Future of our industry...Essential Arb article

[Paul Barton]

Let's try and revive this thread then....where are the comments you promised Rob, Tony and Marco?

 

Do we agree with the conclusion of the article - that our industry needs one 'professional body' and one 'trade association'?

 

The article majors on the issue of the AA missing out on the charter for arboriculture and suggests this means the AA can never be our professional body and will therefore only be a trade association.

 

I agree that this is a major plus for the ICF (they got the charter) and unfortunate for the AA. However, AA Registered Consultants are among the most respected in the UK so it would seem the AA has some kudos anyway. Whether this will continue in the future remains to be seen...it depends whether the next generation of arbs want to get chartered status or become AA Reg Cons!

[Yorkshireman]

an interesting article the issues of which have been known for years

 

the difference with this industry & that of other service sectors is that there arent any real rules merely guidance & is the absense of rules , many poor delivery techniques creep in & even where legislation has been made it is often over swept for the benefit of those involved

 

disheartening those practioneers who aspire to see the industry recognised for those professional service providers out there OF ALL SIZE consultant & contractors

 

then we have the under the radar arboricultural industry that undermine those involved in attempting to deliver a quality service

 

though I do agree if the industry is to get any foot hold on these & many other issues then to lobby government we would need a concise focus

 

our current situation rightly leaves member organisation speaking for their members

but as a wider voice they clearly dont speak with a loud enough voice.

 

rgds Iain

[Rob D]

It's an interesting topic....

 

 

I think the AA have come along way with their scheme to allow smaller businesses gain approved status - I don't know how this has been received though?

[Tom D]

I have wondered about this issue for years, and my opinion has changed totally, I used to believe that we needed a strong voice in the industry to help standardise the skills and qualifications required by all tree contractors. I also thought that having a strong lobby group would help improve the legislation that we are expected to comply with day to day.

 

I now believe that we would be better off if the organisations who purport to represent our industry were weaker than they currently are, It is not the ethos of these bodies that is wrong, more the fact that so many of their members seem to be either from a non contracting background or disgruntled former contractors who want to make life as difficult as possible for the smaller firms who perhaps they see as unfair competition because they spend their time working instead of attending seminars on soils and the latest H&S regs.

 

I consider myself to be a "good arborist", I have done the AATech and PTI as well as numerous NPTC's but I no longer believe that we should all be forcing every one else to do the same in the belief that it would make them easier to compete with. It won't, there will always be guys doing tree work on the cheap. End of. Just as there will always be guys selling cheap logs. Its far better to worry about where you and your business are going than keep looking over your shoulder at everyone else.

 

There is a very high proportion of trainers involved at a high level in the AA etc, they will be present in disproportionate numbers at AA events and seminars, their influence on AA thinking is not necessarily in the interests of the average contractor, more NPTC's, pointless refresher courses, constantly changing NPTC definitions and qualifications etc. We need this like a hole in the head, because those of us who do commercial as well as domestic work will eventually find that as LA and commercial clients keep asking for more and more qualifications and we keep spending money putting our staff through them, there will come a time when we are so expensive that we will no longer be able to do any domestic work. Many others have reached the same conclusion and decided the the answer is to make everyone do all the tests to create a level playing field, hence my points above, however as the domestic tree market is totally unregulated there will always be those who won't bother. And therefore this utopian dream where we all have hundreds of letters after our names and no one gets to work on a 10 foot leylandii without producing a 2"file of paperwork for the little old lady who owns it is exactly that, a dream, and it always will be.

 

Far better to keep things as they are, there will be those like me who have invested heavily in training and those who haven't and as things stand just now I am able to compete in all sectors of the market, I like being able to do that, and I fear that a stronger trade body would force me to choose between a low cost, low level of training domestic market ethos and a high cost, high level of training commercial market.

 

The only way I would support an stronger trade body or association is if ONLY contractors could join. No trainers allowed (by order of the management)

[Yorkshireman]

lots of fair points there Rob

 

horses & courses & donkeys for beaches works so far & whilst the domestic market is un regulated /monitored there wont be any movement

 

the last government made far too many stupid rules without attempting to realise the true issues , though most of that government policy came from think tanks & lobby organusations

 

training is excellent,,, the confusion & grey areas of obligation comes in the wording of what ' training consists of ' in context to internal or external & assessed training & capability

 

oh by the way NPTC are starting to offer ITA intergrated training & assessment

though not in chainsaw as yet

 

rgds iain

[RobArb]

Let's try and revive this thread then....where are the comments you promised Rob, Tony and Marco?

 

Do we agree with the conclusion of the article - that our industry needs one 'professional body' and one 'trade association'?

 

The article majors on the issue of the AA missing out on the charter for arboriculture and suggests this means the AA can never be our professional body and will therefore only be a trade association.

 

I agree that this is a major plus for the ICF (they got the charter) and unfortunate for the AA. However, AA Registered Consultants are among the most respected in the UK so it would seem the AA has some kudos anyway. Whether this will continue in the future remains to be seen...it depends whether the next generation of arbs want to get chartered status or become AA Reg Cons!

 

I'd forgotten about this or at least put it to the back of my mind:blush:

 

The article itself is an eye-opener to what problems lie within the arboricultural industry and i can see only one way of ameliorating these issues. One controlling voice for the industry as a whole is needed for rules, regulations, standards and governmental policies with one affiliated council or trade association for linking everyone from the everyday contractor to the research fellows, and the tree officers to the consultants.

 

My wife works as a physiotherapist under the umbrella of the NHS for a local PCT. To be a physiotherapist she had to do a degree to enable her to become chartered to be able to work. The CSP (Chartered Society of Physiotherapists) is the largest membership organisation for physiotherapists whether private or public sector, that allows them to practise. The CSP is also the union and the voice for physiotherapists as a whole and you are only considered fit to practice as a physio if you have this chartered status (yes i know our industry is entirely different but bear with me), she also is a member of the health professions council (HPC) that is a regulatory body that holds a register of health professionals that are fit to work by meeting there standards that is semi-affiliated with the CSP (and other health professional societies, not just physio) and is public aimed, i.e. if registered with the HPC the public knows the health profession treating them is fit to work. Basically everything is structured to be tailored to the both the needs of the physio and the person being treated by having standards recognised and a direct government link.

 

Arboriculture is a very different industry as we work with trees (the trees being the clients and the clients being the gaurdians if you like) not people. But IMO a similar setup is achievable. Yes we are a multi-faceted industry (but so is physio, paedeactric vs sports for example) and in theory one voice would work.

 

As a member of the AA myself i seek to one becoming chartered, but, it would be with the ICF as they hold the title of Chartered Arboriculturist. This is not to say that i don't believe the AA does not do a good job, as i feel it is an ever improving organisation with a lot to offer. I do feel however that it is the AA that needs to recognise its structure as something different to what is t is maybe trying to acheive and i also feel the ICF has to recognise that as far as arboriculture goes the AA is worth listening to.

 

If i wanted a plumber a would want someone who was corgi (or whatever it is now) registered, if i wanted a builder i would look into standards of the construction industry and want someone qualified/trained and recognised by a professional body as competent and so on and so forth, and if a wanted an arborist/consultant, the same goes. It is this however were we are back at square one with so many professional bodies

 

So, if it was me, and i was in charge at a governmental level i would emalgamate (spelling) the professional bodies we have at present into one "trade organisation/council" that we all need to be registered to (no matter what vein of the industry we work in) to be able to trade. This trade organisation/council would then be affiliated with the already existing ICF which would change its name to the Institute of Chartered Foresters and Arboriculturists. The newly named ICFA would be the voice for our industry in the government for acts and legislations, educating the public on what are industry is and the standards needed for trading, and having the Chartered Arb status for those that need it. The new trade organisation/council would look after its members in regards anything from work issues to ident issues and everything in between. It should in my eyes be compulsory to be a member to trade as a tree surgeon/arborist/consultant/tree officer and the like, this (once the public knew more about the industry due to the newly formed ICFA) would stop most have a go hero's or at least give them a structure to adhere to.

 

There is no one magic solution that would solve the problems we have over night but as the arb industry grows, the younger more open-minded thinkers (not trying to be ageist here) will gradually take up positions that will allow something like this to happen and things to be less fragmented.

 

 

 

 

Mmmm that was quite a long one but i feel it is something that is acheiveable, it might not be a solution that pleases everybody but nothing ever is:001_rolleyes:

[treeseer]

Belonging to them all to stay in touch sounds like a great ideal but I could not do it in the US context. We have ISA for the individual, TCIA for the companies, and ASCA for the consultants. I quit the latter 2 as it was just too much to try to participate meaningfully in all 3. Just paying dues and getting newsletters etc does not seem worthwhile imo. Merger won't happen here--too many competing interests and fears of jobs lost--so instead we have wasteful overlapping certs and initiatives, and a diluted industry voice.

 

In this era of globalization I would tend to agree it would be ideal for AA to merge with/become the UK&I *I*SA chapter, as the best way to merge efforts with folks in other countries. If that is people can look beyond their own short-term interests.