Why are you not AAAC?

[alex_m]

Where's the 'Don't think we would pass' option?

[Andy Collins]

Where's the 'Don't think we would pass' option?

 

Sorry, wasnt expecting you to respond:lol:

[shabz1978]

i think it would be more beneficial for arborists to go through the ISA process or similar, rather than the company meeting standards, it could include more health and safety training/knowledge in addition to quality standards that it already promotes. I've done a lot of shifts on railways etc where i was amazed that lads wouldn't refuse to do stuff that was clearly very dangerous

 

Our company is not AAAC but we would meet and probably surpass all of thier health and safety requirements.

[Treeworld]

I would love to vote on this poll but the options are limited. they are positive or negative, I think an option of " I feel being AAAC is of no benefit to my business" should be there.

I am a CAC ( client approved contractor) which to me means more and generates more work for me than belonging to a body which is aimed at large contractors.

[Andy Collins]

I would love to vote on this poll but the options are limited. they are positive or negative, I think an option of " I feel being AAAC is of no benefit to my business" should be there.

I am a CAC ( client approved contractor) which to me means more and generates more work for me than belonging to a body which is aimed at large contractors.

 

I wrote the poll based on phrases that I've most commonly heard in conversation, and I didnt want to create a never ending list of options to prevent confusion. But I'll have absolutely no objection to your individual points of view, so long as I dont consider them derogatory of the AA or those directly involved with the AA:thumbup1:

[nailer]

I'm with Treeworld. Accreditation schemes are mainly for companies that can't, or can't be bothered to, work out a way to produce an endless stream of happy customers and referrals willing to pay for quality work. imo.

[David Riding]

there is no poll option that states "because there are 5 other accreditations that would make me more money"

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I'm with Treeworld. Accreditation schemes are mainly for companies that can't, or can't be bothered to, work out a way to produce an endless stream of happy customers and referrals willing to pay for quality work. imo.

 

we have both and this works well! AAAC AND customer referral through high standards!

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Hi all, well by my reckonin 10 days have passed since the last post here so I take it most responses have been made and I'd like to offer a summary and some thoughts, if I may.

 

Firstly THANK YOU to Andy Collins for facilitating this poll AND for also, in your Moderator role, instructing it to be 'constructive' not 'destructive' feedback...much appreciated!

 

Secondly THANK YOU to all who posted, be it negative, positive, associated or indifferent...gauging industry views at the grass-roots level is essential (and 'yes' I wholly acknowledge we haven't done great to date!)...again, much appreciated.

 

Onto the feedback.

 

The 2 main comments relate to:

 

1. The cost, i.e. too expensive for small companies.

 

2. We don't need the AA to tell us our job.

 

and I'll mainly comment on these.

 

1. Simple really, we need to follow the CHAS H&S model here which looks for a much lower level of documentary evidence where firms employ (or engage, i.e. regular sub-contractors/climbers/groundies) 'less than 5 people'.

Previously we have always required this working on the basis that as an AC your likley to be approach by LAs / commercial clienst who require a H&S policy / risk assessments / training records etc. etc. so better to have them in place, and 'approved', beforehand. Which is fine BUT not all want to work in these sectors so it 'imposes' an unnecessary burden involving much cost, time and resources to produce and then maintain.

Further ('neck on the line here') the level of documentary evidence required on the customer care side could be lower as the reality, at the 'domestic level in partic', is that often this will be to a high level anyway as reputation is everything here and high levels of personal service (careful!) are expected AND delivered.

Simialrly the office procedures requirements could be pared down to again recognise the direct service provision offered, i.e. "yes Mrs Miggins, tahnks for your call, I'll pop in on the way home tonight and have a look at your Oak tree...about 6.30pm okay?!"

 

The things that couldn't be/shouldn't be 'pared' down/evidneced to a lesser extent are obsviously the 'active worksite', sectional felling+rigging, and the 'completed works', pruning+planting AND the 'mangers' arb knowledge, i.e. explain to Mrs Miggins WHY she shouldn't 'top' her poplar tree AND what will happen if she does AND what alternatives, with pro's & con's, she should consider...oh yeah AND it's in a Conservation Area...so how long will that take? (NOT the TO view BUT what the 'BlueBook' says, remember you need to best represent your client NOT cater to the whims and peculiarities of the LPA ...but 'yes' you do need to maintain good relations AND be legal!)

 

The upshot of this will hopefully allow for a reduced assessment period, ideally with one assessor, which in turn will reduce cost (and hopefully significantly.)

 

2. Whilst it may be intrepreted as such we are not here to tell anyone there jobs, we're here to help and advice ALL. the scheme is, and always will be, voluntary (IMO) as central government will never step in and regulate us directly, hence we have to 'self-regulate' and for that we need a benchmark (standards), which if we haven't got right we need to know..PLEASE!

The decision, and choice, whether to present yourselves for external assessment will always therefore remain yours and I believe that's right.

 

PLEASE respond further, question, criticise, advise, guide, but I'm keen to keep this 'constructive' AND TO MOVE IT FORWARD!

 

Thanks in anticpation all..!

 

Paul

Edited March 19, 2010 by AA Teccie (Paul)

[Ian Flatters]

In my opinion its not well know enough outside the tree world. Also it doesn't hold the same kind of 'clout' that something like gas safe does as you need to be registered on it by law Gas Safe Register | Ensure your gas engineer is registered with Gas Safe Register to be able to fit and test gas in any household or building site. Its also a supported by the government. I've quoted on a couple of jobs and have been asked if i was AAAC because the council said any contractor should be. I told them its not a legal requirment to be a AAAC and got the job.

 

Also it seems to be the big companies that go for it because they can afford too i guess.

 

I think it is a good thing for the industry as a whole but feel if it doesn't have any government support its just like being a member of any club. (Sorry if it sounds harsh).