Rank: Forum user 
|
Is everybody aware of the changes that are coming to the CSCS card scheme? I am astonished that due to the changes made to the CDM regs. People are still putting too much empashis on these riduculous schemes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Originally Posted by: johnwatt 
Removal of CRO cards I presume.
https://www.cscs.uk.com/applying-for-cards/cro-card-changes/
|
 1 user thanked fhunter for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Yes CSCS want everyone to have a qualification from now onwards
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Excellent, about time things were tightened up in the Construction industry and the level of competence and qualifications required before one even thinks of stepping onto a construction site.
Edited by user 23 February 2017 10:17:22(UTC)
| Reason: Typo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Franky Excellent, about time things were tightened up in the Construction industry and the level of competence and qualifications required before one even thinks of stepping onto a construction site.
Got to agree there with you Franky, The best thing the CITB did was change the Green "Construction site Operative" card to a Labourers Card. Seems that everyone was going for the green card as an entry card to sites. The Same thing is happening with the "Construction related Occupation" white card. I've seen some idiots on site with these white cards who have never even been on a course in their trade. Perhaps now companies will invest in training for their employees. I've been told so many times, what if we train and they leave ? - What if we don't and they stay! is the reply i tend to give.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I agree that the Cscs cards should be tightened up but you get a six month red card apprentice then your supposed to sign up for an NVQ in whatever is your trade. i ask how are they suppodsd to learn a trade correctly i was a plasterer and it took alot longer than 6 months to learn my trade. I think that the apprentice card is a complete waste of time and just there to make exra money bring out a card that lasts two years that way they can learn a proper trade then apply for NVQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: chriscarter956 I agree that the Cscs cards should be tightened up but you get a six month red card apprentice then your supposed to sign up for an NVQ in whatever is your trade. i ask how are they suppodsd to learn a trade correctly i was a plasterer and it took alot longer than 6 months to learn my trade. I think that the apprentice card is a complete waste of time and just there to make exra money bring out a card that lasts two years that way they can learn a proper trade then apply for NVQ
According to the CSCS site the Red Apprentice card lasts upto 4 years and 6 months https://www.cscs.uk.com/card-type/apprentice/ if your already doing an NVQ you can apply for a Trainee card which lasts upto 5 Years
Hope that helps
|
1 user thanked gerrysharpe for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
It is the CRO (construction related occupations) card that is being removed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
So there are around 230,000 CRO cards, lets hope the industry does not grind to a halt...
Its none to clear on what to do for cards expiring or what the costs are, but if its another test at £30 a pop then someone is happy....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: RP So there are around 230,000 CRO cards, lets hope the industry does not grind to a halt...
Its none to clear on what to do for cards expiring or what the costs are, but if its another test at £30 a pop then someone is happy....
Who so 230,000 card with no formal qualifications?? There was the same with the Green Construction Operatives card, Nearly every site i worked at about 6 years ago this was the entry card to get on site, nearly everyone had one Welders, Carpenters etc, Then a few years back they changed it to a Labourer card and people started going for CRO cards.They were easy to get with no formal qualifications and now it seems that its got out of control by people using this card to get into sites with no qualifiactions at all.
The new owners of the CSCS scheme want cards issued on the basis of qualifications obtained, you can get one from a trainee right up to a Black managers card so now there is no excuse for companies to send unskilled workers to site. For me its a good idea because it will tempt emloyers to invest in training their employees, and the MC is happy having a site full of Trained Contractors as opposed to unskilled and unqualified people on site
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Originally Posted by: gerrysharpe The new owners of the CSCS scheme want cards issued on the basis of qualifications obtained, you can get one from a trainee right up to a Black managers card so now there is no excuse for companies to send unskilled workers to site.
You seem to be equating not having a CSCS card (or not qualifying for a CSCS card) as not having any skills. You also have rather a rosy view of CSCS's ability to recognise a qualification. I have a number of specialist people with unrecognised qualifications, but (in some cases) very extensive construction site experience, who will not qualify for any CSCS card. For example, a geologist. UK geology degree. Member of relevant UK professional institutions. More than twenty years UK construction site experience. Very safety aware, and is actually one of the more valuable people on our safety commitee. He will not qualify for any CSCS card because his degree isn't on the list for AQP, and (apparently) experience means nothing. He is not a construction site manager, so the black managers card isn't relevant. He is a qualified, experienced person in a construction-related occupation. It's bad enough that he's on a visitor card at the moment, but CSCS (in the near future) will refuse to grant him a card at all.
|
1 user thanked achrn for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
achrn, I get where your coming from but to be honest a geologist is not classed as a Construction Employment, and would thus be simply admited to a site as a Visitor for the time being. Have you enquired to CSCS see if they would add Geology to a card ? Your saying that "He is a qualified, experienced person in a construction-related occupation" then you could put him towards an NVQ in that occupaption, surely ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Why should we have to ask CSCS to consider who may attend a construction site - they sell their service as an industry specialist so should be fully aware of all the professions who may invariably attend live sites. In the past we have asked some pretty highly qualified specialists to attend issues at particular sites e.g. professors in corrosion chemistry who under CSCS rules were apparently "unskilled"
Last time I looked PhD was well above NVQ in the qualification spectrum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Why should we have to ask CSCS to consider who may attend a construction site - they sell their service as an industry specialist so should be fully aware of all the professions who may invariably attend live sites. In the past we have asked some pretty highly qualified specialists to attend issues at particular sites e.g. professors in corrosion chemistry who under CSCS rules were apparently "unskilled"
Last time I looked PhD was well above NVQ in the qualification spectrum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi all,
Please check the AQP and PQP cards (academically qualified person and professionally Qualified person's)
Please also note that many persons may qualify for some cards where extensive experience is demonstrable. (Inc Grandfather rights to some without any qualification)
I would expect such a person could provide evidence of experience and in the first instance I would contact CITB/CSCS customer service to clarify further on the card availability.
It is important to remember that third parties may visit the site eg. suppliers, public, purchasers etc, etc. These people are expected to be supervised around site but whilst I appreciate that these people may have an extensive knowledge of H&S, it is the purpose of CSCS to prove this.
Not all construction sites regulate within the scheme and it is in place where companies want/have to implement this.
I agree that a wider card availability should be available especially with the construction related occupations being removed
I have finished off arguing with myself in this post so it's clear to see the frustration for others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
No the purpose of CSCS is to demonstrate a basic level of H&S understanding not to prove extensive knowledge.
It is biased in its focus to the construction industry and construction sites which means it can never be considered to be extensive - how often these enlightened individuals request COSHH sheets when their intention was a Safety Data Sheet never ceases to amaze me.
From various news stories it is a scheme adopted by the industry to set a baseline that most employers expect (without necessarily paying for) and has as a result become subject to many years of abuse given sites use it as an access to work.
What is long overdue is the herd being led in a new direction
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
No the purpose of CSCS is to demonstrate a basic level of H&S understanding not to prove extensive knowledge.
It is biased in its focus to the construction industry and construction sites which means it can never be considered to be extensive - how often these enlightened individuals request COSHH sheets when their intention was a Safety Data Sheet never ceases to amaze me.
From various news stories it is a scheme adopted by the industry to set a baseline that most employers expect (without necessarily paying for) and has as a result become subject to many years of abuse given sites use it as an access to work.
What is long overdue is the herd being led in a new direction
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I remember a few years back when I was an NVQ assessor, I was attending a training day at City & Guilds and during a short coffee break overheard two of the other attendees in discussion about the experienced worker card:
Attendee 1: "Its really frustrating that the experienced worker card lasts only two years and you can't reapply".
Attendee 2: "Yes you can. You just change a digit on your NI number when you apply for a new one, I know loads of people who have done this".
These scheme wide open to abuse. There are plenty of CSCS 'Partner card schemes' (28 at last count) that don't require a qualification.
On the subject of AQP, Geology is on the list, so you may have received some duff advice there achrn. Full list here: https://www.cscs.uk.com/...ings/all-qualifications/
|
1 user thanked WatsonD for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: garyclarke84 Hi all,
Please check the AQP and PQP cards (academically qualified person and professionally Qualified person's)
AQP and PQP apply only if the institution in question is on the relevant list. Geology institutions and most non-UK universities are not on the list. CSCS will do a one-off review of someone’s qualification if it is from an unlisted academic institution. Last time we examined that route it was going to cost several hundred pounds to CSCS and involve a lot of effort spent on getting documentation from the university in question (which was an EU university - but apparently the right to free movement of labour does not apply to CSCS). As to the notion (in another post) that I should get the holder of multiple degrees, published in international peer-reviewed journals, and with decades of construction experience to do an NVQ ... really?
These people do have sufficient H&S experience to be allowed onto site. The CSCS changes, however, deny them the opportunity to demonstrate that. Actually, it's not that big a deal for us - any time we have our specialists on site they've generally got a gaggle of site management trailing round after them anyway - but I wanted to highlight that the apparent notion that if you can't get a CSCS card you must be utterly unskilled and unsafe is bogus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: WatsonD
That's interesting. Thank you. It definitely wasn't there last time my geologist renewed his card (he's currently on a visitor card), but I admit I didn't check the full list (it's not on the Civil Engineering list) again before sounding off this time.
Doesn't help my non-UK degree holders Edited by user 28 February 2017 14:03:13(UTC)
| Reason: deleted typo that made it look like I was using a 'smiley' (urgh)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Regarding the OP - there was an interesting "Fake Britain" programme on TV yesterday (27th Feb 2017) featuring people being arrested for creating a large variety of fake cards including CPCS and CSCS. I believe the cards featured were both the green cards mentioned above as well as the white versions.
It was mentioned on the programme that an accident had happened at one work site resulting in property damage, the person who caused it having a fake card.
Speculating, it's possible the card scheme is changing due to the forgeries...?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I don't see what the fuss is about.
CITB can put the goalposts wherever they please in their system. I would agree CITB constantly moving them is an irritation. This is just an ongoing symptom that they are unfit for purpose.
BUT last time I looked there was no legal compulsion for a PC to use their system
In the main relying on any card to identify competences is just lazy
Its the responsibility of an employer to ensure an employee's competence before setting them to work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.