Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Hazel Harvey
I am clearly a woman of independent means Jim that why I can afford to work at The Grange! There are in fact 3803 RSPs and potentially approx. 11,000 people who could become 'Chartered'. At the moment 7,500 MIOSH/FIOSH including RSPs are registered and taking part in CPD so this could be expected to be the number of 'Chartered' members at the change over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jeff
Hi Neil
Would you see a burning need for RFPs - Registered Fire Practitioners?
Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stuart Nagle
Rob.
Sorry if you got that impression, I thought I was quite clear that my posting referred to protection of the law as in a legal requirement - NOT Qualifications...
Stuart
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stuart Nagle
Dear, All.
Lets get somthing straight shall we. Merv asked a question, and regardless of his use of RSP in that question, the question was should there be a legal requirement for H&S practitioners.
My response was NO. I do believe we require legal protection to be able to do a job of work or 'calling'... for some of you.
This essentially has little to do with RSP (red herring by Merv) or chartered staus, which are entirely based on personal (NOT LEGAL) achivement through qualification, knowledge and experience and such other qualities etc etc..., one of the marks of a 'Professional'.
So lets not confuse the two eh chaps/chapesses!
There... Rollicking over...
Stuart
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Rachel West
The theory of legal requirement for accreditation is alive and well and actually working in the field of radiation protection at the moment.
However, there are pressures in high hazard industries such as the nuclear industry that make accredited practitioners an essential overhead. I'm not convinced that this will work in all industries.
Having transferred from radiation protection in the nuclear industry to health and safety in a small to medium enterprise, it strikes me that the affordability of safety practitioners is a major factor for smaller businesses. Having read some of the articles on Health and Safety in smaller businesses in Volume 2, Issue 1, 2004 of Policy and Practice in Health and Safety, it strikes me as essential that affordable, good calibre advice should be available for small businesses. I don't believe creating a legal RSP status requirement is going to help this area of industry.
From my experience of radiation protection, smaller businesses that indulge in practices such as radiography, tend to use affordable consultancies who have large customer bases for their statutory advice. These tend to generate very generic processes that are intended to be a "one size fits all" solution. These invariably miss the intrinsic hazards of individual working conditions. The consultancies all have accredited professionals but the customer base is so large that individual firms using the consultancies don't necessarily get the level of attention they each need.
I'm not sure that a legal RSP status is really going to promote good health and safety practice in area that truly need it.
Rachel
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
yes, I did go to Milan (after that last posting). It's only 300 miles from here so I drove via the St Bernard tunnel. Got there just in time for dinner (it snowed) and now I'm back in the office. Tomorrow afternoon I'm off to Lille, back Saturday. It's a hard life.
Back to the question. If CMIOSH with CPD means RIP for RSP, what are CIOSH's medium to long term plans for making CMIOSH (does one pronounce that SMISH or SMOSH ?) if not a legal requirement for certain high hazard situations then at least the industry standard ?
Merv (trust me, I'm a consultant) Newman
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Some very interesting comments regarding qualifications/status/CPD etc. Unless I missed it there is one argument that no one has yet put forward - salary. It is all very well obtaining qualifications but who is going to pay for them?
Unlike some other professional trades health and safety does not generally pay very good money. Worse, it is steadily on the decline as anyone who checks out the careers forum or the back pages of SHP cannot fail to notice.
So will prospective employers in the future be prepared to pay a good salary for those who have a string of letters after their name and CPD points? I don't think so. Rather they would employ someone who is 'on their way up,' with the exception perhaps being the very specialised jobs. Where does that leave your future graduates, RSPs, and the rest? Looking towards another career I suggest.
Regards
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jeff
I like the term 'professional trades' Ray.
Perhaps that is what we really are - an in between, and seen as such.
I have no problem with that, comparing ourselves with doctors and the like has always seemed a little pretentious to me.
Two can play at this game Merv!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Jeff (Ingognito I presume)
Did that amuse you? I don't think the term 'professional trades' is disparaging and in any case I was referring to 'other professionals' such as accountants, surveyors etc. Health and safety professionals come from all sorts of different trades and perhaps 'professional artisans'would be a better decription.
It is an interesting notion and no doubt Merv will have an opinion, but what is the correct term for h&s people, where do they sit in the course of things? How many h&s professionals have any clout in the boardroom? Not too many I suspect.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Allen
Ray,
Your final point brings us neatly back to the one I was trying to make a week ago. There are hardly likely to be many H&S professionals in the boardroom until there are H&S professionals on the HSC and the HSE is led by an H&S professional rather than a career civil servant whose next posting could be the FCO or even the head of paper clips at HMSO.
It’s a long time since we had a Chief Inspector of Factories, a post which was always held by an H&S professional.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By russell calderwood
Colleagues
Compliments and best wishes to all for 2005.
Beside my family keeping me sane, your frank and insightful comments provide a much needed boost to ones need for reassurance that the professional world has much practical information and well-considered advice to offer; + through a plentiful supply of good humour.
As to RSPs or Fellows etc - my views are = good for them; they have taken the considerable trouble to tender themselves for re-accreditation, and that counts much towards their credibility etc.
But it is only part of the equation as to what I personally think of them. There are so many facets to us, as individuals, that accreditations over and above our basic membership of an Institution, that we all start, say, reasonably even.
As for 'legalising' accreditations, unfortunately, I believe, this is increasingly becoming a national dis-service; a matter of serious concern for the Government!
Too many ‘accreditations’ are becoming, for instance, one, or some, of the following : -
- money making machine – re: maladministration
- are in the wrong hands – re: not democratic
- initiated without proper in-depth / wide-ranging scrutiny:
- re: Building Regs – Part ‘P’ [which is how I came across this thread !]
- lead to becoming discredited – re: loss of faith
- financial losses, because the £s are 'mis-spent' – re: thus possible criminal activities
- abused - thus mislead the public etc
- expose public to misuse – re: ‘cowboys’
- ‘attracting’ corporate attention, for the wrong reasons
- re: ie bend to their advantage:
A few thoughts to ruminate over
Otherwise, to one and all, keep up the good work.
Russell
ps does this count for a few cpd points!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
Last time I looked, I thought this thread was about to come untangled in the usual hysterical giggling. Then Russell went all serious on us. Thanks for the kind words, richly deserved of course.
However, on the drive here, I'd thought of a few things to say, just to round it off. But now I have to limit myself to the following : (posting now as I won't be back on-line until after you have all gone POETS tomorrow afternoon)
You all do realise that we are going to have to change our business cards, company letter heading, CVs (do you send me a new certificate, Hazel, or do I just scribble it in on the old one) and heavens, even my little rubber stamp !
I was once a student associate of the Institute of Science Technicians. A SIST. If I had passed the exams I would have been LISTed as a Licenciate. Then, after time-in-harness, I could have gone all MISTy. Eventually, they might even have made be a Fellow - FIST. Don't think I would have gone for President, though.
On group names for Practitioners, I suppose a MURDER or even a GIGGLE wouldn't be right. I could suggest a BRIGADE of Safety Officers, even a LOVE-IN of LHOs (but that would be a sterile event. For Practitioners, a number of "P" words come to mind, such as a PLAGUE or a PEST. Perhaps the PENNYWORTH (as in of Prevention)of Practitioners ?
Then of course, is the old one you must all have heard of - The WEALTH of Consultants ?
Have a nice weekend
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris B
I write not as a H&S practitioner, but as a Chartered Mechanical Engineer, a Fellow of the Energy Institute and a Member of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, and my remit is to ensure statutory compliance against such instruments as the Pressure Systems Regs., LOLER, the ELectricity at Work Regs. et al.
As a Chartered Engineer, I have been subject to writing a Professional Review, and have been inteviewed by peers who then recommended my Chartership.
Within my role and responsibilities I have many legal duties, which Insurance Companies deem I am competent to undertake by virtue of my Chartership. The Engineering Council, as is their motto, deem competence as Knowledge, Training and Experience.
To get professional indemnity, Chartershipis a pre requisite for many insurance companies.
If H&S professionals require a legal status, should not designers,and other practising engineers?
Surely Chartership is as close as we can get to legal status?
The Pressure Systems Safety Regs. were the first set of Regs. that identified the need for a Chartered Engineer to be a Competent Person for high risk systems.
So we must have legal status, as must Members of the Chartered Institute of Occupational Health & Safety.
Although not being a safety practitioner, I bear a great deal of lega H&S responsibility as a Chartered Engineer.
One of the benefits of this forum is that the likes of I can engage in and learn from discussion, so please don't make it a closed shop.
Have good weekends.
Regards
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Chris
It is a good point that you make (if somewhat laborious) and several others on this forum have made similar overtones. It may be worthwhile checking the archives for previous threads.
There are many within health and safety like yourself who either do not work full-time or have health and safety as an add on. Unfortunately they appear to be the 'silent majority' and I wonder if their views are being heard. The drive for Chartered status will certainly benefit some, if only in kudos. Whether that will be a price worth paying for is another matter. Certainly others will find it a painful process and may prefer to drop out.
Clearly, the debate over Chartered status, CPD, RSP etc will continue and only when the 'smoke goes away' we will know the real consequences. However, as I mentioned in my previous response, the long-term ramifications in terms of salaries and whether future employers will be prepared to pay a good wage for those that have good qualifications is questionable. As they say, the 'jury is still out' on that one.
(Merv, some of us work weekends!)
Regards
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.