on the face of it to be particularly interested in listening to their comments on this and other similar subject areas where the non-corporate member is concerned, this does not to my mind represent or back -up Hazels comments where she states that 'All members, whatever category, have the same benefits of membership'. It appears they do not. Obviously there should be a hierachy of membership categories, but as has been stated previously, this seems particularly weighted in favour of the lesser number of corporate members who make a poorer financial contribution to the IOSH coffers!! Usually, when a customer or a majority stakeholder in an organisation makes comment on policy, they are listened to. How would it appear in a business if 60% of the shareholders in the company were not properly consulted and the organisation run to especially benefit the 40% minority !! Food for thought.... ~~~~~~~~~~~~

Posted By Bob Fulton, MIOSH I have seen myself the work of some RSP's who incidentally are also FIOSH, i was producing better work two weeks into my VQ3. If RSP is any measure of competency then you'd expect someone holding it to be able to carry out a COSHH assessment and risk assessment, i've seen people who can't and they're making upward of £40,000 a year, big talk gets you places, ability doesn't. Sorry if that offends some members buti find it laughable when i see the increasing number of vacancies advertised requesting Diploma (as opposed to VQ) and RSP as essential. RSP most certainly doesn't make you competent and although it's not perfect, i consider the VQ4 to be a better qualification than the diploma

Posted By Ron Young Hazel, Thanks for your comments, they were appreciated and your advice re CPD should be borne in mind by every Corporate member. However as Jim alluded to in his initial posting, we must never get so heady that we forget those who got IOSH where it is now, every member, Corporate or not. Forgetting this important fact, would create an elitist organisation that I and hopefully many others would not wish to be associated with.

Posted By Raymond Rapp I have read a number of views on similar subjects recently and clearly there seems to be some 'mixed' views, where we (IOSH members) are now and where we are going. I think that some are missing the point. As a relatively new member to IOSH it appears the grading needs to be carefully considered, which I believe should reflect the membership 'needs'. The NEBOSH diploma's are very expensive and in order to attain a full corporate membership it would cost between £5-£6,000. Do we really need two grades of diploma? Second, for those who wish to attain a higher status there is the opportunity to do a degree course. Not cheap at about the same cost of the diploma's but it their choice. More important, those whose work is in safety but do not require (or cannot afford)a higher grade such as non-corporate should have the opportunity to remain as such ie the status quo. I agree with the earlier view of Bob Fulton? Those who rise to the 'giddy' heights of RSP, FIOSH are not necessarily more competent than others, but certainly have had more opportunitys. The real problem is the benchmark seems to be getting higher and soon there will be a preference for graduate status, then the screams will be really loud and from full members. Ray

Posted By Robert K Lewis Stuart The problem with general statements is that exceptions exist, as in the old assertion "All Swans are White". It is a bold move which I feel drawn to but I think that there will always be a degree of uncertainty in such a move on the part of some members. On another issue raised in another reply - I do not feel anecdotal assertions on the lines of "I know a ***** member who cannot do this or that is not helpful or evidential. The admission to membership anticipates that such events may or may not be the case, however we are all in membership by vitue of some accepted level of professional ability. Let us concentrate on the fact that we need to bring a much wider set of voices to bear on the day to day running of the institution.

Posted By Stuart Nagle Hazel. Thankyou for clarifying the contribution that non-corporate members make, in addition to the contributions of other sectors. I'm sure that had had you asserted this previously, many as I would not have had to try and exemplify their financial contribution to IOSH. I sincerely hope that as the 'Lead Professional Body' in Health and Safety IOSH will follow a route that allows these many and varied topics to be openly discussed and voted on by all members, as you imply, and not just by the minority of corporate members. ~~~~~~~~~~~~