Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
John
If the CSCS board and CIC had the ability to discuss in a sensible manner this problem would have been resolved long ago. They are not and we have the same issues. We also need to be clear about touchscreen exemptions. I have known people do construction related training successfully but have no experience of site activities.
Ultimately the professional body has to verify which of its members is trained and experienced and is undertaking CPD within a construction environment.
The CDMC issue is actually irrelevant - a competent CDMC, ie an organisation, will have a range of competencies as required, we cannot talk about a CDMC card with the implication it is an individual - The organisation is competent via the sum of the competencies it offers and the modes in which it manages competence.
CSCS et al persist in perpetuating the myth of H&S competence via their cards, we would be far better now to find new ways without them. By the way my local inspector regards me as a competent construction H&S professional and that is my only ultimate concern.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By CFT
Bob
I am having trouble with your para 3 and the related CDMC card scenario. Where exactly did John suggest that particular one?
As ever, only too pleased to be further educated.
CFT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Leese
John, you say the test took 10 minutes and cost £17. I don't accept that.
1) get photograph/fill in form with client reference
2) apply for test
3) travel to test - fares/mileage?
4) travel back from test - ditto
5)lost time whilst organising/travelling - in my case over 3 hours plus a half hour wait.
So either you have a very low daily rate (minimum wage) or you are conveniently forgetting the real expense. In my case the real cost was approximately £280.
Fact: CMIOSH with Construction Cert and lots of experience, eligible only for the visitor card after taking a vote for joe suitable for 4 to 6 year olds and which I consider to be demeaning. Oh and I forgot to mention I was previously (3 years ago) an NPORS vetted and accredited site safety instructor.
A grievance, well maybe, but only at the stupidity that drives the CITB into devising such a system, and a wry smile for those who support it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Caboche
Peter, I took the test on a Saturday morning - the journey time was 10 minutes each way and 10 minutes for the test, there are Saturday tests available over most of the country.
I too am CMIOSH and hold the construction cert, I am also an examiner for the Construction Cert, and am a tutor for the CITB 5 day SMSTS. I took the test for CPCS Appointed Persons card, so if you factor in a two day assessment and a previous 2 day course it may add up. I freely admit that.
However I chose to do this off my own back as a method of demonstrating my competency within the context of lift planning and took paid leave to attend the course and assessment - my choice.
I gained my CSCS Contracts Manager card by the experienced route, having worked my way up from hod carrier to Contracts Manager over the course of 18 years involvement in the sharp end of construction. I used my NEBOSH Construction Cert as an exemption from the test as that door was still open at the time, had that door not been open I would still have willingly taken the test. There was virtually no time or effort involved in gaining that card unless you count the 18 years hard slog.
While agree that the test is simple for a professionally qualified health and safety person it isn't for many operatives and tradesmen, there is a failure rate - I also agree that there are better indicators of safety training out there since the CITB dropped the requirement to undertake the one day course along with the test such as the CCNG safety passport.
However, there was ample opportunity to gain any of the "safety cards" when the experienced route was open, and as I have said in a previous post the MCG made no secret of the fact that they wanted a fully carded workforce - this included visitors.
The idea of the test is to set a level playing field for all construction personnel - whether you agree with that or not is you prerogative. I have studied long and hard to obtain my qualifications and chartered status both in IOSH and (nearly!!) the CIOB, I didn't have a problem in going by the rules to attain a position in these institutions and I don't have a problem in going by the rules to get a CSCS card - whether I agree with the foibles of the way the scheme works is a different matter - I have stated that I don't. But if getting a card is what's required then I will do it.
To say the test is demeaning I feel is an insult to all of those not as academically skilled as you, who have to take it to pursue their chosen careers - what gives you any right to belittle their achievements and chosen career path. It smacks of arrogance of the highest order. I do know people who have struggled with the test, I have trained them, their contribution to society and the construction industry as a whole is no less than yours.
You choose to work in the field of construction safety - as do I - those are the rules - exactly the same type of rules you need to follow to gain chartered status in an institution - they are there - abide by them, everyone else does so.
In their own way the CITB are trying to raise skill levels safety awareness in the highly hazardous industry which we work in, whether they are going about it in the right way is a moot point but they are trying, as are the firms that decide to subscribe to and support the scheme.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete48
PL, well said.
As one who did long ago but doesn't anymore as far as Construction is concerned, I watch with somewhat detached interest the continuing attempts to overcome the underlying causes of poor H&S in Construction.
It saddens me that there is still an introspective insistence that Construction is somehow different to other sectors or industry.
Of course personal experience. technical specific skills and learnt skills are important elements of competence but that is not limited to Construction. There are differences in emphasis and the knowledge base, but the basics are the same.
Any pragmatic approach, based on improving H&S, must surely contain references for IOSH members to be able to claim some exceptions based on agreed and evidenced criteria, just why is that so difficult to sort out in Construction?
Comments about missing the grandfather rights period are not helpful in my view since there are new members arriving in IOSH every day who need this matter sorted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Davelfc
John,
We sing off the same song sheet whether you are a safety professional or construction manager. If you demonstrate experience in the industry and have SMSTS. NEBOSH Const, etc then the there ought to be a route to a card.
I too don't mind taking the touch screen test. I also like the comment one size does not fit all. There needs to be other routes than NVQ.
I have an NVQ strategy with over 50% of my workforce doing NVQ's that is over 40 personnel and managers.
I also have personnel conducting HNC, Degrees and BTEC's, the criteria also ought to be open to them as they are on day release, 4 days a week they are working with very experienced people who operate sound management systems. If there is continued learning, then does it matter which guise it is in I have a manager who has 20 years plus experience, he has a lot of construction qualifications, he has appointed person for lift ops, 4 Day approved first aid, SMSTS, IOSH managing safely in const, Scaffold inspector FASET IPAF, NVQ in Mast Climbers etc etc he has a trainee managers card while I put him through NVQ? Yes he has a trainee managers card red, more experience than you can shake a stick at.
so there needs to be some common sense.
Good thread this well done all
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
At the end of the day its about getting access to a construction site.
Do the test and get a regular visitors card, its not within the spirit of the scheme but as THEY are so inflexible then stuff em!
I have a visitors card and never ever been asked to produce it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
CFT
Sorry moved to the other CSCS thread with my CDMC reference.
This thread really is demonstrating that the CSCS should be a dead duck so far as H&S is concerned, outside of the elements in the NVQ training that are assessed by the training centre.
What really troubles me though is that the board of trustees seem to have taken a back seat and left it to HH with what seems to be little overt support. Yes the politics of the scheme are difficult but our charter actually places the H&SW needs of society at large and professionals who are members at the heart of its raison d'etre. If we perceive that something is not having the effect it should perhaps we a duty bound to stand firm and say clearly that this must be changed for the benefit of society at large.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
The fundamental weakness of the current CSCS H&S Managers card is that you need a NVQ level 4 in Occupational H&S and the touch screen test in order to obtain this card, however the NVQ can be obtained outside the construction environment therefore you do not need any construction experience and an adequate level of construction competence to obtain this card.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Leese
John, you wrote: To say the test is demeaning I feel is an insult to all of those not as academically skilled as you, who have to take it to pursue their chosen careers - what gives you any right to belittle their achievements and chosen career path. It smacks of arrogance of the highest order.
Really? I'm happy to list a few of the questions here if you wish - to show how simple and how demeaning they are.
I have taught operatives in h&s on site, and have been satisfied at the end of a day that the delegates have been properly taught, that they have been tested to check understanding, and importantly they have learnt something about h&S.
I also represent clients whose entire workforce have CPCS cards and yet not one has attended a day of formal h&s (or indeed any h&s training)- but they are able to 100% pass a very low level 'vote for joe' test.
John, the fact that you willingly go along with the current system doesn't make the system right. Additionally,
using the word arrogant to describe a response by a fellow contributor is likely to cut short an interesting and thought provoking thread. I can only hope that is not your intention.
PS: I have also been a construction certificate examiner in the past for NEBOSH.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Leese
Dave, my experience is the same as yours. I obtained a card to avoid any 'just in case' embarassment if required to get on a client site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pat Hannaway
One of the problems is that some contractors are now restricting the Client or the Clients professionally qualified representatives access because they don't hold a stupid piece of plastic.
Despite the thousands of readers of this thread(and the many contributors to it) none has been able to demonstrate how having a plastic card is going to make them any safer on a site, or less of a danger to others.
I simply don't accept the argument that if a brickie, (who is exposed to and creates a fair few hazards daily) has to be able to demonstrate basic health and safety competence (and lets be honest the card schemes are basic), a professional safety adviser is going to be less competent. If facts supporting CSCS as a means of reducing accidents to safety professionals do exist they are very well hidden.
Like many other safety professionals who refuse to participate in this stupid "scheme" I have demonstrated my competence through many years experience, Certificates and Diplomas, and membership of various professional bodies, ( all of which demand proof of CPD),including our foremost body IOSH.
As has been said previously, the Client must appoint "competent" CDMC, designers and contractors. No one can accept a role or supervise or manage unless they are competent. (Insurers are very good at sorting out the competent from the cowboys these days: if they can't do the job safely they can't get insurance: Clients invariably check on this )
From personal experience Clients are insisting on higher levels of competence from all, and carrying out even more in-depth checks on their competency. Are the CSCS seriously suggesting that Clients and insurers are getting all of this wrong? It appears that they are, in order to generate even more income and secure a greater foothold with policy makers.
Lets start better managing health and safety ON sites, not restricting it at the front gates.
PS is this a record thread in terms of the numbers reading and contributing to it, and is IOSH taking note of the interest?
Pat
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By C.J.
John, just to pick up on a few points.
"To say the test is demeaning I feel is an insult to all of those not as academically skilled as you, who have to take it to pursue their chosen careers - what gives you any right to belittle their achievements and chosen career path. It smacks of arrogance of the highest order."
I'm not sure what you're talking about here? The person you are refering to did not belittle any trade persons achievements, or their career paths. From what he stated he is indeed a competent construction H&S Practioner.
I'm sure if a competent bricklayer had to carry out a test which the level of question was, to his competence:
What is a brick?
A) Something you eat
B) Something you throw at windows
C) something you use to build walls
D) All of the above
I'm sure he would find it demeaning.
"In their own way the CITB are trying to raise skill levels safety awareness in the highly hazardous industry which we work in, whether they are going about it in the right way is a moot point but they are trying,..."
I don't know... I don't go along with this it is better than nothing, or a step in the right direction arguement. For the money that is being spent on this scheme, and the inconvienice it is causing, it has to be the real deal or something close to it, if not it should be replaced.
Something should not be tolerated because 'they are trying'. Where would we be if that was our motto in H&S.
/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Leese
Why is 110V used on sites in preference to 240V
a) it is cheaper
b) it moves faster along the cables
c) it is less likely to kill you
d) it is safer for the environment
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Peter
Must you really ask the hard questions. The best ones are like:
What is the main colour of a fire extinguisher?
a) Red
b) Yellow with blue dots
c) Pink with orange dots
I like many will not be browbeaten into paying money for something that simply panders to the need to grab money out of construction training budgets. Let us not forget that a 1 day training course, assessed, and with CITB grant costs substantially less per head than this scheme. Approved training organisations could then certify the persons they train for let us say 3 years as meeting the understanding requirements.
The only problem is that it is too simple to administer and does not need an additional adminstration army.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By PaulA
Hello All.
I would like to ask all fellow CMIOSH, CFIOSH members a question..
What is the mandatory height for both mid and handrails on scaffolding?
mmmmmmm??? Well your experts in H&S? Should you know??? How many of you have forgotten??
Having applied for the test, travelled 45 miles and arived at the test centre mid morning to find out that there had been a booking error.. I still haven't got my card! I'm trying again next week!
kind regards.. Gtreat thread!
PaulA
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
PaulA
There is NO mandatory height only a manadatory minimum height of 950mm with a mandatory requirement for no gap to exceed 470mm below. Thus mid rail height depends on toprail height and there may be need for more than 1 rail below.
There is also an exemption for existing fixed handrails and one cannot be adamant that these would need to be adapted during construction work.
Thus a simple 950mm is not the correct answer.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.