Posted By Jay Joshi The time to influence this was not when the new structure that came into effect recently was being debated in 2003, but was in August 2000 when the Health & Safety NVQ's were being revised. Had this revision maintained the then status quo, there would be a practitioner level 3 qualification in Occupational Health & Safety. That has ceased when the new standards were published in 2002. The new level 3 IS NOT at practitioner level. You can find a reference in the archive of the discussions forums at the link copied below. It clearly states that:- "As the Institution use the standards as a yardstick for membership levels it is vital that the views of members are fed back to the Employment NTO" http://w6.demon.co.uk/cg...sh/archive.pl?read=10940 Revision of the national vocational standards Posted by Hazel Harvey on Friday, 4 August 2000, at 9:55 a.m. The EmploymentNTO are currently undertaking revision of the vocational standards in health and saftey. These include, General Practice, Regulation, Radiation and Occupational Hygiene. The standards define the skills requirements for those in the practice of health and safety and are the standards against which those attempting to obtain NVQ or SVQ qualifications are assessed. There is currently a consultation period in which views of all those who may use the standards are sought. As the Institution use the standards as a yardstick for membership levels it is vital that the views of members are fed back to the Employment NTO. Details of the standards are available on www.empnto.co.uk. A series of Focus groups are being run by IOSH if you are interested in attending one or setting one up in your area please contact me at HQ.

Posted By Stan the one legged man I agree that it does seem a little hard at first. I was granted TechSP back in Aug 99 and have completed most of dip 1 & 2, all at my own expense and all balanced on one knee as I only have one leg!! The further two years will whizz by and IOSH are to be fully supported in their new status. At the ripe age of 57 I will probably now not make the grade to C, but I will fully support IOSH with my subscriptions to allow them to be there for the benefit of the profession and future members. I would encourage all my fellow TechSP's to be of a similar mind. Grace is the hardest quality.

Posted By Sean Nuttall Just for clarity for the unenlightened I haven't heard any Tech SP say that given the opportunity they wouldn't undertake further qualification. Those who came to SP via dip 1 would more than likely jump at the opportunity to take dip2 if cash/time allowed so for those of the membership who believe we are whinging because the goal posts have been raised - Read what we are saying - Its the inclusion with the cert holders and our de facto demotion that is hacking us off and not that C has gone up and is more difficult. Also any movement to IIRSM in their position of member is based on the recognition that dip 1 and three years experience is worth something. It is not about trying to get something for nothing. I will get my Dip 2(am using the equity from my house sale to pay for it - though appreciate that is not an option for the vast majority) and I will move up the ladder but in the mean time I only think it reasonable that recognition exists and IIRSM offers an experienced tech SP that recogition. Please don't try and muddy the waters by confusing the increased requirements for full membership with the down grading; they are two separate issues

Posted By Paul Hay All most TechSPs want is recognition for their qualifications and experience and not to knock CMIOSH. I find it distressing that certain, more senior members brand us whingers and suggest we b****r off. Could this be that the more exclusive the club, the more in demand the members are? I want to work towards CMIOSH and am fortunate enough to work for a company prepared to finance this, but in the mean time would like a little recognition from MY professional body that I help to finance. Wouldn't it be nice if someone from IOSH responded to this thread, the number of views expressed shows that this is something the membership feel passionate about. Or is it hoped we might just go away? Another hard working and proud to be, TechSP.

Posted By Robert K Lewis There are a lot of mis-apprehensions flying about this thread but I think Jay has provided an extremely balanced account of the history of how we came to this point. The qualifications that led to the old TechSP are extinct so perhaps it is now time to rcognise that the dinosaur so loved by Peter L. is potentially the TechSP. At the time when a decision on title was made an overwhelming comment was that the title did not link the grade clearly to IOSH. We need also to be careful that our use of the term certificate refers to the new NEBOSH certificate not the old one as seems to be implied in many instances. I accept that the most problematic part of this situation is the Dip 1 people who are marginally better qualified than the new certificate. A suggestion might be now to lobby Professional Affairs Committtee members to persuade them that a policy change to allow Dip 1 holders who were TechSPs to move forward after 7 years experience to the the Open Examination and professional interview. Let us try and make a positive move forward on this IOSH was attempting to respond to the voice of TechSPs not impose any form of downgrade. If people would like to email me privately I am more than happy to talk to George and others about the means of resolving these early problems. The Institution has its strength in its membership and many who know me will know that the plight of the non-corporates is always a concern of mine, but I do not accept that there is a fully valid case being made out here, especially in the criticism of those members who have fought a long battle to get to this point. By the way a message to Alan H and any MIOSH not on CPD. The MIOSH grade disappears completely and those not undertaking CPD move to Affiliate membership. There is no easy ride to GradIOSH thinking it a safe haven withoout manadatory CPD Bob

Posted By J Knight My, this is a long thread; evidently indicates the real sense of grievance felt out there, and I wouldn't for a minute belittle it. Just a comment on what Gilly is saying. Requiring a cognate degree is not perversity on the part of IOSH; stating that only degrees with 60% Safety content count is just setting a clear standard. My partner is a newly qualified physio; she had to study a physiotherapy degree at University (relevant content 100%) in order to become MCSP, likewise, if you want to be a lawyer it's LLB or nothing and Nurses do Nursing degrees. Professional standing benefits us all, but if anybody can call themselves a Safety Professional that benefits nobody. Don't get me wrong, TechIOSH rightly allows people to call themselves safety pros, as does GradIOSH, and that's how it should be, but there do have to be standards and there do have to be hoops to jump through, if only so that employers have some idea of what our basis for practice is, and in order that we can all work to improve occupational safety, which is what its all about. We can argue about the proportion of safety content in a degree if we like, but remember that for many other professions its 100% or nowt, John

Posted By Robert K Lewis There is a gap between the old Dip 1 and Dip 2 which is significant. The problem arose through the NEBOSH decision to create Dip 1 and 2, a situation which placed the old certificate way out of line with the old Level 3 standards. My suggestion was to lobby professional affairs to create a route out of the dilemma by giving long experienced persons who held TechSP and Dip1 a route to chartered status. It was an honest suggestion and would not create a large scale precedent as the numbers are small enough to be managed properly. We do not have an ideal situation and I am seeking to mediate a potential solution which allows recognition for those previous TechSPs who have long practical experience. Just a thought floating in the wind. I certainly was only making the marginality argument between the New NEBOSH certificate and the Dip 1 - the case is not transferrable to the Dip1 - Dip2 gap. Bob

Posted By Richard Spencer Most of us have felt some disappointment in the course of our career and non more than me due to obtaining a qualification after the door had been closed on chartered status in an engineering institution to which later became a Fellow and charter holder. However, all those who are non-corporate now have a route to travel under the new arrangements. Fore some of us it was fortuitous that we entered into tertiary studies and gained safety degrees. But don’t run away with the idea it was anyway easy, as it was not. For me, it was 3 years of course work by distance study and lab/campus work and evaluation each semester - most nights and every weekend studying. Before completion of the degree it was necessary to research and complete a thesis on a chosen topic that no one else had done and need to benefit the community. This took a further 16 months, before the professional markers and my professor were satisfied. All costs were funded by myself and claimed back on tax. What a sense of achievement when graduating with the little bit of paper, that proudly now hangs on my office wall to reminds me daily why I became a safety professional. Look the simple truth is, to be a hands on safety practitioner working in industry you do not need a degree, and in the construction, oil and gas, mining etc… are more concerned with experience than qualifications. However, when advancing in responsibility and knowledge a university degree is in most cases is a mandatory requirement by most if not all international companies and government department when a professional safety person is needed. From the postings there is a strong sense of bitterness and frustration by the writers and I completely understand this, having been in a similar position, but at the end of the day we need to move on. This institution has outlined the new rulings and the writing is on the wall – the number of new members or existing members choosing to complete degrees will slowly grow, and complete the transformation of the institution. I work with non degree safety advisors who have been promoted from the tools and they have a wealth of knowledge as regards the industry they work in and I don’t think that companies devalue this at all. I certainly don’t. I think it is the CMIOSH role to assist others as much as possible and to encourage advancement of these safety practitioners and the various knowledge based programs used in OHS today. I believe the issues now being discussed will as a matter of consequence, find closure in a mental adjustment to the new requirements, and bitterness of today will subside with a steady flow of members to the corporate ranks.

Posted By Robert K Lewis Gilly I think that it a little unworthy of you to imply condescension in those who actually wish to seek solutions and are now so excoriated by generalised statements that you may regret. There is positively no condescension in any offer I, or such as George W, may make to try and resolve genuine problems or queries, even though the numbers making complaint are relatively speaking small. If there are issues then we need to resolve them as adults and not throw the toys out of the pram so to speak. There has been much talk concerning leaving the Institution and I cannot force any adult to do anything that they do not wish to, but I would urge people to stay and talk. Then if you wish to join an institution that will never achieve or offer Chartered status so be it. But at least provide the courtesy of listening with an open mind, we are not chartered ogres in spite of some of the acidic comments made. Bob

Posted By Gilly Margrave Hi Bob, Unlike some of the posters to this thread I have not said that I intend to leave or join some alternative organisation. Nor am I in the habit of throwing my toys out of the pram (nothing condescending there then). My comment was not personally aimed at you or George and I can see advantages in the new style portnomials which make the relationship with IOSH more explicit. Nonetheless there have been several posts on this thread which indicate a potential rift which would not be helpful to anyone and is isn't just coming from the ex Tech SPs. Gilly

Posted By Robert K Lewis Gilly Apologies as most of the information is clearly not intended to be directed against you. I get a little exasperated when some of the contributors do not seem to have read all the postings and constantly fire off against those of us seeking the alternative routes. Bob

Posted By IT Bob, As there is an implied lack of contribution on my part for the alternatives being put forward, apart from accept that it going to happen and stick with it and you will see. As my posts are viewed as shots across the bow, then I surrender and will no longer contribute A Debate without a Debate (my last post on this subject)

Posted By Michael Quain I have been following this thread now for 6 days and as an ex TechSP now Tech IOSH I fail to see what the fuss is about. I have failed in my attempts to become MIOSH and hence now CMIOSH. I know what the routes are at this present time because I work within a group who have achieved this status every which way since 1994. Consequently I can say that I have worked as hard as I can but can accept I am not of the calibre required. I am proud of what I have achieved and just get on with my job to the best of my ability. I have the comfort of knowing I have quality people above me in the organisation I work in who are willing to oversee my work and mentor me professionally when I need it. I have been doing CPD now for 4 years. I have 11 years experience in the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair industry. There will always be a requirement for Tech IOSH people. Are there any other Tech IOSH people who don't feel devalued?

Posted By Rob Tuttey Just registering my concerns with the move to TechIOSH. I've been involved with H&S for 11 years. Held numerous H&S positions including UK & Ireland H&S Training Manager for over 13,000 people and 100 sites. I'm now the Group H&S Manager of a large Retailer with over 10,000 people. I'm just glad they saw past the letters after my name when I was recruited. It does feel like the goal posts have been moved by IOSH and experience doesn't seem to count as much as paper. Having done my NEBOSH Gen. Cert, I of course did the then part 1. After those exams, getting writers cramp and cufused by the questions having no baring on my past and present roles, I decided NOT to do part 2! what would it give me other than more test case - oh how useful that is!!! I chose to do courses relevant to my role and ones I could use in day to day life, however these only count as CPD NOT as paper I can step up a grade. Unfortunately IOSH tends to be THE organisation to belong to and influences pay with many employers. I appreciate change is good and Chartered status is quite an acheivement, but as a proud TechSP I feel let down that my efforts and that my experience seems to count for nothing. I am a MIIRSM and also proud of that, I have no opinion as to which is better to belong to, other than IOSH is more known has a bigger membership and considered harder to get in. Because I want the badge like many of us, I enrolled on a MSc in H&S Management instead of part 2, but truth be known it's only so I haven't got to face those NEBOSH exams again (lesser of 2 evils). Sorry for boring you all, as I said - just registering my concerns. I won't be leaving IOSH, I think that would be short sited. I will be getting my letters, interviews pending BUT only because it's expected. I'm still unconvinced of the value the letters bring. I seem to have done alright without them, but know there are a number of people they do count. Think IOSH should do a survey or consultation exercise to capture the strenth of feeling from the TechSP's (sorry TechIOSH, had my letter the other day). R

Posted By Jay Joshi We live in an increasingly competitive and knowledge based society. Professional Institutions need to have membership structures that reflect this. GradIOSH reflects this, inline with most of the other professional institutions. In most professional institutions, the Graduate level is available to those successfully completing the academic requirements accredited by the professional body for its “full membership”. As I had mentioned in my previous posting, there will always be some individuals with experience and less professional qualifications that are better at their jobs than their more qualified counterparts. In such cases, their track record will speak for itself and their dependence on post nominal should not a major problem for them. What is not being discussed at any length is what was the TechSP level really was/meant in the old membership structure compared to what it has been perceived. In some cases, perhaps perceived at a much higher level than it was ever meant to be. This is not in any way to take away from the TechSP’s their hard work, effort & dedication to pass NEBOSH Diploma Part 1 or their extensive experience. To me it appears that it is the comparison with IIRSM that grants full membership to TechSP’s that seems to have generated more angst than the re-classification from TechSP to TechIOSH. Had prospective employers & clients the FULL KNOWLEDGE of the actual membership criteria/levels/scrutiny of both IOSH & IIRSM, the TechSP to TechIOSH should not be an issue because nobody is going to take away the achievement of Nebosh Diploma Part 1 and experience of the ex-TechSP's. I can understand to some extent that there is dissatisfaction due to Nebosh Diploma Part 1 being in the same level as the NEBOSH Certificate Holders--but one can also consider that it is the latter who have been upgraded rather than TechSP's being downgraded.

Posted By Paul Hay I don't remember ever seeing a thread with as many responses and views. Surely IOSH must realise that a large section of its membership are unhappy? I agree with Mark, it would be good to see some sort of comment from IOSH.

Posted By Mark Bywater Ron, What are you reading? At no time does my post suggest anything about the work that CMIOSH do. It is strange that more is read into what isn't written than that which is written. I suggest you read the post again and don't "insinuate " anything, just read what is written. If you feel insulted that is purely down to you misreading the post, not by anything I have written. I'm pleased that you have progressed in your chosen field...good luck to you. The Tech SPs who have written on this thread are not "having a pop" at any CMIOSH but again it is strange that the Cs (or some of them at least) have to try to justify their position. It doesn't require justification you have earned the right to the post nominals, the whole point about the thread from post number one by PTH is the treatment of the Tech SP grade. Stop looking too deep for any hidden meanings...there simply aren't any. Best wishes to Ron and his fellow Cs...keep up the good work. Mark Tech SP (till I'm told otherwise)

Posted By Brian McMillan There, there Ron. Surely you must realise that the comment about work horses was not made to suggest that the chartered members do not work hard. Even if it was it would only be equal to others thinking that your comment is suggesting that T - Whatevers have no drive, determination, commitment or even (bless em) luck. The vast majority of non-corporate members respect the people that have achieved chartered status. Some of my most incredible mentors are now at this level and they should be justly proud of their achievements. What is frustrating is that many at T - Whatever level see the results of their own dedication, hard work, drive, call it what you will being considered to be at a greatly reduced level in the organisation due to the recent changes. It will take some people a long time to realise that the changes have even taken place. Employers will eventually grasp that passing the certificate will now give rise to entering at the same level of membership as those who originally studied the stage 1 diploma or its equivalent. There are some who will see this as a reduction in standards as they will not know or even care about the syllabus changes. People will lose out in the employment stakes unless something is done to explain the changes to the lay person (no insult to those who stand intended) in a simple format. This may well be by the designation of explanatory letters as previously suggested. No one is looking for any favours - Just fairness

Posted By Mark Mace PS i forgot STATEMENT. I AM A MEMBER of the "Institution of Occupational Safety and Health". Note whatever the letters beyond my name whether i choose to use them or not the above statement does not change.

Posted By Martin R. Bessant Dear Colleagues, We do not wish to restrict free and frank discussion on what is a very important subject, but this thread has now become huge and very unwieldy. I have therefore started a new thread called "What about TechSP's - Part Two" with the original posting which can be used to continue this discussion. This thread is therefore being locked but still available to view and the discussion can be continued on the other thread. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Martin Bessant - Lead Moderator, for the moderating team.