Qualifications.Important or not?

[Paul Jenks]

I've just read this post all the way through and there are some really good points.

Our experience in employing staff has shown that for the most part people nowadays are taught to pass a test rather than carry out a function, cheifly owing tto the commercialisation of the the training and testing system. This leads to an emphasis on safety, no bad thing, but a lack of effectiveness in the real world. (The driving test is a prime example).

We now routinely test applicants on all their quals to assess their abilities prior to a days work interview and if they fit in with the team their pay reflects their actual ability rather than their 'ticket price'.

As the MD/owner I started my company with a goal of creating pathways for my staff to progress into more cerebral spheres of work as they matured. Very few other companies do this, IMO. As we grow and managerial positions develop we train our guys to move up into team leader and manager roles. This gives them an incentive to stay with us and keeps them producing for us. It's expensive but gives us good continuity and corporate memory is maintained. We have a skills matrix for all the guys and fill the boxes as time, money and requirements allow. Again it's expensive but does help us retain staff.

On the matter raised about when the poo hits the fan, my top climber, a couple of years ago sustained a serious injury whilst climbing. He's highly qualified, very safety concious and good in the tree. One moments loss of focus and he's permenantly damaged. Fortunately he worked for me and he is fully employed and we are benefitting from his knowledge, way more than mine.

The balance has to be struck between experience and tickets. Tickets/certs cover the owners backside when things go wrong. If all the compliance paperwork is in place then hopefully it doesn't destroy the business. However ensuring safety through checks and audits is just as important.

Broken fences or cars are one thing, a broken person is both physiologically and psychologically unpleasant.

[Andy Collins]

:congrats: Nice one Paul. Its good to see an employer playing the long game. You seem to have a very good common sense attitude towards your staff, their development and a view toward their long-term employment. Its a shame a few more dont invest in their staff to this degree.

[Paul Jenks]

Thank-you.

We do try our best

[arb culture]

Hi Hama,

I,m a tree officer and i,ve paid for every bit of training i,ve ever done. 4000 plus in the last 3 years.

 

Hama, like alliaria above, I've paid for all my own education/training as well.

 

What support do you see others getting that you're not?

[raafbeard]

I agree Mr Jenks is to be congratulated! :congrats:

 

If only more employers would see things this way there would be less pressure to go your own way!

[timtree81]

As to the original post ,if you have no quals in the work your doing then insurance is your main issue . People work outside there quals alot of the time ie who has done large fell nptc and who has felled a large tree ? great thread ,some verry good points .

[Paul Barton]

There may be a distinction to be made between those qualifications required to prove competence in using certain machinery e.g. NPTC's for chainsaw use (even if they are out of date), and those qualifications which add knowledge of tree's to the arborist.

 

Perhaps CS tickets are seen as required to fulfil insurance concerns, but what about the arborist who spends his/her spare time adding to their overall knowledge of trees, fungi, legislation etc by the ISA cert Arb/ND/Prof Dip etc? Surely this is to be commended.

 

The best people I have worked with on the tools have had the bare minimum of qualifications but stacks of experience. And I have also worked with people with lots of academic qualifications but little common sense.

 

I don't think there is a hard and fast rule either way, but there has to be a common sense approach by the HSE and employers about how experience is respected.

 

Comfortingly, it seems that many judges involved in liability cases after a tree has failed seem to take this common sense approach and have ruled in favour of surveyors/gardeners that have few formal qualifications but years of experience with trees.