Why are you not AAAC?

[Mesterh]

IMO why the hell should the AA be changing anything? it isnt expensive, once every five years for god sake!

 

every standard you have to meet for the AA is a basic proffesional minimum you should all be working to anyway so you shouldnt have to outlay any more in the first instance, and if you do have to pull your socks up to make the grade see it as an oportunity for an education which is well due if you havent already!

 

Elitist? what a load of rubbish, thats just a way of saying you cant be bothered and even if it is, why wouldnt you want to be associated with the elite?

 

Is it really a question of the AA having to do more? or are some of you going to buck your own ideas up and meet them half way? cos it seems to me the AA are having to take one up the rear just to get a load of lazy toads up to scratch, dumbing down the proscess is bad news if you ask me.

 

 

 

I think youve missed the entire point of the thread mate.

 

The vast majority of the arb companies arent AA approved. So from what I can gather the AA are looking into why that is and how they can change it.

 

They either have to change our view (which is a lot of peoples minds to change) or find some middle ground ie they change which is a lot easier.

 

Although it will no doubt be a bit of both since I bet there are a few people already looking at getting AAAC status just from the info AAtechie is giving out.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I think youve missed the entire point of the thread mate.

 

The vast majority of the arb companies arent AA approved. So from what I can gather the AA are looking into why that is and how they can change it.

 

They either have to change our view (which is a lot of peoples minds to change) or find some middle ground ie they change which is a lot easier.

 

Although it will no doubt be a bit of both since I bet there are a few people already looking at getting AAAC status just from the info AAtechie is giving out.

 

All i am trying to say is that it isnt just about what the AA have to do, that maybe the AA are working at this harder than we give them credit for and we should start cutting them some slack and meeting them half way rather than perpetuating the myth that i) its expensive. ii) its elitist. iii) it doesnt hold any clout. cos it does.

 

I wonder how many of those complaining about the system are personal members of the association?

[shaw]

All i am trying to say is that it isnt just about what the AA have to do, that maybe the AA are working at this harder than we give them credit for and we should start cutting them some slack and meeting them half way rather than perpetuating the myth that i) its expensive. ii) its elitist. iii) it doesnt hold any clout. cos it does.

 

I wonder how many of those complaining about the system are personal members of the association?

 

I am an AAAC.

 

I agree that AAAC is not elitist, but it's plain to see from this forum that it is SEEN to be that way - and that's what needs to change.

 

The best way to do this is for a large percentage of contractors to have it.

 

There is nothing than I would like more, than for most companies to be AAACs - that's not elitist.

[skyhuck]

IMO why the hell should the AA be changing anything? it isnt expensive, once every five years for god sake!

 

every standard you have to meet for the AA is a basic proffesional minimum you should all be working to anyway so you shouldnt have to outlay any more in the first instance, and if you do have to pull your socks up to make the grade see it as an oportunity for an education which is well due if you havent already!

 

Elitist? what a load of rubbish, thats just a way of saying you cant be bothered and even if it is, why wouldnt you want to be associated with the elite?

 

Is it really a question of the AA having to do more? or are some of you going to buck your own ideas up and meet them half way? cos it seems to me the AA are having to take one up the rear just to get a load of lazy toads up to scratch, dumbing down the proscess is bad news if you ask me.

 

I find your these comments very strange???

 

Am I not right in thinking that your own business failed due to you not having insurance??

 

So if when you were running your business (which was not AAAC) you were so short of funds that you could not afford insurance, why are you saying the cost of going AAAC is no issue??

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I find your these comments very strange???

 

Am I not right in thinking that your own business failed due to you not having insurance??

 

So if when you were running your business (which was not AAAC) you were so short of funds that you could not afford insurance, why are you saying the cost of going AAAC is no issue??

 

When i ran that business I didnt deserve to be AAAC!

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

All, thank you for your comments and I'm actually really encouraged that they are 'reasoned' and 'constructive' be it 'pro' or 'anti'(?) AC...which is great!

 

I think the time has come for me, or rather the AA, to "put its money where its mouth is", so to speak, and implement the changes I have suggested/proposed, much of which revolves around making the scheme (much) more accessible, and appealing, to smaller contractors such that it is worthwhile and represents 'value for money', that I beleive is the key!

 

So where do we/I go from here, well the balls already started to roll in that I discussed in detail my ideas/thoughts/proposals with Nick (Eden, AA Director) yesterday and he was generally supportive. I now need to formulate a report to go before the Association's Professional Committee, who are, in effect, the 'governinig body' for the AAAC scheme with pertinent recommendations are seek their support.

 

Thereafter AA protocol dictates is shold go to the Board of Trustees for ratification ('rubber stamping') and then we can really set the ball rolling. (I acknowledge you may be frustrated reading this and thinking "what a bl**dy long winded process" and "bureacracy gone mad" BUT the AA is a democratic organisation and due process, which is designed to represent the interest of and protect all, has to be followed.)

 

I anticipate the next stage will be a formal consultation exercise with existing AAACs as 'shareholders', in effect, then review, amend n launch (realistcially this will be 1st Jan. 2011....but that give you all enough time to get all those essential 'mountains of paperwork' in place right?...tee hee...ONLY JOKING!!!)

 

Thanks again 'EVERYBODY' for participating in this and any and all other related threads, your feedback/comments (positive and negative) have really been valuable....tis all just down to me now to deliver...aghhhhh!!!!

 

Cheers all..

Paul

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

All, thank you for your comments and I'm actually really encouraged that they are 'reasoned' and 'constructive' be it 'pro' or 'anti'(?) AC...which is great!

 

I think the time has come for me, or rather the AA, to "put its money where its mouth is", so to speak, and implement the changes I have suggested/proposed, much of which revolves around making the scheme (much) more accessible, and appealing, to smaller contractors such that it is worthwhile and represents 'value for money', that I beleive is the key!

 

So where do we/I go from here, well the balls already started to roll in that I discussed in detail my ideas/thoughts/proposals with Nick (Eden, AA Director) yesterday and he was generally supportive. I now need to formulate a report to go before the Association's Professional Committee, who are, in effect, the 'governinig body' for the AAAC scheme with pertinent recommendations are seek their support.

 

Thereafter AA protocol dictates is shold go to the Board of Trustees for ratification ('rubber stamping') and then we can really set the ball rolling. (I acknowledge you may be frustrated reading this and thinking "what a bl**dy long winded process" and "bureacracy gone mad" BUT the AA is a democratic organisation and due process, which is designed to represent the interest of and protect all, has to be followed.)

 

I anticipate the next stage will be a formal consultation exercise with existing AAACs as 'shareholders', in effect, then review, amend n launch (realistcially this will be 1st Jan. 2011....but that give you all enough time to get all those essential 'mountains of paperwork' in place right?...tee hee...ONLY JOKING!!!)

 

Thanks again 'EVERYBODY' for participating in this and any and all other related threads, your feedback/comments (positive and negative) have really been valuable....tis all just down to me now to deliver...aghhhhh!!!!

 

Cheers all..

Paul

 

I wish you all the best with this paul, you have a mighty task!

 

Good on ya:thumbup1:

[gibbon]

Goon on you Paul. However when I went through the process I though that you did manage to tailer the assesment to the size of our business, ie 2 day assesment. I think it would be a mistake to "water down" the criteria to any extent. It might be just as usefull to beef up the assesment for larger firms to give a better idea of the quality of work across their whole work force

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Goon on you Paul. However when I went through the process I though that you did manage to tailer the assesment to the size of our business, ie 2 day assesment. I think it would be a mistake to "water down" the criteria to any extent. It might be just as usefull to beef up the assesment for larger firms to give a better idea of the quality of work across their whole work force

 

Gibbon, that's a bit impolite if you don't mind me saying, albeit probably entirely true, but please don't publicise the fact I am a 'GOON' (ha, thanks for the laff...it was a laff right???..ha!)

 

Just to clarify, for everyone, the 2 day assessment 'variation' is offered for very small companies where the AC named manager is also the 'receptionist, office manager, H&S bod, surveyor, fitter/mender, main climber...oh and 'brusherupper'...and chief team maker too! Meaninig the logistics of pulling all elements of the assessment together in one day are nigh on impossible so we spent two separate days, one assessor on each day, to accomodate this. (Hopefully that's right 'Gibbon' as I don't know how you are?)

 

However, 'yes' your (very good) point about ensuring the 'assessment' depth and duration is proportionate to the size of the company, i.e. bigger 'arb' companies (for easy reckonin say more than 10-12 staff, or running 3 or more gangs) will also form part of the considerations.

 

I don't propose to 'water down' the standards at all, AND i) the 'active worksite audit' (dismantle with rigging etc.) + ii) the 'completed works audit (planting, crown reduction & crown thinning) will be 'common' throughout. What I anticipate will change is the depth of documentray evidence required from smaller companies, and therefore existing small ACs at re-assessment (UNLESS they wish to maintain their larger company, i.e. '5 or more staff, if that is beneficila to them) will be (far) less and in-line with, for instance, HSE & CHAS requirements.

 

As an existing AC please give me a call if your concerned and I haven't explained things very well. Obviously anyone else can ring me at any stage with any concerns/confusions.

 

Cheers..

Paul

[Albedo]

Just a point I've had in mind for a while Paul.

 

On co's with less than 5 staff.

 

We talk as if the norm is big co's with lots of staff, like Tree Care in London for example.

 

My impression of the industry is that the bulk of domestic work is done by co's with 2 staff. To me 3 or 4 staff is a big outfit.

 

Perhaps some quantification along these lines might be useful. I.e. are the majority of tree co's in the uk of a size of 3 or less? Or perhaps I've been in my rural/domestic treework bubble too long.