Rank: Forum user 
|
boblewis wrote:As a now retired Fellow and formerly CFIOSH with 30 years nigh on in construction, I have to say that I find it rather disconcerting to find an accusation that suggests that a mere CMIOSH has no knowledge of construction. I know many many non CMIOSH people who claim to be the bees knees in construction safety and are not. Frighteningly thay also are writing and developing policies for larger organisations which are cribs of poorly constructed copies of other poorly developed ideas.
So let us not throw generalised abuse about as I know that many lesser qualified people believe that they are far better than anyone else and similarly there are similar CMIOSH who make the same claim - both falsely.
Construction as an industry is much more than site safety alone; it requires a range of skills, knowledge and other qualities, and ANYBODY who argues otherwise really should not be working in the sector. Yes I have removed many a member from post at CMIOSH, the old MIOSH and Associate level plus others who claimed their time in the industry was more than enough. These are the reasons why the old PS and CDMC role has failed - simply because they claimed to be specially knowledgeable about construction safety. There was a time when I raised the issue of registering all construction members of IOSH who could demonstrate their construction CV as well as membership of IOSH. It fell on deaf ears of those who wanted to join the APS register as a policy decision -who is right now?
Bob Hi Bob, I'm not sure if it was my comment which you perceived to be generalised abuse - it wasn't intended so. I wouldn't expect all persons with the CMIOSH or CFIOSH badges to be experts in construction health and safety - they could be specialised in another field such as agriculture. I think there is a need to look beyond post nominals and focus on the individual - there are those who on paper look brilliant - 2 masters degrees - memberships coming out of their ears - but they are perhaps not the right fit for the project or the role they possibly thought they were able to undertake. The CMIOSH badge has value - but it does'nt make one an all knowing all emcompassing fountain of knowledge, and as you know, it takes years of experience in a specific field to possibly enable one to be an expert in that sector. The responses here indicate that perhaps the CDMC role was an add on that nobody needed - a bitter pill to swallow for those of us who felt we made a difference or helped change ways of working and uplift the construction sector and its historically poor health and safety record evidenced by health issues, major injuries and fatalities. Some of us worked closely with our Client's internal H&S professionals who were perhaps too busy with day to day operations and benefited from the extra pair of hands, eyes and ears we offered to them when managing more unusual construction related work in their premises. Many CDMC providers are first and foremost H&S professionals who also have an interest in the much larger remit of the H&S discipline - yes, perhaps the CDMC role resulted in a profession that was not needed - its not found in most of the rest of Europe who also operate under the same EU directive - but the UK has always been one of the leading lights and has a record of improvement to back that up. Could it be that the CDMC profession helped underpin consultancies with a viable form of income and allowed them to establish other H&S services possibly being of benefit to industry in general? I am also happy to walk awayfrom the CDMC role - it is good to change and improve both from a personal, organisational, national and global perspective - but I only hope that after all this time (20 years), the prescribed changes do not end up being a step backwards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Another idiotic HSE decision and Strange appears a Govt yes man rather than an emissary for Construction Safety.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
The HSE have apparently accepted that designers will require the assistance of a CDM consultant with the introduction of CDM2015.
So when one of our clients asked the HSE who would be qualified to carry out the role of Principal Designer the answer was someone who is on the HSE's consultants register. When it was pointed out that the vast majority of those on the register were occupational health experts with little or no construction experience they clarified that the consultant should be on the register but also RIBA, ICE, IOB etc.
The client then asked how many on the register met this criteria - after a very long delay the HSE responded with a number of 87. Well they are going to be very busy aren't they?
When will the HSE understand that designers, architects, principal designers, D&B contractors, CDMC's (call them what you will) are predominantly organisations, not individuals - and organisations call on the expertise of all members of their team to meet their obligations.
The whole thing to be honest is descending into farce. What exactly are the RIBA, IOSH and the APS doing to address this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Eddie1 wrote:The HSE have apparently accepted that designers will require the assistance of a CDM consultant with the introduction of CDM2015.
So when one of our clients asked the HSE who would be qualified to carry out the role of Principal Designer the answer was someone who is on the HSE's consultants register. When it was pointed out that the vast majority of those on the register were occupational health experts with little or no construction experience they clarified that the consultant should be on the register but also RIBA, ICE, IOB etc.
The client then asked how many on the register met this criteria - after a very long delay the HSE responded with a number of 87. Well they are going to be very busy aren't they?
When will the HSE understand that designers, architects, principal designers, D&B contractors, CDMC's (call them what you will) are predominantly organisations, not individuals - and organisations call on the expertise of all members of their team to meet their obligations.
The whole thing to be honest is descending into farce. What exactly are the RIBA, IOSH and the APS doing to address this.
If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass — a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience — by experience.” ― Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist. As 1 of the 87 select CDM-Cs quoted above, please accept my apologies as I am currently looking to move on by then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Some interesting postings re CDM-C role, competency, etc.
From an outsider looking, I work in railway construction - so not a real construction person, however having worked with the CDM Regs, Clients, Designers, etc I can say the whole process is a shambles.
Many people in the industry completely ignore the regulations and never get any come back from the HSE/ORR. The only group who feel any pain is the PC - an easy target. The CDM-C role should have been and independent role by a suitably qualified person. A buffer if you like between the Client's objectives and the PC. Allowing an organisation to be the CDM-C and appointing any old numpty to be the named CDM-C is a joke.
I have some sympathy for the proper CDM-Cs who may be members of APS, who now appear to be redundant. Casting aside the role was not necessary and will cause some pain I'm sure.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I noted while notifying a project this morning that the HSE Intranet form now has a note saying there will be a change in May 2015? I assume it will be to remove all references to CDM C and replace with Lead Designer? In my opinion to employ someone with lots of post nominals including APS can be the hammer that cracks the nut as far as some notifiable projects go. The retail client I act as CDM C for would be horrified if they had to quadruple their expenses only to get the same quality and quantity of CDM C work carried out. The work is always shopfitting so I suppose not really construction (some may say?) but still requires CDM C for short term projects. If HSE really wanted to make a difference they would look at type, size and definition of construction work and adjust the requirements to make some sense of the Regulations? I notified three projects this week, that would cost the equivalent of at least one employee's monthly salary extra to the client if they had to follow the cost calculator on this website http://www.cdmcoordinato...m/cdm-fee-calculato.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Just removed my RMaPS post-nominals from my LinkedIn account.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
A bit of a shame that this post became hijacked with APS discussion. I've trawled through the #1 link document and listed what I believe are the salient points. Happy to discuss, and this may be of use to those tasked with reporting progress to their employer/ client.
TRIM Reference: 2014/294312
Outcome of the public consultation on proposals to revise the
Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 (CDM 2007)
(An extract by Ron Hunter with key statements of significant impact on drafting and issue of revised Regulations)
27. A substantial number of respondents to the consultation raised concerns about the perceived lack
of flexibility in the transitional provisions of the revised Regulations. HSE acknowledges these
concerns, and following more detailed discussions of the perceived shortcomings with industry
stakeholders, proposes to redraft this provision to provide for more flexibility. The overall
approach to simplifying the Regulations, however, is supported by the consultation.
31. The existing ACOP will fall by default when CDM 2015 revokes CDM 2007. This would, in any
case, lead to an interim period when the revised Regulations are supported by HSE and industry
guidance alone. HSE believes, however, that a case has been made to develop a new, shorter
signposting ACOP, complemented by the HSE and joint HSE-industry guidance and therefore
seeks the agreement of the Board for this work to proceed in 2015.
41. Overall, the messages emerging from the consultation on the future of competence suggest that
there are significant concerns from many quarters about the current approach to competence –
whether or not it is driven by the existing Regulations or by wider factors. There also appears to
be a significant level of support for reform, but with concern over how the revised drafting would
deliver reform in practice. HSE therefore proposes to revisit the drafting of this provision to
improve clarity, but believes that the replacement of the existing competence requirements
remains appropriate.
48. HSE proposes to revisit the drafting of the Statutory Instrument to improve the clarity of the
provisions relating to domestic clients, but suggests that the broad approach to this issue in the
consultation document remains appropriate.
49. More than half of those replying to the consultation commented on the impact assessment, many
criticising the assumptions made in it.
50. HSE has subsequently met with a number of industry organisations in order to gather evidence
with which to refine its estimates in these areas, and has amended the IA accordingly. This is
presented at Annex 1 (of the above referenced document).
55. The construction industry is one of the largest sectors in the UK economy and is exceptionally
diverse in its makeup. What has emerged from the consultation is a strong degree of agreement
on the broad proposals tempered by a diverse range of often opposing views on the detail of the
proposals.
56. HSE considers that there is a strong case to proceed with the revision to CDM broadly as
proposed in the CD. HSE proposes, however, subject to Board agreement, to develop an ACOP
in a reduced form as described in paragraph 31.
57. The Board is therefore invited to agree that the proposed amendments to the Regulations
proceed to the relevant Government clearances to allow the draft CDM 2015 Regulations to be
included in the Statement of New Regulation 9, with a view to CDM 2015 coming into force in
April 2015.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.