Arb or not to arb?

[Andy Clark]

Andy, I'm not hiding. My website is in my signature. I have never been a member of the Arb Assoc. but I do like the trade show they organise for our industry every year. I hope I haven't offended you with my post. I thought I was making a fair point.

 

Sorry Nick.... just that i did try clicking on your website, but just got a 404 error come up.

 

My mistake for jumping to conclusions.

[Andy Clark]

Your question makes assumptions that are not supported. You infer that the AAAC scheme contributes to 'unregulation' and 'unstandardisation'. You also infer that the scheme could do more to prevent these things.

 

Therefore it begs the question, does the AAAC sheme actually do these things? I'd suggest, anecdotes excepted, we don't know if they do.

 

Again Tony, you might not "know" this to be the case, but i do.

 

Take the already mentioned "AAAC route into LA tree work contracts". Despite the modern stipulation of "best value" that LAs now have to adopt, I still know of some that will ONLY use AAAC for their work. Their reasoning??? Because the AAAC is the only acreditation scheme for proffesional arboriculture.

 

Rubbish! What about Arbnet? What about CHAS? What About Constructionline? What about ISA CertArb? What about ISO? The list of "proffesional" acreditation schemes is long.

 

The scenario is more like, that that particular TO maybe a member NATO, and given the AA relationship with that organisation, it's the only particular acreditation scheme that THEY recognise......

 

Lets also not forget the failed route that the AA tried to build in with the Highways Agency, regarding auto-accreditation for the NHSS18 scheme.

 

 

And lets not forget who historicaly sits on the AFAG commitee...... heads of very large AAACs. On one hand you have the AA setting their benchmark, and on the other, you have its members writting the rule book!

Considering that i have worked for and with several of these people, belive me, they should concentrate on putting their own house in order first, before taking the role in defining how the rest of us do it.

 

 

And yes, i do infer that the scheme could do more to prevent what goes on. Why? Because i've been there, and done it! I've written a criteria that is accesible to all. I've written a membership tier model that is accessible to all.

 

I know of that criteria being used by several LA's to draw up their own contractor criteria. I know of numerous RSLs the length and bredth of the country, who have employed that criteria to source its own contractors. I also know that same said criteria was adopted and updated by a.n.other govt. endorsed contractor acreditation scheme. I also know that the membership tier model and the criteria where adopted by a.n.other industry trade organisation.

 

Like i said, i can "back-up" my standpoints..... so just in case you wanna practice what you preach ........

 

McCarthyism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edited March 3, 2010 by Andy Clark

[Andy Clark]

Of course, something else to consider Tony, with regard to the whole "could they do more" debate, is drawn from a comparrison to what goes on within these hallowed pages of the 'talk on a daily basis.......

 

 

The AA, in particular some of it's associated members sit on AFAG....... but do the AA openly publicise "H&S type documentation" for open use?? Yes, ONE such document (last time I looked) The Tree Work Method Statement.....

 

But yet on here on the 'talk you have a site on which COUNTLESS H&S docs change hands on a daily basis.

 

So I in turn ask you.......

 

Is more possible?

 

Is standardisation possible?

 

 

So given the resources and relationships at their disposal, why don't they?

[Amelanchier]

I think fundamentally Andy, people who aspire for change in any system /organistaion fall into two camps; reformers and revolutionaries.

 

I (try to) think of myself as a reformer, you've got to be in it to change it. You seem to me to be a revoultionary - tear it down and start again.

 

Unless they have guns or fill the streets with rioters - revolutionaries never win. They are sidelined, marginalised and ignored by the mainstream. Its a shame because the reformers and the revolutionaries want the same thing but will never agree.

 

When I was an angry teenage knowitall [insert joke here] I remember a great teacher once asked me during an arguement, "Is there anything I can say that will make you change you mind?" I stubbornly said "No, because you're wrong."

 

"Well then this conversation was over before it begun."

[Steve Bullman]

I think fundamentally Andy, people who aspire for change in any system /organistaion fall into two camps; reformers and revolutionaries.

 

I (try to) think of myself as a reformer, you've got to be in it to change it. You seem to me to be a revoultionary - tear it down and start again.

 

Unless they have guns or fill the streets with rioters - revolutionaries never win. They are sidelined, marginalised and ignored by the mainstream. Its a shame because the reformers and the revolutionaries want the same thing but will never agree.

 

When I was an angry teenage knowitall [insert joke here] I remember a great teacher once asked me during an arguement, "Is there anything I can say that will make you change you mind?" I stubbornly said "No, because you're wrong."

 

"Well then this conversation was over before it begun."

 

think that about sums up this thread along with the other AA threads currently running, thanks Tony:001_smile:

[Andy Clark]

I think fundamentally Andy, people who aspire for change in any system /organistaion fall into two camps; reformers and revolutionaries.

 

I (try to) think of myself as a reformer, you've got to be in it to change it. You seem to me to be a revoultionary - tear it down and start again.

 

Unless they have guns or fill the streets with rioters - revolutionaries never win. They are sidelined, marginalised and ignored by the mainstream. Its a shame because the reformers and the revolutionaries want the same thing but will never agree.

 

When I was an angry teenage knowitall [insert joke here] I remember a great teacher once asked me during an arguement, "Is there anything I can say that will make you change you mind?" I stubbornly said "No, because you're wrong."

 

"Well then this conversation was over before it begun."

 

Tony, i've clearly presented a proveable and substantiated counter argument. But yet you choose to ignore/not respond to the points laid before you.

 

I'd like to ask, how you substantiate your claims?? Or are you just seeking a bun-fightby continually casting personal aspersions?

Edited March 3, 2010 by Andy Clark

[Albedo]

The recent arrival of a voice from the AA has increased my interest in said organisation, previously I had written it off as it doesn’t represent me. Also a call to my local office when I set up on my own resulted in an admisssion that the AA has little to do with one man bands like me. Anyway I just looked at their website and this is what it says at the head of the approved contractors list

 

“Approved Contractors List 2010

The work undertaken by the Contractors includes advice on maintenance requirements, planting, tree pruning, cable bracing, pest and disease control and the felling of trees in difficult positions.

The companies listed have been approved by the Council of the Association as complying with, and practicing to, the standard required by the Association. The companies have been examined for safe working practices and technical competence consistent with British Standard 3998: Recommendations for Tree Work, 1989.

 

The Arboricultural Association expects very high standards which restrict the number of successful applicants. Because of the irrevocable nature of all operations concerning tree care these standards are carefully maintained by inspection of the recommended Contractors”.

 

I am amazed and angered by the contents of paragraph three. It blatantly states that it is the AA’s” very high standards which restrict the number of applicants”. It is saying that the reason I am not a AAAC is because I am afraid of their standards.

It also states that it maintains these standards OF TREE WORK – “By Inspection”. I may be mistaken, but I thought it had been recognised by AAteckie that no such inspections of AAAC’s take place.

 

I’m flabergasted by this, not a happy bunny at all!!!!!

This backs up what Andy Clark has been saying big time!!!!!

 

As if that wasn't enough, Youv'e also misspelt the name of one of your Trustee/ Directors Paul, on the about us page (90% sure anyway)

Edited March 3, 2010 by Albedo
Typo

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Bloomin heck...."whilst the cat's away" eh?!

 

Sorry been deliverin a RA course at Merrist Wood today n only just got back to the office...now kinda wished I hadn't (not really!)

 

Clearly some people out there are very (very) angry at the Association and I'm kinda thinkin I wihsed i hadn't reared my head...but I have, and it needed to be done, if only to receive 'slappings & kickings' BUT hopefully you'll give me the time to read my postings...thank you!

 

Firstly I'm really sorry I/we/this topic seems to be bringing out very vented frustrations, or worse, in people n most of you have probably been out doing a hard days work n probably switched on for a bit of friendly banter to unwind n got embroiled here...n then probably tossed n turned all night....aghhh!!!

 

I simply can't answer every point which has been raised but I'll try and pick up on some of the key ones if I may:

 

Use of the phrase 'Find a Professional' does absolutely not seek to infer that those not listed are not professional in any way, shape or form, and I'm very sorry to those who have interpreted this way.

It's essentially a way of catching the website 'browsers/visitors' by labellling the ACs & RCs accredited as professional operators. Again, but acknowledging you have no way of knowing this other than maybe to act as a bogus caller, several enquirers looking for a reputable professional want someone on their doorstep ideally, which we more often than not cannot facilitate so we tell them there are undoubtedly other reputable companies in their towns but we simply don't know of them as the scheme is voluntary.

 

Re-paulsbrash later posting. Perhaps not the best choice of wording, and again open to interpretation, but the reality is there is a high failure rate, approx. 50% at the first attempt for AAAC and unfortunately some don't return...hence the statement (BUT I don't like it AND it won't be included on the 'new' website!) The wording is meant to mean(?), or seeks to inform the reader, that the contractor themselves undertakes the said inspection to maintain their own standards of work, NOT the AA. As you quite rightly state we don't do 'spot checks', we only check/inspect works at initial assessment and reassessments.

 

Again I'm sorry you're so upset and flabbergasted but again your interpretation that your afraid of the standards is completely wrong.

 

The Association is both a registered charity, with set charitable objectives, and a limited company which is obliged to its membership, and the industry,to generate a surplus of monies to continue its service to both. Should it be needed the accounts are readily available....we have nothing to hide for goodness sake, and we're certainly not aiming to make money out of the industry which we serve. That would be poor business practice and immoral and that we certainly are not.

 

Certain contriubutors seem intent on "sinking the AA ship" by seeking to expose alledged malpractice, maladministration and shoddy practices which is a real shame coz we only seek to serve the industry for the betterment of all. We may c*ck things up at times, we may proceed with ideas and scheme we consider as best/good practice without having full industry support, AND we go back along way and have a lot of official documentation produces years ago which needs updating and ensuring is consistent with what we're doing currently BUT we all believe what we ar edoing is for th egood of the membership and the industry and, simply, that's our bottom line (no hidden agendas no alterior motivates!).

Come on board, get involved, share your ideas, tell us what you want and WE WILL LISTEN & ACT IF WE CAN.

 

I need a beer, or two..!

 

Cheers all and thanks for reading..!

Paul

[Albedo]

Thanks for the explanation Paul, makes sense, but as you say, the wording might be reconsidered.

 

yours still flabergasted, but a slightly happier bunny - Paul Brash

 

By the way your misspelt (not sure how many s's) director is Mr Thorman not Thurman, if its ED's dad.

[NickB]

By the way your misspelt (not sure how many s's) director is Mr Thorman not Thurman, if its ED's dad.

 

 

Whilst I fail to understand why the spelling (or misspelling) of somebody's name on the AA's website is a matter of such exitement, THURMAN is the correct spelling, Peter T is a tree consultant / lecturer based in East Sussex