Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Paul Bellis What a farce - (another rant im afraid!) When a competent contractor holding a ECITB (engineering CITB safety passport) is refused entry to a Construction site because he doesnt have the CSCS card -safety passport if you have the time and /or inclination visit http://www.ecitb.org.uk/...ning/safety_passport.cfmand look at the criteria then http://www.cscs.uk.com/ and look at the CSCS Some employers accept one card some the other -consequently you have to get both and others - which is all time and money Why cant one be accepted as equivalent to the other -and for that matter other safety passports in operation. You cant help but wonder if its jobs for the boys -just pay up or you cant get in our club there should be either a singly recognised industry standard safety passport such as the all wales Manual handling Passport started in the NHS and developed to spot having to have training in manual handling over and over whererever the member of staff is transfered, this was the broadened to othe re sectors such as local authorities and nto uk in general http://www.wales.nhs.uk/...ual_handling_passpor.pdf for details or a published list of recognised safety passports acceptable to each other and transferrable. any thoughts anyone? Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By RP
I have a thought... same as your really
CSCS and CPCS were brought about by the Major Contractors Group. They, and I agree with them in principle, insist that everyone on site has a CSCS or CPCS card. But it is only intended for them, so why does Greggs the Bakers need it??? or amy person delivering materials to site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Frank Hallett
We vented a lot of spleen on this earlier this year I think.
Basically, it's a revenue generator and a blinkered approach approach by those that sepecify!
Frank Hallett
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Bellis
I just visited a couple of sites advertising both courses - from colleges to other training organisations -who remain nameless - it is interesting that they state they are both Nationally accredited and accepted qualifications. They suggest that once achieved they will be accepted on any site/workplace.
Should the course providers in thier advertisemments say - this qualifiction may NOT be accepted by certain employers as proof of competence .........rather than stating it is a nationally recognised qualification...or would this then efect the course take up and hence revenue.
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Like all chartered members I too am not competent to go on site without a CSCS card either.
I do wonder sometimes whether there is a subliminal message here from the construction and engineering sectors to Safety Practitioners. Yes I know the questions can be answered relatively easily BUT why do they think I do not know the basic safety requirements on site? I have only worked as a safety practitioner in construction for 25 years.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By IT
Ah I must be competent then,I hold a CSCS card as a Safety Manager and it only took 9 minutes to complete after 27 years in Safety(sarcasim).
Sorry could not resist Robert.
Agree too many different cards for the same task ,will need to get a bigger wallet to hold them soon,
despite No one ever asking to see my card as yet ,but I must have it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Hay
And not forgetting the CCNSG and SPA passports - although in their defence, at least you have to attend a training session and pass a test to get these cards, as opposed to the CSCS card where you get a book of questions, memorise the answers and away you go. Does this really improve safety standards on site?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By garyh
The problem is that organisations set rules, which "jobsworth" administrators can't or won't bend - they stick to the letter of the rule.
I myself (CMIOSH) started a new job last year and had to do the 2 day Safety passport....likewise our Superviors have just done IOSH Managing Safely and still have to do the Safety passport!
What we need is a (HSE endorsed - no chance they don't come off the fence!) nationally agreed qualifications policy eg Safety Passport requiremnt is met by CITB Card, NEBOSH, IOSH etc etc
Of course vested interests won't like it.......less fees for them!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Sandler CMIOSH
At the end of the day all the laws requires is that the person is competent, if that person can demonstrate that, by production of certificate, then what is stopping that person going on to site.
To take this matter to the extream, this person has demonstrated compentency, the site is stopping this person form making a living, this could go to court, also to the court of human rights, e.g. 240 volts allowed on construction sites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete Stewart
Was there not an IOSH accredited scheme not so long ago?
Seems to me that there is more mileage to be gained from an independent operation such as IOSH/BSC passport scheme, rather than industry 'cash cows'.
Yes, there would need to be differences to cater for different operations, but there would be a core module, then sector specifics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Sandler CMIOSH
This is a very old argument between the likes of CITB ect..... It is getting out of hand, if this is a construction field issue, why then dont the MCG members talk to each other and come up with a directive re compentency cards; this would therefore end this problem once and for all. (KISS)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By gham
The site rules should state CSCS or Equivalent and list those passess which are equal to CSCS. Remember CSCS recognised many qualifications which would have negated the requirement to sit "The Test" which was a joke and a waste of 2mins 45 sec of my time. I think this is no longer an option though
Good inductions and proper vetting of contractor and sub contractor competencies and proper monitoring and management of Safe systems of work is required.
at the end of the day does the fancy wee bit of plastic significantly mitigate any action, dont think so
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Bellis
Well at the end of the day the major contractor booted out trained (2 day h&S course) ECITB certified man, cos he hadnt got his tick box cscs card and he lost a days work. We have to now send another man tommorrow who has a CSCS and go through the site induction etc again. Well we have nothing else to do I suppose. Bureaucracy 1 common sense 0
Paul
ps its not just a construction issue , as passports are being used everywhere now
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Gham
It makes no difference what the site rules state. They are generally totally absolutist concerning CSCS. The term "or equivalent" is almost always ommitted. Where it is included one can encounter either uncertainty over what is regarded as equivalent or a detailed list which still excludes professional safety qualifications. This latter occurs where the list writer was only thinking about construction trades when compiling the list.
I totally agree the system needs a re-think but as long as the implementers of such ideas cannot understand the consequences of their decisions they will continue in the same vein with any new agreed "card".
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Sandler CMIOSH
Paul.
You might wish to consider billing for the loss of the persons money for the day, he might do it to you?
Regards
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert.
Annoying isn't it.
As far as I'm aware, not one single "card" has been requested for works or entry at Buncefield! How strange.
Didn't IOSH sever links with SafePass Alliance (another card) for "commercial" reasons last year?
Safepass is a two day course as is the CCNSG "passport to safety", which is general safety awareness
I personally agree that it's time HSE got off the fence and sorted this mess out. All cards and safety schemes are nationally recognised---but only by those bodies who want to recognise them--
What's in your wallet?
Oh, that's another card
The BSC have the basis of a national scheme I think is called the Level 1 cert general safety. Could this be taken further, nationally?
Is the CSCS "test" really a measure of competance?
I can fathom out that the MCG want a broad level of safety understanding for every one that needs to be on a construction site. But I cannot understand why they require fully qualified and experienced safety professionals and practitioners to complete a basic literary test.
It it because some of those RSPs may just fancy laying some bricks, get in a dump truck or erect a scaffold while they're on site.
Sorry for being flippant
Maybe someone from MCG, CITB or CSCS could have input to this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Michael Battman
We seem to be missing the point here.
CSCS cards are nothing more than a way of showing that the person entering a construction site has a basic understanding of personal safety and an understanding of how they can ensure the safety of others.
The reason 'other cards' are not accepted is that there are that many of them out there, that site managers couldn't tell a genuine one (eg ECITB) from a fake one (eg Trotters Indipendant Safety Training). So standardisation was the name of the game.
As I understand it, other cards can affiliate to CSCS and thereby have the CSCS logo on their card (Obviously only if they reach the correct standards).
You may be better lobbying the 'other cards' to affiliate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Sandler CMIOSH
Why should other cards affiliate have to affiliate with CITB? scaffolders have there own, yes approved by CITB, but taking away the right of a person to work, is a clear breach of human rights, this person is quailified and deemed competent to do the work for which that person has been employed, but has not been allowed to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Michael Battman
Scaffolders cards are accepted because they are affiliated.
Ditto plumbers, electricians, rope access - and many more.
Breach of human rights, I doubt it. More likely, not read the conditions of contract properly.
If the contract says that you must have a Cub Scout badge in bottle collecting, and you turn up at site without one - you suffer the consequences.
Stop fighting this small step towards site safety, bite the bullet and comply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By IT
Have to agree,I am sure if a Union said join or no work people would see it a little differently?
Industry schemes may have some benefits, but also can have some negatives, like being forced to undertake entry level schemes to simply go to work, if we were all honest would we sit these without the mandatory part or main contractors insisting on it?
And just how many should we carry to undertake the same task or process on different sites, because one individual prefers one organisation over the other.
Good and valid point Jonathan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert.
So, the MCG is a "union" now.
Many MCG affiliated companies wouldn't entertain a union.
There are many construction companies who don't recognise or belong to MCG, does that mean they promote unsafe working on their sites.
No
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
Michel Battman,
Having visited the ECITB web site this morning and done a search for their scaffolder’s card, I could not find any information on these.
I am wondering if these have now been withdrawn since the introduction of the CISRS card?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
I am still to be convinced by the argument that it is a small step to site safety. Is it not possible that it is actually used to short cut the induction on the basis that they know what to do safetywise anyway?
The root of the problem is that whatever the system once it is made mandatory without real understanding by people remote from site there will always arise disparities. Perhaps the problem is too deeply entrained to adequately deal with it. Construction after all prefers to be in the straight situation of these are the rules - obey them or don't come here. Hence we get very straight "100% CSCS" type statements without any recognition of the nuances involved. Certainly we cannot trust Project Managers et al to make decisions about competency!!!!!!!!!!
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By gham
I've never been asked to produce my card
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Sandler CMIOSH
if, for one moment, we can put away the sword and discuss peace terms, maybe there is a positive way to look at this, accept that one card could never be used, or could it? no monopoly aloud, so why cann't we decide which way to go with these cards?
Why cann't plain good old common scence take over? no goverment controlled office, industry lead office run on a charity basis, and not proffit related?
A friend of mine did his dissertation on this very subject, I have not read it but am going to ask for his conclusions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Murgatroyd
Hasn't this argument gone on for long enough ?
To get a cscs ticket you have to sit, and pass, a very basic test of H&S. Then you have to prove, by the relevant certificates, nvqs' etc, that you can do the job.
Or your employer states you've done it for years and so they know you can. Or your employer lies and says you can, which has happened on quite a few occasions.
Either way, no ticket-no job.
Live with it, and then bemoan the fact that you didn't dream the idea up youself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sean Nuttall
If I may ignore the original title of this thread and instead concentrate on some of the slagging off that CSCS and CPCS have received during this thread.
CSCS is a more than useful tool for assisting in assessing competence of the staff that we employ and those that are sub-contracted. Whilst grandfather rights have existed for a number of trades and professions these are now either closed or being closed and the route will be via verification for all roles. If we employ a plant operator who claims he can operate a 360 or whatever but does not have any proof of competence then he goes for a trained employee assessment with an independant assessor. At that point they either pass or fail and all b*llsh*tters or low standard ops will fail. The issuing of log books to newly trained ops where they have to acquire 500 hours experience before being ready for fully trained status is also a useful tool. There are as you are all aware a number of card schemes but I favour CSCS.
There may have been some abuses by unscrupulous employers in claiming competence for their staff during the "Mr X has previous experience days" but then again all bodies have at sometime allowed grandfather rights including our very own !
I wonder how many people who are calling this scheme have actually worked in construction and experienced the difficulties of proving any degree of competence of staff operating large plant in difficult conditions and how many are just making a general assumption on a matter of principle whilst managing office staff
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Sean
The CPCS card is about training and experience recording and not competence per se. This latter is always determined by the manner of work on site. You are absolutely right to submit people to some form of assessment before they commence to use these lethal weapons.
I do not have any real problems with the cards, what troubles me is that they have become a rigid requirement without consideration of many influencing factors. It is easier to check ability to drive plant but not so with H&S specifically - although behaviour on site is often a guide. What I want to see are realistic evidences of competence being recognised without artificial barriers erected by people remote from site activities.
Interestingly, as an aside and I am sorry to keep raisinng this, the HSE consultative document concerning Competence Management for Safety Related Systems is going to impact on the M&E areas of construction. Thus potentially affecting the responsibilities af any contractor, including the Principal, who is to manage these activities. I would urge construction people to look at this - closing date is 27th February. I think the reliance on CSCS is going to be subject to major impact by this document. After all I am not likely to have two competency control processes on site. I am going to the higher control standard. Where is the CSCS card at this point?
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Sandler CMIOSH
Sean and Robert, you both have made valid point, nobody is saying they do not want the cards, we all agree, you can clarify compentency of the holder, and the pratical aspects can be demonstrated, what the author is complaining about is the fact that if you dont have one type of card, but you have a equal type of card, that person will not be allowed on site, therefore stopping that person earning a living.
Sean, you have stated that you did not wish to deviate from the thread, so do you think that person should have been allowed on site?
Robert can you kindly email me with a link for M&E operatives testing please?
Regards
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Jonathan
If you follow the Consultation Document link on the left you will find the link. The document is for those who Own, Manage, Install or maintain safety related control systems. The links to Boiler controls, Gas installations, Operating theatre clean rooms, Air conditioning etc etc can be seen from its broad sweep. Be careful it is a mere 66 pages.
Yes I do realise Paul's initial problem but I think my point is that one card will never fit all and sites are circumscribed by rigid dictats from HQ. Competence management needs to be properly planned and executed on site - not left to rigid statements of the type "We only accept XYZ card"
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Bellis
Interesting thoughts off everyone
Bowing to the pressures of the "thou must have or you cant work" crowd, the company I am doing some occasional work for are now putting the lads through both schemes, I just hope another org doesnt insist on a different card, cos its the one they like best, or we will have to get the lads that one too. Still its better than working I suppose
Thanks for your contributions to this
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mike Draper If I might add my two pennies ... http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr422.htmA reasonable piece of work which should be read in in the context of the condoc for CDM. Hopefully the research will also feed in to the consultation on safety related systems. I would attempt to precis the research, but it is quite wide in its scope and looks at both corporate and individual competence, albeit in the field of construction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Bellis
Does that mean I can refuse to recognise the ECITB scaffolders card! cos its now not the recognised standard! or is it still ok in oil refineries etc?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
To acquire a ECITB scaffolding card, all a scaffolding operative needed was an employer who was prepared to verify their competence and pay the relevant fee. There was never any independent process of examination, verification or assessment for this card.
From a basic search this week on the ECITB web-site, I cannot now see any reference to this scheme being currently supported by any organisation and it is certainly not identified by the NASC on their web-site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Murgatroyd
If anyone bothers to read through the website associated with the scheme, they will note that many major contractors are now insisting that ALL employees of companies that do work for them have cards. Whether or not they ever go on site.
One aim of the scheme, which was noted when the scheme was started, was to ensure that all work arriving on site was done by accredited workers...eventually you may find that if you are a contractor (for instance, providing railings, staircases etc) you may not get your work onto a site unless your workforce is "competent"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stuart Mallett
I would like to say that most of the contributors to this thread seem to be not getting the overall point of CSCS or CPCS.
Now I am not an expert, just a chartered member who's work domain happens to include my company's implementation of this scheme.
Revitalising construction has laid down the improvement targets to which an often dangerous and difficult industry to work in needs to realise in order to reduce the obscene level of injury and ill health it currently owns. Such an industry, which has a base driver of money has to find a way of reversing the worrying trends we have seen over the last few years. The MCG is a group of companies who have agreed to do "something" within the proprtion of the industry that they operate in. This is about 20-25% of the total uk construction business.
The idea is that when a person says that they are a joiner, they can demonstrate that they really are one. It is not just a H&S test that gets you the card, it involves integrity of employers and qualification bodies recognising that competent people on the whole behave competently.
As it is a CITB based initiative it has to follow government criteria for qualifications which is S/NVQ or city and guilds. The H&S NVQ standards directly relate to the scheme but unfortunately, for the academics, like myself, it is up to our own industry professional bodies to correlate where their qualifications and competencies meet or exceed the NVQ criteria. To add value to the scheme why dont you lobby them to start this process.
The system is not perfect and at least the MCG is trying to do "something" rather than just record more horrific statistics.
Yes I have a card, my company is 99% carded and we realistically try to make sure everyone who comes to site to work has a card or is in the process of getting one.
As to the origin of this thread, When three or more schemes start up together, there are bound to be dificulties in achieving card harmony. Why is the SPA in existence? Because the CCNSG operated a "closed" shop and other industries wanted the same sort of qualification. Just please give it all a chance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
I for one, as I have stated clearly previously, am not criticising the cards in themselves. It is rather that groups are making statements and requirements which exclude any other type of accreditted card/certificate, no matter what may have been involved in gaining the particular "qualification". Decisions concerning what to accept need to be made by competent persons who recognise that such cards do not confirm competency as such but rather a particular skill/training achievement. It is this decision making process that is being distorted and often ignored. Preference is given to a simple to enforce rule "We only accept Card X and nothing else will do". This stance, as I have said above fits well with the construction industry in many places as there has developed a belief that a defence has been established that the person was competent and therefore could be left unsupervised to a great extent.
Competence management in construction is not good at a site level and we need to find better techniques of assessment, not stuck in the rut of a single card definition.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
OK heard the pros and cons and probably more cons.
Look at it this way if you sucscribe to the CITB you can get your dosh back in a grant, if yo subscribe to another construction related association you cannot claim a grant back from the CITB Levy. So construction people can get the cost back however if you work in an industry which ineract with all sections of the work place public and private you then end up having
CSCS
SPA
CCNSG Food, manufacturing and Petrochem
Constructionline
Nat Brit Safe conractor
CHAS
etc etc
Our guys have at least '5' different passes related to safety and all teach the same! I have lost count of the times where we have been forced to attend such training and / or induction and some H&S "Trainer" starts of with 'Sect 2 of the Health and Saf ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ my guys are now asleep!
If you recognise yourself here STOP DOING IT!!!!!
My people want to know what the 'specific' hazards and risks are with this particular site and how we 'together' can make it safe! nothing else.
CSCS 100% in our company never ever been asked for it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stuart Mallett
I do very much sympathise you all who have to try to deal with the card frenzy that seems to have erupted on the construction scene. My employers are trying to manage the work we do in an open and hopefully improving H&S climate.
If you are a construction outfit above a certain size, you have to pay the levy(TAX) based on payroll, no choice.I dont know if that is the case for other "associated" industries.We therefore avial ourselves of CITB services and strict training grants, which help us to recoup a small portion of that levy.
I agree that more could be done by way of standardisation but as I witness some of the decsision making around the scheme, I can see why it isnt standardised. Although I cannot recall any descision being made which is designed to exclude this.
If you were a company working for us(we are an MCG member), you would have been audited as to your stance to CSCS and engaged or not depending on your level of commitment/achievement and of course all the other H&S criteria we require. All other contractors are "enrolled"(we are putting several through NVQ ourselves) to enable a constant and reliable supply chain to be formulated. Eventually the card scheme may go "critical" and it may be difficult to pick up work without it.(I would suggest this depends on longevity of government though!) In any case ,should you require to work with us, we will ask to see it, whichever card is applicable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.