Posted By IT
Impressed , long term Non Corporate members can now vote for Council after yesterday and get a new certificate.

Thank you for correcting that part of the post.

Posted By Mark Bywater
Dear IOSH - (Hazel / Martin / membership dept),

Would someone at IOSH care to give us some numbers, on this forum, regarding the number of Tech SPs v MIOSH v FMIOSH so that we can get a feel for how many people are going to be elevated to the new chartered status and how many of us Tech SPs are going to be effectively downgraded.

I for one am disgusted at the treatment of the TechSP grade and have always imagined some kind of backlash from others, but the depth of feeling here leads me to believe that IOSH will become a place for chartered status only and all the hard working (not suggesting that MIOSH aren't) TechSPs will defect to IIRSM or just not bother being affiliated to any body. There is no "legal" requirement to be linked to IOSH, IIRSM or any other body come to that.

We could all club together (Tech SP grades only) and form our own safety body called the Safety Practitioners Guild or whatever else we wanted to call it. Just a thought. Any takers?

But IOSH, without all our income and support what would you be? Less well of to start with, but a decidedly poorer body for our exclusion.

Balls in your court IOSH...please reply to this.

Kind regards,

Mark Tech SP (and bloomin' proud of it)

Posted By Chris Matthews
I would like to contribute to this post in as much that upon viewing the comments of those who have achieved TechSP in the past, and the way the majority of contributors feel they have been down graded... wouldnt it be reasonable to say that the only real change to them is the title, i.e TechSP/TechIOSH? Surely the majority of employers will once used to the change see from your cv whether you hold the cert or the dip1 and be able to make an informed decision from that...

Just for a moment, wouldnt it be nice if instead of feeling sorry for themselves [and I mean that in the nicest possible way], those concerned actually recognised that some of their colleagues within the profession have been upgraded and through cpd and experience want to further their knowledge, competency and career.

I do see your point and understand... to a certain degree but is this not a case of do you see the glass as half empty or half full?

Just a thought

Chris

Posted By Ian Clay1
I agre totally with the comments made regard the downgrading of TechSP. Mark count me in with your idea of a new society.

I too would be interested to know how many will benefit from the new status from MIOSH and how many of us who work hard to achieve TechSP, but do not have the resources available to gain further accreditation.

i will be another who will not be renewing my membership next year. It seems a pointlessan, to employers, worthless status.

Posted By Sean Nuttall
Mark,
great idea. Perhaps there is space in the market for another organisation. Perhaps an organisation which holds our "old" standing with some respect would be inherintly stronger than one which demenes our efforts both in qualificaton and application
.
On the drive home after posting last night I did wonder wether I had unduly got my bum out and asked my dear other half to read all the posts for this topic, she actually said I was less insensed on the post than I am shouting at the walls of the house so I guess if I feel like this then many of you will as well though you probably have more control over expressing it in a post.

Underneath this post was one for can I use my C yet. lmfao. It was read by 400 or so bods many of whom may be Tech SPs reading it for amusement between rants or there may be 399 people who are getting jolly excited about the shafting of us lesser bods. However this thread has been read up to 1400 odd times and that may be indicative of our pent up frustration. Am pretty sure that the majortiy of the readers of this post have been Tech SPs or MIOSH who understand the unfairness and utter betrayal

I personally don't think that division is necessarily a bad thing. And perhaps the Tech SPs en mass should consider talking with their wallets.

Guess this thread may well get pulled for the treacherous ramblings of the great unwashed and unloved inciting muting amongst the ranks but I for one at least feel I have had my say. The Tech SP is dead, Long live the Tech SP

Posted By Ron Young
Don't see IOSH quaking in its boots if a few Tech SP's leave to form their own association. Other than being able to call yourselves anything you wanted, as long as it sounds good, what benefit do you think you'd get out of doing that? Like it or not, IOSH has long won the war of being the most credible safety institute and the competition can't or won't change this.

As a matter of interest, what would you call your members if you formed a new association?

Posted By IT
IOSH has the credibility in Safety because of people like us and claiming the majority of membership, if IIRSM suddenly had 21000 members and IOSH had 6000 who would be the Organisation you would talk to get messages out to Safety Practitioners.

Other organisations would start consultative discussion promptly.

Sell yourself not the Organisation, don’t always believe the Marketing pitches, unless you believe everything you read in newspapers and mail outs.

Does it matter what you are called provided you get a voice and choice

Posted By Peter Longworth
Further to IT's point, IOSH's credibility and reputation lies in the feedback from it's members. Employers rely on the advice from competent people on all sorts of issues including recruitment policy. If that feedback starts to take the form that IOSH no longer represents the interests of TechSPs who it seems represents a large chunk of IOSH members how long do you think it will be before employers start to look elsewhere for an indication of a potential recruitment candidate's suitability.

Posted By Peter Longworth
You need to face facts Mark. The CMIOSHs have got their longer signatures and are nice and happy in their elevated status. The shop is closed and the barriers are up. You must stop your whining and accept your station in life. Keep paying your subscription at all costs but don't ask for justice.

Posted By Nicholas Williams
This is an argument long lost within the engineering industry when the dichotomy appeared between Chartered, Incorporated and Engineering Tehnician status at the Engineering Council. I agree with the majority of TechSP's posting here that they have got a poor return for their years of experience.

I believe it incumbent on the Chartered members to look beyond the current situation and find recognition for the more practically based TechSP. The Engineering industry's model may provide a guide.

Nick Williams IEng, CMIOSH, MIIRSM, MIIE

Posted By IT
It is usually referred to as voicing an opinion and raising awareness of an issue that has an impact on a small minority as we are called.

Should we not have an ability to raise issues in a public forum for others to see how valued SPs are by an organisation? I have no doubt you have addressed issues in the past and championed the causes of Non corporate members injustices and supported many projects ,is this not one then and should this not be an area for the champions of NON corporate members to be YELLING loudly about, Instead of subtle criticism of those that speak out.

We could always write individually and wait to see the outcome

some speak openly and some don’t, as I said in another post The Quiet Achievers

I am a Minority

Posted By Liam Nolan
I am delighted to see that this issue is finally getting in motion.
I made representations BEFORE the vote (which I had no vote in because I am 'only' a TechSP') to various people in the organisation. ( I am a member in Ireland, but also communitated with head office in the UK).

After all these curent MIOSH people have elevated them selves (and yes I mean it that way! - sour grapes if you will) in my understanding there cannot be any new MIOSH (or whatever the grade is called now chartered something or other (and yes this is said with tongue in cheek), for over 2 years because any cpd completed before acheiving gradiosh (yes it does look silly in lowercase), is wiped out. So all those brilliant courses you really learned stuff on or found useful information on, well, you might as well not have done them for all the worth they are to you when considering IOSH membership.
Take for instance, I am doing my Diploma currently (the corperate membership requirement here in Ireland). I started the 2 year course before the vote was taken on the new structure and where I realise that I would be set back inprogressing my IOSH status. I was told that because I wouldn't be finished my studies for the ecducational requirement till next may, I could not expect to gain coperate (or the new chartered status) status for two more years.

If I had been granted (along with a lot of others) 'grandfather rights' because I had started my progression (costing a total of approx €5000-00 - funded personnally) before the implimentation of the new structure then possible I might have not have realised what it mant for TechSP.

I was and am eally annoyed at some of the reaction I got from senior people that I corresponed with on the matter BEFORE the vote was put forward.

I got the impression that this was being driven by a small majority of people in the organisation and they knew that there was no way that voting members would pass up the carrot (chartered status - worth a few bob more an hour no doubt), while not having to worry about the plebs (under the oxford this is explained as TechSP - next issue will be ammended to TechIOSH) messing up the vote by defeating it, well because of course we don't have a vote.

George Wedgewood has tried to suggest that none of this was brought to the committes notice before (he is wrong) and that he would have done something about it if he was approached. is he so far away from the membership core (the TechSP's) that he didn't know the feelings?

Well if ye want some thing to do lets get a petition together on the IOSH site as we are members of a sort and should be allowed the use of the resource of the web site.

Otherwise we could do a George says and ask hime to do something on our behalf as he as so kindly volenteered to do - lets all email him about our anger over the issue.

Response?

Liam Nolan TechSP (soon to be down graded to TechIOSH)

PS will I loose my membership over this?

Posted By Bob Wilson
Hello there,

Like Debbie S, I've just read through this thread and thought I'd throw my own thoughts into the pot.

I obtained my NEBOSH General Certificate in 1989 and, like most of my peer group at the time, immediately entered IOSH as an Associate member. Fifteen years later I’m still in the H&S business, competent over a very wide range of areas and specialist in a considerable number of those; regarded by other companies and enforcement authorities (HSE and MCA) as the leading authority in safety within my industry. My knowledge, skills and reputation are based on experience, performance and credibility. I can, and do, hold my own at meetings, presentations, investigations and courses involving IOSH ‘high flyers’ and, quite frankly, have been unimpressed by them on many occasions.

The membership card I have in front of me still states ‘Associate’.

Why should I be burdened with the cost, effort and frustration involved in achieving letters after my name that will only impress the postman?

Bob Wilson
Company Safety Manager
Marine Harvest (Scotland)

Posted By Dave Wilson
Debbie,

I sympathise with your predicament, however the status of CMIOSH etc has a very specific route to get there, this is the same for all 'Chartered' Institutions and trust me this anger and frustration is around when the move to this happens, as a % are caught in this gap. It has happened to me in the past where I was caught in this 'time gap' and if I had been 6 months earlier I would not have had to go through the 'loops' again, but craked on and eventually got there.

The move to Chartered status will benefit us ALL in safety the future and you are nearly there, your own circumstances and the ability to progress are not of IOSH making and I would assume that there are a few people out there who are in this situation, as the next stage of progressing up the IOSH Ladder would be the same its just the letters at the end which are now diffirent. It would still have been Dip2, experience, CPD and apply for RSP now its CMIOSH. So I can't really see what the differnce is?

The only thing I can say is you have done extremely well to get where you are today, its not easy particularily with an employer who wants the product but wants it cheaply! but you are a lot further down this road than a NEBOSH Cert Holder and I feel that its not the TechSP going which is upsetting its the being lumped in with the Cert Holders, TechSP think they have been downgraded so to speak, this is not the case keep going and you WILL get there.

Remeber IOSH had to set out the route to CMIOSH and the diffirent grades once chartered or this would not have been awareded.

KEEP going ALL you TechSP's

Posted By Raymond Rapp
Hmm..and I thought it was just me that was fed up with my grading (GradOSH). Clearly, IOSH has badly misjudged the situation. When I mooted such things as disgruntled members leaving for IIRSM the views ranged from 'too bad,' to 'good riddance' in a couple of threads last year. Now it seems that some of the more prominent members are 'ready to listen' to your views. It's a shame that it has come to this but those who have criticised me for claiming that IOSH have become elitist - eat and words spring to mind!

Regards

Ray

Posted By Brian McMillan
"I’m sorry, but if, as has been suggested, 2500 people leave IOSH, I don’t think it will make a big difference".

If any organisation can wave goodbye to £205,000 a year in subscriptions without it making a big difference I would be extremely surprised.

I am pretty sure that any organisation that collected £205,000 per year and 2500 members would admit that it would make a pretty big difference to them.

B McMillan MIIRSM, T-Whatever

Posted By Rob T
I have now read all the postings so far and those of you who read my earlier post will know that I share some of the TechSP views BUT one thing does need to be remembered - the TechSP grade was to show recognition that someone had passed certain academic standards and was a practising Safety professional. It never ever was intended to be a permanent full time position - that's what the Dip part 2 was for and for full accreditation to MIOSH! A point in question Edward Blanchard - why if you were one of the first to gain the grade TechSP in 1998 did you not go on to complete your Diploma. Thousands of others did.

There does need to be formal recognition of something along the lines of the old TechSP and I for one will support this but I will never support people who say that they will leave to join another organisation on the basis that their exams are easier to pass and before some of you come back - that's exactly what some of you are saying.

Oh and a final note - if I was elitest I wouldn't be employing full time TechSP's - I would only ask for MIOSH (or CMIOSH or whatever) which I most certainly don't!

Posted By Jay Joshi
My perspective is that as one who is aware of possible reasons why some decisions were taken in the past that led to the creation of the TechSP and even if there was not going to be an individual chartered status, IOSH would have to address the status of TechSP’s position anyway!

The root cause lies not with IOSH, but the changes in “accreditation” of qualifications by the Qualifications & Curriculum Authority as a part of the National Qualifications Framework.

It is my understanding that the majority of TechSP’s are NEBOSH Diploma Part 1 holders or other equivalent. Wwhy was there a need to have a two part diploma during that period that led to the very creation of the TechSP grade?

The answer lies in the way the “old” Occupational Health & Safety Practice NVQ level 3 & 4 were specified and what they meant. The old NVQ Level 3 was a vocational qualification for those “who were either working in low risk areas covering a broad range of hazards or in more complex risk areas reporting to higher level practitioners”. Therefore, for NEBOSH to get QCA accreditation and perhaps respond to a market requirement created the 2 part Diploma.

IOSH also responded by creating the category of TechSP—You can refer to the IOSH Press Release dated 22 June 1998

http://www.iosh.co.uk/in...fm?go=news.release&id=37

The news release also states that:-
'This new grade brings IOSH membership grades into line with national standards set by level 3 vocational qualifications (VQs), thereby providing a clearly recognised benchmark by which employers can judge the level of competence of occupational safety and health practitioners.

Then there was a review of the “old” Occupational Health & Safety Practice NVQ level’s 3 & 4 by the then Employment National Training Organisation as a part of the old National Training Organisations. Most of the NTO’s have now been replaced by the Learning & Skills Councils

There were several meetings and conferences during this review, including articles in the SHP.

The result of this review and the publication of the new Occupational Health & Safety Practice NVQ level 3, 4 & 5 meant that the new NVQ level 3 was no longer defined as a vocational qualification for those “who were either working in low risk areas covering a broad range of hazards or in more complex risk areas reporting to higher level practitioners”

This change has led NEBOSH reverting back to the one part Diploma and upgrading its NEBOSH Certificate to Level NVQ 3.
(At the same time, due to a process that was ongoing for several years, but came to fruition, The British Safety Council launched its new one part DipOSH
that is accredited by IOSH.)

It was during the above changes that the IOSH made submissions for the Royal Charter and later for individual Chartered Status to the Privy Council.

For any professional body representing the OSH profession, it hads to take cognisance of the National Standards for Occupational Health and Safety when carrying out the restructure. Due to the revision, there was no longer any “Practitioner Level” for Level 3—where the NEBOSH Diploma Part 1 is.

When consideration and decisions are taken at various levels, the “approving authorities”, whether it is QCA or the Privy Council, it is likely that they “benchmark” it with national standards.

In the real world, there will always be “less professionally recognised” individuals who are (or may perceive themselves to be) more “competent/able” than their “more professionally recognised” colleagues. This does not mean that professional bodies have to have standards that are not aligned with the national standards. On the contrary professional bodies usually strive to enhance their standards.


Regarding IOSH changing goalposts for again, I very much doubt that this will be the case, but who can give guarantees of this nature? Probably no one.

Also, there is an evolution in how individuals enter the OSH profession. In the past, most of us came into health & safety via other roles. Now, there is probably an increase in entrants who are willing to consider OSH as a first major career and indeed qualify for it fully without significant experience—as many in other professions do. I very much doubt that the aspiration and the actual numbers that will progress to CMIOSH will diminish or remain static as there will be no more new NEBOSH Diploma Level 1 after a point in time.

I can empathise with the TechIOSH holders, as they were given TechSP status that has now been changed to TechIOSH, but our new national framework does not any longer recognise that there is a category of “who are either working in low risk areas covering a broad range of hazards or in more complex risk areas reporting to higher level practitioners”

Posted By Brett Day
George, I have had long conversations with IOSH BEFORE the changes were made, and being honest they were ignored and I was contiually fobbed off.

I have taken the time and trouble to make my voice and comments known to IOSH, granted I did not e-mail or write to you, however, how many people within IOSH do I have to talk to to be listened to ????

I talked, IOSH did not listen, I will now talk again by not renewing my membership, however, it could be to late for IOSH to listen.

I hope that IOSH bucks it's ideas up and actually addresses this matter rather than labelling TechSP who feel quite rightly that they have been given a very rough deal as a bunch of whingers.

Posted By Stupendous Man
As Jay points out:

but our new national framework does not any longer recognise that there is a category of “who are either working in low risk areas covering a broad range of hazards or in more complex risk areas reporting to higher level practitioners”

This is quite some oversight!

IOSH also seems to be hell-bent on pushing out the message that only CMIOSH or CFIOSH are capable of being health and safety advisors. This completely disregards the FACT that competence is a mixture of qualifications, experience and knowing your limits. It also goes over and above what is actually required by LAW - health and safety assistance should be commensurate with the level of risk in the organisation.

As for Rob T: 'A point in question Edward Blanchard - why if you were one of the first to gain the grade TechSP in 1998 did you not go on to complete your Diploma. Thousands of others did.' - I would have loved to have gone on to Dip 2, however, my employer wouldn't fund it for me. I did find a college offering the course at an affordable cost (as I like many others have to fund my own development, so cost is an important issue), however they withdrew the course two weeks before it was due to start. The 'thousands of others' who completed Dip 2 were lucky, and I in no way want to question their success. However, you must realise that just because it has been possible or some, it is not necessarily possible for all to follow this route.

Dave Wilson - I have read many of your posts in the past and respect you for them, but if there is no big deal about having letters after your name, why so much fuss about CIOSH from both the institution and members (some of whom seem to have nothing better to do with their time than decide which post-nominal to use).

As for extra burden - for MIOSH you had to achieve Dip 2 or equivalent, whereas you now also have to undertake IPD once the qualification has been achieved (2 years of extra burden).However, I think if you read this thread properly you will see that it is not just an extra burden that TechSPs are taking issue with. I have undertaken voluntary CPD for five years now, while many MIOSH have only just enrolled onto CPD in order to get MIOSH status - why do I get no credit for having done CPD for so long? I have maintained CPD just an an MIOSH would have, yet was not alowed to join the RSP.

So not only are we seeing the achievement of MIOSH move a further two years away, we have had no credit given where CPD has been undertaken and to top it all off, our TechSP grade (of which I was proud) is now swelled by practitioners with inferior level qualifications (and that comment is meant with no disrespect for Certificate holders).

As John says, 'it could be that IOSH is responding to this trend and restructuring with the objective of becoming a graduate/professional engineering type institution.' - I have no problem if this is the case, but then IOSH will not be the organisation for me.