Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Martin R. Bessant
This is a continuation of the original thread which can be found at
www.iosh.co.uk/index.cfm...m=1&thread=16335&page=1.
What about TechSPs?
Posted by PTH on Wednesday, 16 November 2005 at 22:48
Over the last couple of weeks I have read a couple of threads refering to the benefits of chartered status. While I don't for one moment want to knock my peers who will acieve CMIOSH, do any members who currently hold TechSP status feel they are getting a bit of a 'bum deal' out of this?
Approx 18 months ago I passed my Dip 1 and was chuffed to achieve TechSP status. I now feel I have been effectively down graded (because I passed my Gen Cert in 1998, I could now apply for the new TechIOSH status anyway) to a level that in real terms is lower than GradIOSH (someone who walks out of Uni with a degree and no experience) just because a)I can't afford to pay for my next level qualifications myself or b) don't work for an employer prepared to finance my further education.
I apologise if this seems like a bit of a rant, but I do feel like the goal posts are being moved again and all the focus seems to be on CMIOSH, while TechSPs (soon to be TechIOSH) are being overlooked.
What do my fellow TechSPs think?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Philip Roberts
Martin,
I feel you have done the Tech SP's no service with closing the original thread. I have been following it with interest, by the way I am MIOSH with the big "C" due in December, closing it will, I believe, only serve to create more anger at the lack of response from IOSH. People , me included, like to refer to previous postings to make sure they understand what is being referred to in new postings and closing this thread has prevented that. I fully understand the position and the anger of the Tech SP's and IOSH should make more response than closing the thread just because it is getting big,
regards
Phil Roberts MIOSH
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brett Day
I did recieve an e-mail from someone regarding an enquiry re IIRSM, as a result of the former thread, my e-mail crashed and I have lost your address, if you cae to re-send I will reply.
Regards
Brett
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bill Fisher
Phil
I am afraid you have misunderstood the Moderators' intent. After a number of enquiries about clogged/slow machines we discovered that with the number of postings on the original Thread it was taking a long time to open on some machines. As Lead Moderator, Martin locked the original Thread and copied the original Posting to enable the discussion/debate to contiue.
It is our intention to have this debate continue for as long as is necessary and to aid this Martin posted the www link to the original Thread so that as it drops down the page it will not be lost; indeed if we have to go to part 3 etc then we will include all the links to the previous parts.
That link to Part 1, again, is:
http://www.iosh.co.uk/in...um=1&thread=16335&page=1
Also be assurred that IOSH staff regularly review and look in on these postings; the comments will be subject to discussion.
Regards
Bill Fisher
(Moderator)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stupendous Man
Having posted to the original thread I can understand why the moderator has decided to lock it and start again.
I, and I hope all other posters who feel let down by IOSH at this point in time, will at least give them credit for allowing this thread to continue when they could have simply blocked all postings of a 'questioning' nature.
The continuation of this thread can only be in the interests of both disaffected TechSPs and IOSH as an organisation. It gives us an opportunity to put our views across. Yes, it would be nice to see some input from IOSH, but I am sure that this issue will require some serious thought before a response is given.
At the end of the day, IOSH do have some time (until renewals are due) to try and 'win back' both myself and others who have stated their intentions to leave the organisation. There are no immediate fixes, and I would hate for a resolution to move the problem elsewhere rather than address it full-on.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Edward Blanchard
The responses to the original thread have been overwhelming. It is, however, disappointing that nobody at IOSH - such as Hazel Harvey - has been able to respond!
I obtained my NEBOSH Certificate in 1994 and was offered Associate membership of IOSH. Four years later, with a couple of Diploma module passes, my membership level was "upgraded" to TechSP. Associate membership was then being phased out, anybody who passed the NEBOSH Certificate was then only being offered "Affiliate" membership.
I did not achieve MIOSH, as I failed my one remaining module in December '99.
A couple of weeks ago I attended an interview for a new H&S position. The interviewer enquired why I was not MIOSH. He advised me that he had passed his National General C ertificate in 1993 and had immediately acquired MIOSH status, together with the other successful members of his course. I have no reason to dispute that statement.
It appears that IOSH does change the rules governing membership grades. It is quite understandable that TechSPs are disgruntled. Perhaps IOSH, as an employer, holds IIP status. If such awards were made for "Investment In Members" it certainly would not qualify!!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Philip Roberts
Martin,
Sorry if my lack of understanding of computer technology led me to sound off at your closing of the original thread and I apologise for any upset which may have been caused. I had experienced no difficulty in opening the previous thread. I still stand by my feeling that IOSH need to reply to some of the questions asked if only to say that they are considering all the points raised and will reply to some of the criticism in due time.
regards
Phil Roberts
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Max Bancroft
I'm not a TechSP (or Tech IOSH as now is) but was one. I got my NEBOSH General Certificate, became an Associate, did my portfolio to upgrade to Tech SP and then did my NVQ Level 4 - at my own expense. My employer was supportive in terms of time and facilities (even allowed me to take the odd half day away from work to finish off units to meet deadlines) but was not willing to shell out the cash.
I hope to become CMIOSH next July. It would have been nice if my employer had supported me financially as well as with time etc but I took the decision that the money spent was an investment in my future. I suspect that as a CMIOSH I will be more employable whether on my own as a cosultant in the future or working for somebody else. And there will be no hard feelings between me amd my boss if I up and off to better things. It's worth noting that some epmployers insist on repayment of substantial training costs such as NVQ4 if an employee leaves within a set period of the employer paying for the training.
I think I would be more employable/valued as a member of a Chartered body even if not in a Chartered Grade.
So maybe not all doom and gloom for TechSPs/Tech IOSHs?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brian McMillan
I note that one of the other safety organisations reports an increase in membership of 40% in the last five years.
Published statistics for the last year would seem to suggest that the monthly intake of members at the higher grades have increased by up to 90% at certain times. Figures for Associates appear to remain static throughout. This might indicate that people with qualifications that are acceptable for full membership of one body but not another are indeed switching their allegiance.
I wonder how these statistics compare to those of IOSH for the same period (Cannot find membership statistics on the site map)? Is a rise in one groups membership at the cost of a reduction in another’s or is it a case of having a Macdonalds sited next to Kentucky Fried Chicken where inevitably both will prosper with a healthy (or unhealthy) respect for each others individualism?
What happens next in the safety arena - Will we see the Chartered International Institute of Risk and Safety Management appear on the horizon or will it be CROSPA or CBSC or the breakaway body some suggest?
If things do not change they could well stay as they are.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
There seems to be a lack of understanding concerning the paid officers of the institution, they are more aware than most of the details of the systems put in place to reach the status of chartered member. It is not solely their responsibility to respond to the comments made on such threads as these, it is more accurately that of those members who fulfill committee etc roles of the institution. As such both I and George have made responses to those who express concerns. The response to the offers has been underwhelming at least on my part. There is also often little sense that people are in fact reading and understanding the words and ideas expressed by those with a slightly contrary view. Of course you may be all "reader response" postmodernist readers and in that case my words will mean whatever you wish their sign on the screen to mean.
What are we actually questioning in this thread.
a)Change of title? - The new title reflected the expressed wish of the majority of the TechSP respondents to the IOSH survey to indicate the connection to IOSH.
b)A suggestion that old certificate holders have been unfairly upgraded to join the TechIOSH grade? - The NEW certificate is the matter under concern not the old.
c)That persons who have a relevant OHS first degree or equivalent or higher are designated as GradIOSH during their IPD period? - This is precisely fair as they are in fact graduates and now are undertaking a structured programme to achieve chartered status.
d)Persons achieving NVQ 4 level are designated as GradIOSH during IPD? - As in (c) above but they will also complete formal open book examination
e) Related cognate degree holders are recognised during their IPD period? - As for (c) anbd (d) above
f) Previous experience in employment is not counted as IPD? - IPD and CPD are concerned with structured recorded evidence and an auditable record with verifiable information not simply a CV.
The old diploma 1 was, if people would like to check, little different in status to an "A" level examination, the Dip 2 did equate to a college diploma and hence the reason this has to be the base point of educational achievement for any chartered organisation, and on its own that is not necessarily enough there are other hurdles and those who think the panel interviews will be a matter of the "nod" by people who know you will be sadly disappointed.
We can argue this until the 4th blue moon after the next 3 Sheffield floods but the reality is that people will need to take matters up if they believe thay have a special case and it can be adjudicated upon by the members of the Institution. This is NOT a suggestion to flood the Grange with requests. The Initial route has to be through your own Branch organisation or through the generous offers made by such as George or myself.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Liam Nolan
Maybe it was necessary to close the original thread due to the size of the postings to the thread (is this the largest thread ever on the site?).
Just wanted to highlight the following. in the original thread there were 118 postings, with 4300 views. this is quite a lot and shows the level of interest in the thread.
One reason why the thread should have been left run under the original thread is that now anyone that has posted to the original one will not recieve notification that new postings have been made.
This will possibly slow the interest in the thread.
I too would be interested in an official response to the issues that are central to the TechSP (and by the way, I was told these are post nominals and can be used - is TechIOSH going to be the same?).
As I said in an earlier rushed post (note my spelling mistakes in the original) I too contacted various personnel here in Ireland and in the UK to voice my concerns on the way the new structure was going to affect me personally and others at the same level (TechSP).
I was told (by various people that were or should have been in the know) that the new structure was designed to be avantageous to the majority of non corporate members and that I, unfortunatly was one of the few that would not benefit from it(after explaining my position)t - but basicly it was hard cheese. (this was all before the vote).
I was told that my concerns were being brought to the attention of the committee at the time, were they? in light of what George W. has said in earlier posts.
I still can't see how the new structure is beneficial to any non corporate member. I just can't see it!
I would have achieved Corporate membership next May if the structure had not changed, or at least if grandfather rights had been awarded to members already on the road to attaining the academic requirements for coporate membership (as I was - is this selfish in my part?).
Now I will have to wait a further 2 years at least to go for the level above Grad IOSH.
This seems rediculous to me. I have the required work experiance, I am doing CPD for Tech IOSH requirments - because I have to, however my academic studies for the GradIOSH will cover my CPD without recording anything else as CPD (I have been told this).
What really sticks in my craw is that any CPD or IPD done before the attaining of GradIOSH is usless, worthless, may well not have been done (For the purposes of IOSH not employment or knowledge wise).
Again I think we should officially contact the relevent persons and ask, no demand that something be done about these issues that concern us.
I would further propose that this is our organisation and that it should facilatate the gathering of a consensus on the issues affecting TechSP status, using central funds (our subscriptions). In other word post out some kind of request for information from TechSP's ONLY on the issue cocerning us. will they do this? I think not. It does not have to cost any money as there is enough corespondance from IOSH to add a second peice of paper.
Another way could be to put notification into the SHP magazine about have an online gathering of information on how pleased we are with the way the TechSP's are being treated.
I don't know how many members (I see numbers in this thread) are disgruntled, but we are all familiar with statistics and the sampling that is done on surveys is a reflection on the total population affected (etc. etc). Therefore, the powers that be should be taking note that there is extreme displeasure on our level as to the issue of the organisations structure and how it is 'forced' (because we had no vote) on us.
So for those of you that have said it is only a 'few' or a small minority that are unhappy I say you are wrong. But lets do what I said above and have a survey of TechSP members. I bet you the answer will be an overwhelmingly huge NO to being happy with the new structure for TechSP's.
Liam
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Longworth
Being relatively new to this I don't know the full ins and outs of the way the chartered status came about. All I can see is the result so I have a couple of questions.
Was there an actual vote on whether to go for chartered status and if so, who was allowed to vote?
Was it the whole membership or just a select few?
If it was the whole membership then how can anyone complain now? (As long as the full implications were made clear at the time)
If however it was just a select few (those who were likely to benefit and blow the rest) then how can that be justified in any reasonable society.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Nigel Evans
Just keeping it short TechIOSH is a load of w*nk. I stayed as Associate which was good enough for me as a H&S Consultant but IOSH are trying to force me to use thier w*nky new letters my closing my IOSH associate status and transferring me the the new status.
Also not satified with that, having paid thousands of pounds to run the IOSH courses and each year paying to renew my license which have included the updates, they have now re-witten the course and advise me that I now have to purchase it again or I will lose my licence!!
I think a legal challenge would be in order or better still they could stick their new course and I'll run the passport training (as I have started to) instead.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mike Craven
For the benefit of the last poster, those of us who have gained CM/FIOSH and Chartered status did not say or think "blow the rest" when either supporting or accepting chartered status
For the benefit of those who seem to think that they are the only ones who have found it difficult - due to finances, time, support, abilities, etc - to gain qualifications which would have given them MIOSH status, others haven't simply been handed diplomas and degrees on a plate.
For those who are threatening to join IIRSM simply because they are unhappy with IOSH, don't be so disrepectful to IIRSM. It "isn't IOSH" as someone said in a previous thread, but it is a very useful and professional organisation to belong to. As an IIRSM member, I would hope that people who wish to join one of my professional associations would do so for the right reasons!
As for "Investment in Members" - the achievement of chartered status, the production and facilitating of these forums and the wider IOSH site, excellent support from HQ staff, etc, etc - I for one, have few complaints - well done IOSH!
(Just to add a bit of balance to this "debate")
Mike (CMIOSH)
(Former TechSP - with some initial sympathy for the position of current TechSP/TechIOSH's, but rapidly running out of sympathy for certain arguments and positions put forward in this thread!)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Max Bancroft
Thanks for that Mike. I've often wondered about joining IISRM but, of course, IOSH has been the major organistation for quite a while (now confirmed by Chartered staturs organisationally and individually) and I've never really felt the need. Would you care to expand further on your experience and what further benefits there are - not only to the individual but also in terms of making workplaces healthier and safer?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Longworth
My my that was quite a rant. I bet your glad you got that off your chest. However, there didn't seem to be an answer to any of my questions in there anywhere.
Anybody else got an answer?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Anne Smart
Posted on behalf of Neil Budworth.
It is great to see this forum being used as a place where live issues are being actively debated and where members of Council, elected officers and IOSH staff can respond to concerns and can account for the decisions made by Council.
I would like to discuss, briefly I promise, the concerns of the members expressed on this forum about the changes to the membership grades, concerns that IOSH is becoming 'elitist' and the role that the changes to national standards have played in the development of the new membership structure.
I understand that some may feel that they have been 'downgraded' by the transition from TechSp to Tech IOSH. These changes were not made lightly and were extensively debated at IOSH's Council of Management.
The fact is that the changes are a result of changes made to the national standards. We have to reflect these standards in our membership structure. (Incidentally, thanks to Jay Joshi for his excellent postings on this issue).
Where we have flexibility we have chosen to try to make the Institution more inclusive. For example, the fact that it is possible to enter the Tech IOSH grade with the NEBOSH general certificate and five years experience is a recognition of the excellent work that is done by this important IOSH group.
Let me assure you, as a fellow practitioner, I never underestimate or neglect the input that experienced people with the NEBOSH certificate or the Diploma part 1 make. I work with a number of people who fall into this category and I have the utmost respect for the work that they do, as do my Council colleagues. As such, I can assure you that their concerns are always considered during Council debates.
The recent changes have also given us the chance to include non-Chartered members on Council for the first time. We have also improved the voting rights of non-Chartered members.
These changes are here to stay. I am sorry to read that some members are questioning their membership of IOSH and I hope that they will reconsider.
IOSH now has a new sense of vibrancy and is more influential than ever before. We are representing the views of the membership routinely at the highest levels of government and we are being heard.
I have been elected to represent your views and I am happy to respond directly to any member who wishes to contact me via email at president@iosh.co.uk (there will be a delay as I will be out of the country on business for a week).
Best Regards,
Neil Budworth, IOSH President
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Max Bancroft
In part answer to Peter Longsworth's question about decision making within IOSH. IOSH was/is governed by a Council which, since IOSH is a professional body and sets standards was composed wholly of corporate members ("old" MIOSH/FIOSH). So decisions on going for Chartered status for the body and then for individuals were indeed taken only by those who were corporate.
Being an active member of IOSH (attending Branch meetings, reading SHP etc) I was well aware of what was happening and received active engouragment and support from my colleagues in IOSH at Branch level to progress from Associate to TechSP to MIOSH and want to thank them very much for this.
As I understand it it, for individual Chartered status, IOSH had to agree things with the Privy Council which expects certain levels of "academic" qualifications coupled with certain levels of experience. Hence the present rules about what you must to to get to Chartered stauts.
As part of reviewing itself, IOSH took cognizance of representations from people like me that non-Corporate members (as I then was) should have some say in the governing of IOSH and the rules were recently changed to allow a proprtion of the members of Council to be non-corporate (or perhaps nowadays non-Chartered).
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mike Craven
Max
Not entirely certain that it's appropriate to "sell" the IIRSM on the IOSH site!! but whilst accepting that IOSH is - quite rightly in my opinion - accepted as being the "premier" safety professional organisation, I would comment as follows:
The contribution made by IIRSM is best summarised in it's own mission statement,
"The IIRSM will strive to provide its members with support and information to help them practice and promote the highest professional standards in risk and safety management in the workplace. The Institute will also continually endeavour to enhance the reputation of its members and champion the cause of the risk, safety and health management profession. "
For me personally, I have found my individual membership of IIRSM extremely useful. One of the best and most useful events I have attended in recent years was a seminar/conference on "Affective Safety Management" run jointly by IIRSM and the RoSPA affilated, Manchester Occ' Health & Safety Group - another worthwhile and useful association to belong to. The monthly British Safety Council publication "Safety Management" has provided me with a number of articles and pieces of information which I have been able to use in my own workplace. (Safety Management does often repeat what one finds in the Practitioner, but I do find that some of the articles/ideas appear in a format that is sligtly more practical in terms of being able to put them into practice in your own workplace. IIRSM is of course linked to the British Safety Council and I first used some very useful information from the BSC in a Health & Safety Audit project I was involved in, as a TU Safety Rep, about 10 years ago.
Hope this is of interest.
Mike
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Peter L
Like all posters to public forums such as this I know that it is eminently possible to register under a variety of names and post on a thread many times as different people so who is to know how many individuals actually posted here.
The answer as you know is that the corporate membership all had a vote in this and endeavoured to provide a degree of enfranchisement to non-corporates to the extent enabled by Privy Council. The suggestion that they are only concerned with themselves and blow the rest is something you need to clarify. No corporate member I know has that attitude and many of us mentor newbies to the profession.
Bob (perhaps!)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kevin Bailey
I also have recently completed the NEBOSH Dip 1 and was also very pleased to achieve the enhanced status. The amount of time and effort at nights and weekends to achieve the credit that i received was deminished when i realised that only about a third of my course actually passed.
I wonder if the pass rate would have been higher if we had all just resat the NEBOSH Cert at the new level 3?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jane Watts
Hmm, quite interesting IIRSM's mission statement about 'striving to suppor its members'.
Does IOSH do this?
There seem to be so many people unhappy with the changed status of TechSP's, why won't IOSH do anything about it?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Max Bancroft
Hi Jane - just to re-iterate that I got very good support from my local Branch and its members inlcuding Corporate Members & Fellows as I progressed from Associate to TechSP to IOSH. In terms of on-going support, Branch and District are excellent fora for members (of all grades) to ask questions, discuss problems etc. While the work of Branches and Districts is primarily that of the local volunteers, IOSH HQ gives them a good back-up so what you see if the outcome of a team effort invlving the whole of IOSH.
I also find the IOSH Technical Information service very useful to me as a SHP on the ground facing a wide variety of questions.
BTW: I wonder if sometimes when people refer to IOSH they mean our paid officials at HQ or our national elected officials or the totality of the organisation?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jane Watts
Yes I agree with you about local branches being supported and very good. I refer to IOSH as a 'body', the people who are making the decisions and setting the standards.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Longworth
Robert
"Like all posters to public forums such as this I know that it is eminently possible to register under a variety of names and post on a thread many times as different people so who is to know how many individuals actually posted here."
I don't want to hi-jack this thread so perhaps you could e-mail me and let me know what that is all about.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Jane
The support and care offered by IOSH is as good as it's members and is best expressed at branch level. If you look at the About IOSH link it describes the overall mission but not in a short and sweet manner. As a chartered body we have to be a centre for excellence not just a "club" for mutual support. The horizon has to be much larger than that. I would find it difficult to create a short statement to encompass all that is done.
The sniping at the corporate membership is concerning but I am comforted by the fact that in spite of many hits the number of negative posters is actually very small. No doubt this may initiate a flood of counterclaims but I shall done my reader response hat yet again and take them to be, in actual fact, a total agreement with my point and, in truth, evidence that I am right.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By peter gotch
Will the disaffected who join IIRSM still use this chat forum as their body of current choice has nothing remotely similar?
As happens I am a member of both organisations.
Regards, Peter
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By IT
I have tried so hard to leave this post alone, after it was suggested that I was flaming the Organisation (not contributing) after seeing several of these posts I failed in keeping away.
What we know.
IOSH called a vote of corporate members to move to Chartered Status 4000-6000
Non corporate members were not given a vote, because of the corporate rules.14000-16000 (under estimated)
After Charter on Thursday last week Non corporate members can now elect to the Privy Council a group of peers.
Bob help me out here what else as far as voting?
IOSH (the Organisation and its representatives) did not have anything to do with the curriculum changes, but did know that it was happening.
IOSH provides significant support to members in improving Safety knowledge.
A statement from the President has been placed for all to see and individuals may contact him directly.
There appears to be a great deal of anger on the changes
Corporate members are NOT the target of this anger, nor is it jealousy
It is lack of recognition for achievement and study.
There are some inferences that people are inflating the posts and viewing numbers.
Some TechSPs will not be renewing membership (how many is unknown)
I will continue to use these forums (that is if not removed), regardless of membership as IOSH has changed, this is demonstrated by the involvement of the Senior members and Council members who may not like what they see, but are listening and responding in an OPEN PUBLIC forum and are genuinely trying to demonstrate this change (in my opinion again)
My vigorous debating style portrays anti whatever, not the case it is to encourage open discussion and nothing more
How does it get resolved?????
And for the record my fees will be there in January
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Breeze
IT,
As far as I can see, that is a very fair summary (subject to clearing up what further voting rights non-corporates have).
This is a genuine question and not at all toungue in cheek, but have you ever considered standing for Council?
I suspect that the council and organisation as a whole would benefit from your robust style if you were voted on.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By IT
Without distracting from this Important Issue
Thank you for your confidence Jonathan,
No I have not thought about standing for anything apart from openness, free speech and adding value to Safety.
My aggressive style of debate can also be a negative asset also,and I am sure there would be many others that would be more than qualified to represent
again thank you.
Iain
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ian milne
So, another thread after another thread.
Let me advise you of my experience and then see if it encourages others. I started off doing QA (minor procedures to full systems) like many others. I began to get bored after about 8 years and was looking for something more engaging. I was offered to assist in writing HSE procedures and then offered to become more involved. I joined IIRSM as IOSH was toooooo difficult at the time.
I was then promoted to a QA & HSE position which (due to bounds of enthusiasm and efficiency I tend to portray) I was forced by default to consider IOSH. I sat my formal QA and environmental (not hygiene) audit certs and then NEBOSH Cert. This still only allowed me to have a lower IOSH designation which I still never advertised, but I did start attending the branch meetings. I then through a few new employers, met other IOSH branch members who encouraged me to do CPD (it might be handy in future). This gave me additional knowledge that was very useful. I then decided to sit my NEBOSH dip Pt 1 and IOSH decided to split the diploma into two (right in front of me - the nerve of it).
I sat that and eventually passed (theory and lectures were never my strong point). I began to get hungary for upgrade about a year later, still hiding my IOSH designations. I decided to sit my part 2 (just as IOSH converged the diploma again - a pattern here). I realised the corporate changes being planned by IOSH (I voiced my concerns at the local branch meetings - how many go, thats what they are there for) would knock me further down the rankings and I was left in no doubt that man nor beast would stop the process.
I then decided that I had to do the NVQ 4 route (self financed and no support from employers) to achieve the MIOSH grade. Doing it was brilliant - the knowledge you already posess begins to flow and you have no alternative but to learn more for your gaps. A short period later, new employer, new wage structure and 2nd submission of CPD, I await news on CMIOSH.
Lessons learnt: You don't need to like it, but like the law, you certainly have to lump it. I consider myself better prepared now and confident than I ever was to carry out the tasks sufficiently. I really don't see IOSH changing anything so far down the line - do you.
And yes, I really do feel for those in the ranks and worry that we will lose fresh blood in the next two years. Hopefully we don't turn into a 'Uni graduates' only organisation where we don't have colleagues who have been through life and don't just appear with 'any degree'. Knowledge is good but so is experience. Unfortunately, companies often abuse graduates in the first years and many don't come near the HSE world as they need to pay off there bank accounts.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
IT
As long as you refer to the Council as the Privy Council there is little I can add.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Hay
There seems to be an increasing number of rhetorical and sniping posts on this thread.
My take on it is that most (and you can call it a small number if you like - although I have never seen a thread with as much interest as this one) of the posts have been from current TechSPs who don't want to criticise or knock those who have achieved CMIOSH (several of my colleagues who I have the utmost respect for have achieved it), but do feel that their qualifications and ,probably more importantly, their experience is being ignored.
I began my career in the mid nineties as an industrial and construction plant instructor. Gradually got more involved with the safety side of it and took my Gen Cert (1 years study by distance learning for the most part at evenings and weekends) in the late 90's. Was then fortunate to get a position with a company who saw past my qualifications and valued my experience and took my Dip 1 a couple of years ago and was awarded TechSP. Will be starting my next level qualification next year, which with a bit of luck and hard work will have passed by this time next year. Then I can apply for GradIOSH (the same level as a 21/22 year old student who has just passed their relevant degree - and good luck to them!) I then will have to do another 2 years before I can apply for CMIOSH - despite the fact that by then it will be some 12 years since I first got involved in H&S and 5 since passing my Dip 1 (I think I will be about ready for retirement by then!!)
If these are the rules then I will play by them and when I finally achieve my goal it will be all the sweeter - but surely this demonstrates why people like me feel a little cheesed off.
Sincerest apologies for the life story - available in hard back soon!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brett Day
Paul
I can understand exactly where you are coming from, my gripe is with IOSH and not with CMIOSH members.
It would be nie if that was recognised and 'officially' responded too, there have been some posts that read as though they have come from IOSH staff, perhaps any 'official' posts or post from IOSH staff should be designated so we know who is saying what ??
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jane Watts
Robert,
This isn't about 'sniping' at anyone! If the branch were as good as it's members then why not listen to all the disgruntled opinions of people with regard to the change of membership structure?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Rob Strange
For clarification, there have been no postings made by IOSH staff - this issue concerns the new membership structure and its attendant transitional arrangements and this is the domain of the IOSH Council who have approved the clear recommendations made by the Professional Affairs Committee. In other words, these are decisions made by elected members, following due consultation and deliberation, and readers of this thread seeking a definitive and "official" posting should refer to the entry made yesterday afternoon by the President, Neil Budworth. Neil has explained the situation and has also offered to respond personally to those who email him direct on this matter.
Rob Strange
Chief Executive
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Max Bancroft
"If the branch were as good as it's members then why not listen to all the disgruntled opinions of people with regard to the change of membership structure? "
I've been Branch Secretary for 3/4 years now and was on my Branch Exec for a year before that - in other words during the whole period of discussion, decision and transition. We had Hazel Harvey attend to explain why IOSH would need to make the changes also IOSH Presidents at the AGM saying the same plus updates at regular intervals from our Branch Education Development Adviser feeding back from meetings she attended at The Grange. All written up in the minutes which are emailed out to all Branch members who request them plus being posted on the Branch website.
There was very little feedback and certainly not this kind of disgruntlememt. Did I miss something?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Iain. Taylor
Bob,
I apologise for refering to the council as PRIVY ,because it is certainly not .I believed that is what it was referred to and sincerly apologise to all council members for my reference.(looked it up )
I don't believe was Sniping at me ,he rightly pointed out an error made on my part and I accept that.
I do know that NON Corportae members have a voice now and see that IOSH and its officers ar changing ,now go back to the orginal question that both Bob and I have Put How does this get resolved ??????
Also you can see I ahve logged on using my full name ,this is due to being at home with the FLU and I wanted to clear this Sniping issue up.
I repeat this organisation has changed ,it is evident ,IMO .
Solutions please I think everyone is awre o the issue .
IT
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sarah Darlington
I like a lot of others will be affected by this change in a big way, especially as a lot of jobs in our industry want us to be MIOSH..
I have worked in Health and Safety over 12 years and started with the NEBOSH certificate. When I went to do the Dipolma, 6 months later, it had been changed so did the conversion and got NEBOSH Part 1 - so became a TechSP.
Following various job and area moves finally found a company to fund my Part 2 late last year but was advised to do the NEBOSH level 4 (now regraded to level 6). I also signed up to do voluntary CPD in June 2004 with current cycle closing June 2006.
I, the same as everyone else, will be graded (down in my opinion) at TechIOSH. When I get the new NEBOSH Diploma I can go to GradIOSH but then will have to wait another 2 years before moving up again.
Before the changes I was hoping to complete the Diploma and get MIOSH quite soon after especially with the experience I have in the field. Now it will probably be another 3-4 years.
Will this change affect our job prospects as some employers pick up on the buzz words and titles but do not understand exactly what they are asking for. If you haven't got the title you can't get the job!!
Is MIOSH still open for applications and can you get it just with experience?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Hazel Harvey
This is a posting from an IOSH member of staff. I have been out of the office on IOSH business for several days and as this thread is so long have no been able to post anything. I still haven't read it all but hopefully can put right a few misconceptions that appear to be clouding the debate.
The TechSP category was based on level 3 standards in OSH practice and had a number of qualifications accredited as the academic requirement. It was never solely for NEBOSH Diploma part 1 holders and also included the TUC Safety Reps courses, and several certificate level courses from Hong Kong and Ireland. The split in numbers in the category when it shut was about 1500 Dip 1/ 500 NEBOSH Constuction Cert/ 800 TUC/700 Portfolio upgrade people who were either partially qualified to higher level or produced a portfolio of skills, the rest coming from overseas.
The main difference following the membership changes is that the term IOSH has been included in the title (after consultation with TechSPs this was what the majority thought would be a better title). The Tech IOSH still represents level 3 standards. However, because of the changes to the national standards any other qualifications now underpinning the level 3 standards introduced in 2002 replacing the original 'level 3 practice' have also be considered. Included in this group is the NEBOSH level 3 Certificate but this is not the only one.
There seems to be a perception that the Dip 1 holders have been downgraded, this is not strictly true. I think it is generally accepted that the NEBOSH Dip 1 always exceeded the minimum academic requirements for TechSP, probably (and you will have to ask NEBOSH about this) because it also represented the first part of a full professional level diploma rather than just meeting the knowledge requirements for the level 3 standards.
This is widely known and respected within the industry and most employers as well as looking for an IOSH membership level will also look at how someone got there. You are now a Tech IOSH with a NEBOSH Diploma part 1 instead of a TechSP with a Diploma part 1.
Another feature of the new system is that a prospective Tech IOSH will also have to demonstrate at least 5 years in a health and safety role as opposed to the 2 years originally specified for TechSP. I suppose it could be said that the IOSH membership category opens the door but the whole profile is what will be considered at interview.
This difference in qualifications and content/level has for a number of years been a feature of the higher categories of IOSH membership. For instance no one thinks that an MSc and a BSc are the same, however, both meet the minimum academic requirements for IOSH membership!
In response to the question about the higher levels. The CMIOSH actually replaces the old RSP, this took at least three years after qualication whereas the new CMIOSH can be obtained in 2 years. However, it needs highlighting that the 2 years is a MINIMUM time in the category of Grad IOSH not an absolute time. The speed at which a person will progress through the new IPD requirements will clearly be dependent on the amount of experience they have prior to obtaining a qualification. So whereas a Tech IOSH may well complete in 2 years it is extremely unlikely that a young graduate will be able to satisfy the peer review panel that they have sufficient experience to practice after only two years.
I appreciate that the new membership structure does have many nuances that are difficult to follow but I can assure you that every single bit was debated at sub-committee, committee and council level, was approved by the corporate membership (15,000+ - 56% of total membership) last year and communicated to people on an individual basis. We are happy to answer queries where possible.
Hazel Harvey
Director of Professional Affairs
|
|
|
|
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.