Why are you not AAAC?

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Nice idea rob ! my view is they wont swallow it as it would give the smaller firms a chance to quote on the same jobs as the other AA aproved contractorswho fork out all that cash and time and effort to stay approved..... To me its too much time and effort and money to become approved it has prevented me from getting on some jobs ,And some sub standard work i have seen has made me loose faith that there system does or could ever work.

 

Hi 'MattyF', cheers for the post!

 

Exactly, the 'horse for courses' approach I mentioned early has to be the way forward where both the financial and resource requirements would be much less than currently (which operates on the HSEs '5 or more employees' basis regardless of the size of the firm.)

 

And 'yes', I wholly acknowledge 'sub-standard' work does occur, hopefully 'the minority', and we need to work harder to address this. That said the more there are doing bl**dy good work then the higher standards will go all round and the 'odd job' will become insignificant (NO EXCUSE tho, it's a pet hate of mine and I'm trying my best to raise the bar and stamp it out...perhaps an ideal too far BUT!)

 

Thanks..

Paul

[Ian Flatters]

HI Targettrees...tahnks for posting back.

 

Think I/we/the AA, need to get the AC scheme right first and then look at other 'access' options...is that okay? (SORRY, you've probably sussed that I'm just trying to 'buy time'...."c'mon man get ur finger owt!")

 

Very interesting thoughts tho and I wholly recognise much of the industry operates on a sub-contractor basis, i..e buying in a man/woman for a day, ...hmmm!

 

Thanks again.

Paul

 

:001_tt2:Buying time? NO:lol: Im sure the AC scheme will develop and diversify to meet all size company/climber needs and more and more of the cowboys will have to hang up their spurs.

[Rob D]

Rob, thanks for your post...interesting stuff!

 

Just to let you know where 'mi thoughts' are at the moment if I may.

 

Several people have proposed differing levels/grades etc. of accreditation based on varying criteria and, I believe, the underlying 'common factor' is about accesibility to the scheme for smaller contractors, i.e. typically 'less than 5 employees' (including 'regular' freelancers) which sits very nicely with HSE requirements.

 

My 'BIG' concern is that, understandable, 'Class 1, Class 2 or Gold, Silver, of Level 1, Level 2' etc. etc. would be seen by the client as different skills/abilities, hence the top one would always be the best one, when it would be based on 'breadth of compliance areas'...or similar = MASS CONFUSION (potentially.)

 

I would much rather have one accreditaion, i.e. 'Approved Contractor', for all which would carry 'common' skills criteria, i.e. sectional felling/pruning/planting/arb knowledge etc., BUT which had a (much) lower level of documentary evidence requirement for H&S compliance, customer care systems, office procedures etc., the paper stuff!

 

Thereafter, to a large degree, it would be 'horses for courses' (very apt at the mo with Cheltenham...mine's still running!) in that the larger contracts (LAs etc.) requiring a greater financial basis and ISO 9001 etc. would be for the 'bigger companies' AND smaller jobs for the domestic consumers etc. the smaller firms where the larger company overheads would likely price them out.

 

Dunno (altho I believe the picture is getting clearer)...maybe I'm just too 'Betamax' molded?!...wots 'Blu-ray', kinda like 'Stingray?'

 

Cheers..

Paul

 

 

Hopefully they'll be a way for 2 and 3 man firms to become AAAC with minimum of fuss or paperwork...

 

... and you will find yourself becoming more 'Blu-Ray' combined with 'Betamax moulded'

 

 

 

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Hopefully they'll be a way for 2 and 3 man firms to become AAAC with minimum of fuss or paperwork...

 

... and you will find yourself becoming more 'Blu-Ray' combined with 'Betamax moulded'

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Rob,

 

That's absoultely what I'm aiming for!

 

If, after becoming accredited, the firm wishes to grow to take on bigger contracts (whihc often happens AND which, IMO, is often why standards slip) then obviously at their reassessment this will be disclosed and they will have more to demonstrate. BUT, importantly (AND a point we've missed previously), those who believe "small is beautiful" (AND it often is) can stay so and still not have to produce the 'War n Peace' paperwork...simple (so why did I not see it previously?...I know, I know!!!!)

 

Cheers..

Paul 'Blu-Ray' Smith

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

:001_tt2:Buying time? NO:lol: Im sure the AC scheme will develop and diversify to meet all size company/climber needs and more and more of the cowboys will have to hang up their spurs.

 

Lets hope so Targettrees, and to everyone's benefit!

 

Cheers..

Paul

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

On another point, poeple speak of individual acredation within the AA but isnt that what Fellowship is for?

 

That is one of my goals, to become a "fellow"

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

On another point, poeple speak of individual acredation within the AA but isnt that what Fellowship is for?

 

That is one of my goals, to become a "fellow"

 

Hi 'Hamadryad',

 

I guess it's down to the individual to some extent as to what they want/expect from 'individual accreditation'.

 

In your particular case you see 'Fellowship' status as the goal, n "gudon'ya for that!", but others may think differently, be it NPTCs / quals. / membership grades / external awards, i.e. CHAS, AAAC, ISO, the range is very varied and there's summat for all.

 

Perhaps that's another reason why industry is so good to work in as it provides opportunities for all..!

 

All the best..

Paul

[shaw]

Surely the best way for the AAAC scheme to become well known is for lots of companies to have it?

 

The way I see it is this - A vast amount of contractors want LA work (not everso profitable, but constant). Surely if all LAs insisted on AAAC, their local contractors would all be working towards it pretty sharpish.

 

I know that lots of LAs say that they don't have any/many/enough local AAACs to be able to do this, but if they were to give their contractors a deadline, surely this would change?

 

Could the AA not put more effort into lobbying LAs and their insurers?

 

I really think we should be getting away from LAs having their own list of 'approved contractors' that showed them their insurance certificate a couple of years ago!

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Surely the best way for the AAAC scheme to become well known is for lots of companies to have it?

 

The way I see it is this - A vast amount of contractors want LA work (not everso profitable, but constant). Surely if all LAs insisted on AAAC, their local contractors would all be working towards it pretty sharpish.

 

I know that lots of LAs say that they don't have any/many/enough local AAACs to be able to do this, but if they were to give their contractors a deadline, surely this would change?

 

Could the AA not put more effort into lobbying LAs and their insurers?

 

I really think we should be getting away from LAs having their own list of 'approved contractors' that showed them their insurance certificate a couple of years ago!

 

Yep I agree, and one of the best points made so far I reckon

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Surely the best way for the AAAC scheme to become well known is for lots of companies to have it?

 

The way I see it is this - A vast amount of contractors want LA work (not everso profitable, but constant). Surely if all LAs insisted on AAAC, their local contractors would all be working towards it pretty sharpish.

 

I know that lots of LAs say that they don't have any/many/enough local AAACs to be able to do this, but if they were to give their contractors a deadline, surely this would change?

 

Could the AA not put more effort into lobbying LAs and their insurers?

 

I really think we should be getting away from LAs having their own list of 'approved contractors' that showed them their insurance certificate a couple of years ago!

 

 

Hi 'Shaw', thanks for your post!

 

You're right, more ACs will increase awareness and then hopefully the scheme will self-perpetuate, however we first need to ensure the scheme is appropriate to companies of all sizes AND that it has 'value' and represents good value for money.

 

We are currently 'lobbying' LAs, albeit indirectly via the HSE Engaging Arboricultural Contractors SHAD (Safety and Health Awareness Day), and I am currently trying a more direct approach via regional tree officer group meetings (with very variable degrees of success.)

 

However what I would like to do is to run a 'lower key' mini-AA SHAD as a roadshow (NO COMMENTS ABOUT 'CIRCUS n CLOWNS' PLEASE!) around the country to further promote the scheme, not least as we now dual award with CHAS (Contractors Health And Safety assessment scheme, see http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/general-chat/www.chas.gov.uk)...BUT we need more resources available to do this effectively = we need more ACs, a "chicken n egg" scenario!

 

With regard to lobbying LA insurers I'm not quite sure how we would go about this but I would be concerned this may be viewed as a little 'under-handed' in forcing their arm, so to speak.

 

Increasingly LAs are moving away from their own approved list, perhaps recognising the potential liabilities this might bring, and referring enquirers to other lists, i.e. AAAC scheme, but they often still engage none ACs on their own tree works...interesting.

 

Cheers..

Paul

Edited March 24, 2010 by AA Teccie (Paul)