Register of Tree Work Operatives

[Gareth Dalzell]

Sorry gareth, I am unfamiliar with other schemes or the history of other schemes trying to be established.

No problem, this scheme is up, running and live. Lantra will be aware of it.

The model is good, it was adopted from the petroleum industry of all places, took about two years to tailor and get everyone on board. A mandatory requirement of key H +S units and government backing helped. It would be worth looking into as there is little new to be learnt or created, most industries adopt and tailor their schemes.

[treequip]

Oops... See it aint easy picking out all these questions, its an annual fee chap

 

They call that under prepared, where is the website???

[jaime bray]

You werent the one dodging the question and if its a freebei I will be the first to evaluate the scheme for you, as long as you are happy it will stand scrutiny but I am still unclear as to what benefit it will be to the individual

 

Where is the website, where can I read more about this???

 

In tonys defence he is developing the technical content for the scheme, its a massive task, one which i hasten to add he is doing voluntarily. Resulting in him not having time to come in arbtalk as often as im sured he'd like to answer questions

 

A lot of the work will be done voluntarily, there will inevitably be some aspects that can not be completed without capital injection but a lot of people are giving up their time to try and see if this can get going.

 

I know,,,,, you didnt ask them too, but just to diffuse the whole whos turning their ford focus into a maserati mindset.

Edited January 23, 2013 by jaime bray

[treequip]

In tonys defence he is developing the tewchnical content for the scheme, its a massive task, one which i hasten to add he is doing voluntarily.

 

A lot of the work will be done voluntarily, there will inevitably be some aspects that can not be completed without capital injection but a lot of people are giving up their time to try and see if this can get going.

 

I know,,,,, you didnt ask them too, but just to diffuse the whole whos turning their ford focus into a maserati mindset.

 

 

So the technical content isn’t complete and getting done voluntarily (read slowly) but you are launching the scheme anyway?????

[Andy Clark]

Andy,

 

 

 

You mention you were involved in setting up a similiar scheme, would you mind telling me in your opinion why the scheme never got going. You have my email address please do send it privately if you wish.

 

 

 

Many thanks

 

 

Jaime,

 

There are a couple of reasons really -

 

The first being timing. It was shortly before the AA announced they were reviewing the AAAC scheme. Plus you had Andy Burgess launching the Trustmark accreditation scheme also. Simply a case of too much other stuff going on to detract from the launch.

 

The other was the day to day business model. In short, whilst we could all agree on the model for the membership criteria and the "ethos" of the scheme, we could never finalise how we should actually run it as a "business". I.e, should it be set up as a trust, a charity, a not for profit, limited by guarantee etc. We just lacked that particular person who could be a "dragon" (from the den) and point us in that particular direction.

 

 

 

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

[Andy Clark]

If you mean will somebody have to be employed to administer the scheme then yes admin staff will be required. If you mean will they be typing into a diamond encrusted keyboard then rest assured the timber cutter/arborist will be the benefactor, as the scheme is envisaged to benefit them and their industry, to professionalise it and establish recognition of the experience ,skills and quals and most importantly time served within the industry that they have.

 

There really is no alterior motive within the R2 scheme. I wouldnt be involved in this if it was about making a quick buck, I love arboriculture, i know nothing else, and since starting my educational 'journey' 7 years ago it has been made aware to me by numerous individuals within a complete variety of sectors within the industry how the industry is not seen by other industrys as professional.

 

Question to all, What in your opinion really makes a profession? what makes us professionals? do we tick the boxes of what professionalism really equates to in the real world? not a wikipedia search but the real world?

 

If we can start to establish some form of professional standards framework for arboriculture then we are heading in the right direction.

 

It is unfortuante that the software is not completly set up yet as I do believe that were you to 'trial' it and see how the scheme is intended to work then it may alter your opinion.

 

There will be a pilot scheme run over the next 6 months by the way.

Thanks for the feedback. Much appreciated.

 

All the feedback is being fed back to the R2 team and is being considered daily.

 

 

Jaime,

 

That is soooooooo the wrong mentality to hold regarding "professionalism", and one that many of us already disagree with the AA standpoint on.

 

One is a professional if they make a living from their undertakings. Pure and simple.

 

I do not need to be a member of the AA to be a professional arboriculturalist. I am already one because I make my living from my daily undertakings as one.

 

An argument that many of us have held with the AA for many years, is with the way they proclaim membership leads to professionalism - thus the flipside by default being one that implys those who aren't members, aren't professional.

 

The point is one that "professionalism" gets confused with "excellence". The two are VERY different!

 

And I reference that same point to Tony's comments earlier regarding professionalism also.

 

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

[Andy Clark]

It is interesting that the term 'needs' has been mentioned. When I was thinking about the idea of a grading scheme some 5 years ago I came to the conclusion that we all need to be recognised for the skills we have. I am not an academic and exams are a real struggle for me, that said I have managed to make it through several to now have a reasonable 'academic' CV but that does not in anyway reflect the level of 'experience' I have in the field. That said this is still and industry, at least at the practitioner level and also, but perhaps to a lesser degree at the professional level, (I use these terms loosely to differentiate those who do and those who talk about it) that respects experience over academic qualifications. The problem we have as practitioners is how we prove that experience and measure it. Even in the courts my practical experience carries as much weight as chartered status.

 

 

 

The more that I have helped tree businesses tackle the challenges of H&S compliance and third party accreditations over the past 10 years the more I realised that we really need some way of differentiating between the well qualified new entrant and the well qualified old hand. Equally we also need to find a way of recognising the 'soft' skills derived over the years such as customer liaison, supervision etc. Furthermore we needed to the attend to the motivational needs of practical arborists as they progress in the industry.

 

 

 

Hence the concept of a stepwise grading system that recognises specific task experience, time served and training/qualifications. Take this a step further we are a fragmented industry that struggles to be recognised professionally in many ways because we are an industry of individuals or micro businesses. Enter the concept of a national register of INDIVIDUAL operators that will at least help to recognise our skill levels as well as unify it under a single register (albeit that is perhaps like herding cats). We all suffer from the jobbing tree hacker but this will hopefully raise the bar and enable a more unified industry to promote itself more effectively.

 

 

 

Now here for me is the key, this is about meeting individual needs but in so doing meeting the needs of businesses, clients and other interested parties. Pie in the sky, perhaps but it is worth a try.....we just need industry backing a some money to roll it out.

 

 

 

I see the many posts about this topic and I know I have not answered all the questions but hopefully some. I will try to respond to other queries in a more concise manner.

 

 

Tony,

 

Please don't get me wrong. I fully and wholeheartedly agree with your mentality and rationale behind this. I just don't agree that this is the right mechanism to achieve what you think it will.

 

Several years ago, I ran a national panel of "approved contractors" for a very large and well known consultancy practice. In it's prime, it was similar in size (by way of numbers of companies on that panel) to the AAAC. In running the panel, I discovered some VERY worrying things about this industry.......

 

The "membership" criteria of that panel, as I've already highlighted within this thread, was set purely to alleviate the liability of "recommending contractors" . Nothing more than a baseline level of recognised competency certificates for relevant staff, and a blanket of relevant H&S policies plus the appropriate level of insurance for the company.

 

I NEVER found anyone that passed that criteria. Not fully at least. And believe me, there was some BIG names on that list..... Even some well known AAAC's.

 

But yet these were supposedly the basics! This level of criteria was what was supposed to be something that all contractors and folk within the practical arm of the industry should have had already!

 

And that, I truly believe, is the mistake that you're making. You're not recognising the industry as it actually is. By all means, the scheme may well be another on the list of "would be nice to have's", but I promise you, the industry NEEDS something else first.

 

 

 

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

[Andy Clark]

Tony,

 

Please don't get me wrong. I fully and wholeheartedly agree with your mentality and rationale behind this. I just don't agree that this is the right mechanism to achieve what you think it will.

 

Several years ago, I ran a national panel of "approved contractors" for a very large and well known consultancy practice. In it's prime, it was similar in size (by way of numbers of companies on that panel) to the AAAC. In running the panel, I discovered some VERY worrying things about this industry.......

 

The "membership" criteria of that panel, as I've already highlighted within this thread, was set purely to alleviate the liability of "recommending contractors" . Nothing more than a baseline level of recognised competency certificates for relevant staff, and a blanket of relevant H&S policies plus the appropriate level of insurance for the company.

 

I NEVER found anyone that passed that criteria. Not fully at least. And believe me, there was some BIG names on that list..... Even some well known AAAC's.

 

But yet these were supposedly the basics! This level of criteria was what was supposed to be something that all contractors and folk within the practical arm of the industry should have had already!

 

And that, I truly believe, is the mistake that you're making. You're not recognising the industry as it actually is. By all means, the scheme may well be another on the list of "would be nice to have's", but I promise you, the industry NEEDS something else first.

 

 

 

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

 

 

And to just add Tony, that is from the perspective of someone exactly as you mention......

 

20 years experience, minimal academic quals, but managed to work my way from dragging sticks, to climbing, to contract management, to college lecturing, to finally LA tree officer. And some fairly lofty achievements along the way.

 

I don't NEED recognition for that, more than I WANT to see an improved and unified uk industry.

 

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

[Minotaur]

Still not sure how the scheme is operated

 

Mr A Rb applies, to join one off joining fee? How much?

Yearly subs? How much? And then what, how does he prove what he's got??

 

How are you going to quantify experience and ability? -

 

Scenario A

Arb A has been in the job 5 years but is highly capable and experienced, Arb B has been in the job 20 years, however he hasn't climbed for 10 years, doesn't go on the saws much. How do you quantify that - purely by years worked?

 

Scenario B

Arb 1 has 10 years experience CS 30/31 38 & 39, hard worker

Arb 2, has 2 years exp bur has a bucket full of CS tickets

 

Who is to say one is better than the other, how do you quantify the level of exp and knowledge?, who and how do you actually confirm Joe Blogss has all his CS tickets, 15 years of experience, and how able he is?

How is it checked and who pays for it?

 

Just trying to understand

[Minotaur]

Quote: Jaime Bray

"Wow 30 years of on the tools skills gone out the window, never to be seen by an arborist again.

Construction industry does not lose experience in that way, and id rather climb a tree at 50 than dig footings all day, so why does arboriculture not recognise and appreciate time served experience."

 

Sorry Jaime, but it does!