H&S Standards Arb

[Arbocop]

well parkdale is part of glendale there a thing i did not know!! you know what they say assumtion and all that when the buisness card changed i assumed .......................

 

say n moor, suppose its a bit like the gohs t directors of the landscape partnership!!!

 

i also think its a little unfair on a number of people to give D OC all the credit for the chartered arborist status, a cyinic may look at aplication numbers in relation to employment model and suggest there is a link there, it is also strange when one goes for an interview for c arb to be asked questions about production forestry in the highlands still thell get there .........................

 

im really facinated by the "gray area" thing if it is in relation to the H&S stuff surley this reflects the assessment based models of health and safty that have been with us since the 74 act and slowly moved to away from the old perscriptive trappings of the factories act eg.

 

manuel handeling........... assess if you have to then if you must can you.. current way

 

old way

 

men can lift 100 hundred weight women helf hundred weight

 

or do you mean somthing else.......?

 

kev

[Tom D]

My point is Kev, the AA have said nothing that I have heard in the defence of rope access methods in tree work, they have produced a guide to working with MEWPs but have not told us when we can or should use one. At best they are sitting on the fence on this issue, at worst they are undermining the injdustry they supposedly represent. I want to know if i am breaking H+S law by not using a MEWP where it would be possible to do so? If I am then the AA has totaly failed in its duty to this industry.

The AA is drifting further and further away from the average contractor and only representing and supporting a vocal minority of generaly larger contractors who target a "high end" customer who will pay a premium for their services. Look in any yellow pages, the majority of the contractors advertising will not be AAAC, they will be everything from complete cowboys to quality firms who work to the same exacting standards as the AAACs but who haven't signed up for the self congratulatory pat on the back of joining the scheme.

A GOOD scheme would be inclusive NOT exclusive ie bring the less well trained less well run companies on board and help them to improve, not set the bar so high that many in the industry see the AAAC scheme as totaly un attainable. If necessary keep the sceme as it is and introduce an entry level scheme for the aspiring smaller firms. This is not sour grapes on my part, I nearly became AAAC 2 Years ago but decided that it would do little to help my business prosper as it is so poorly advertised, like many others on this forum I am confident that my professional standards are every bit as good as any one operating within the scheme, I just feel why pay for a pat on the back that will do nothing for my profits?

I can't imagine there is another industry in Britain where the trade organisation has such a poor reputation within its industry. There are plenty of companys out there whose standards are well below what our industry should expect and dare I say it some on this forum too. This is no reason to bury your head in the sand and pretend they don't exist, help them improve, and if they won't improve give your sceme some clout and publicity and shame them into shaping up and joining in. When every other customer asks "are you AAAC?" people like me will start taking an interest, untill then I'm alright Jack.

[Andy Clark]

well parkdale is part of glendale there a thing i did not know!! you know what they say assumtion and all that when the buisness card changed i assumed .......................

 

say n moor, suppose its a bit like the gohs t directors of the landscape partnership!!!

 

i also think its a little unfair on a number of people to give D OC all the credit for the chartered arborist status, a cyinic may look at aplication numbers in relation to employment model and suggest there is a link there, it is also strange when one goes for an interview for c arb to be asked questions about production forestry in the highlands still thell get there .........................

 

im really facinated by the "gray area" thing if it is in relation to the H&S stuff surley this reflects the assessment based models of health and safty that have been with us since the 74 act and slowly moved to away from the old perscriptive trappings of the factories act eg.

 

manuel handeling........... assess if you have to then if you must can you.. current way

 

old way

 

men can lift 100 hundred weight women helf hundred weight

 

or do you mean somthing else.......?

 

kev

 

 

Hmmmm.... how best to reply.....

 

Firstly, the Do'C bit...

 

Not at all, i'm well aware that others were involved and didn't mean to sound like i was trumpet blowing.

 

And agreed, the ICF route perhaps isn't best (yet).... BUT, compared to the SocEnv route that our main industry org is pushing, is it at least not a step in the right (better) direction??

 

I mean, Rome weren't built in a day, right, but surely most of us in the industry would prefer to be aligned with Arb than enviro?? Even if it was in title alone??

 

O.k... if SocEnv is deemed better/more relevant than ICF, then why not at least push SocEnv for Chartered Arb status??

 

 

 

And as for the grey area bit.....

 

Not really sure if the manual handling issue is perhaps the best analogy (personally i think there's much bigger and yet simpler fish to fry at the mo)....

 

The point i'm trying to make is that no matter what H&S part/segment/issue/regulation/act is, the leading body should be the ones who are at least seen to be setting the example/standard, OR leading/helping the industry in how best to comply in A DEFENSIBLE manner, rather than be the ones to add to the confusion.

 

Take Tom D's MEWP scenario for example... The bottom line is, if using a MEWP, imo what the AA SHOULD be saying is ...

 

"Though shalt have NPTC unit CS47, and though shalt have the relevant IPAF cert comp. Though shalt also be using said MEWP wherever is deemed practical in line with both the required quals and the WAH regs." (or words to that effect)

 

But what do we get??

 

"Here's a guideline, for which we'll charge you a tenner" (in a belligerent tone)

 

A guideline?? A GUIDELINE???? Don't we get enough of those direct from the HSE as it is, without the industry orgs adding to it??

 

And wouldn't the industry orgs acheive so much more by helping/ defining/teaching the rest of us, how best to "defensibly" comply with the original guideline??

 

NO, basically, they wouldn't. Because that would create a level playing field, and therefore ultimately lead to competition to their more prestigious AAAC's.

 

I mean, you don't hear warehouse forklift drivers moaning that they they have to do the forklift licence.... you especialy don't find them reading through reams and reams of "guidelines", only to be expected to decide for themselves what the relevant course of action is.... NO, they have a licence, and they drive a forklift... SIMPLE!

 

 

 

Cast your mind back Kev, to the matter of "Positive action stop controls" on chippers 10-12 years ago.... God, what an uproar THAT was at the time...

 

A new ruling brought in, by the former inspector of factories who was responsible for bringing in those big red "STOP" buttons you now find beside industrial warehouse/factory machinery...

 

But who was the leading light in that scenario??

 

Contractors??

 

The industry orgs??

 

Or was it the chipper manufacturers themselves??

 

 

 

Who should it have been???

 

 

 

(Sorry mate... 4 beers, beats red wine hands down! )

[Andy Clark]

Here's a good point.....

 

If the industry orgs were doing there job properly, the following thread wouldn't even have to be asked......

 

http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/large-equipment/8915-does-apply-you.html

[Arbocop]

My point is Kev, the AA have said nothing that I have heard in the defence of rope access methods in tree work, they have produced a guide to working with MEWPs but have not told us when we can or should use one.

 

guide to good climbing pracice

 

facilitated the resurch with lantra and nptc that alllowed for the shede 5 (i think thats the number) examption for risk assessment based use of single v double working.

 

it must be said with both of those the isa were also invited to help.

 

At best they are sitting on the fence on this issue, at worst they are undermining the injdustry they supposedly represent. I want to know if i am breaking H+S law by not using a MEWP where it would be possible to do so?

 

so from this what im reading is clear indicators of where mewp use would be appropriate and were it would not. as this is risk based in the legislation and tied in to a hiarachy the best you would get is a serise of examples and rules like if the tree is really knakered dont climb it, tell the customer when getting prices to say to others dont climb it and tell the hse u think it should nor be climed and you are concerned the client may ignore that advice?????

 

can be arranged .

 

A GOOD scheme would be inclusive NOT exclusive ie bring the less well trained less well run companies on board and help them to improve, not set the bar so high that many in the industry see the AAAC scheme as totaly un attainable. If necessary keep the sceme as it is and introduce an entry level scheme for the aspiring smaller firms.

 

an excelent idear, in fact i belive paul smith at the aa has been resurching this for a little time now, the trust mark sheme was looked at.

 

This is not sour grapes on my part, I nearly became AAAC 2 Years ago but decided that it would do little to help my business prosper as it is so poorly advertised, like many others on this forum I am confident that my professional standards are every bit as good as any one operating within the scheme,

 

and i dont belive for one second that it is sour grapes, aaac, trust mark, guild of master craftmen, what ever acreditations there are none of them are a one size fits all and although it would be great to be totally inclusive it will be a very hard one to do.

 

, help them improve,

 

at a personal level i think thats why i like teaching

 

 

ive enjoyed this thread, and you have given me an idear or two

 

happy arb

 

kev

[Arbocop]

Andy

 

i was micfor, but let it laps, it offered at the time nothing for me, times have changed and im re lookiing, but if we take say some one like and y cowan i rather feel that soc en would suit him better.

 

"Though shalt have NPTC unit CS47, and though shalt have the relevant IPAF cert comp. Though shalt also be using said MEWP wherever is deemed practical in line with both the required quals and the WAH regs."

 

you and i both know that if any organisation did that there would be uproar as it flys firmly in the face of the way current legislation is written.

 

whilst i understand the sentiment i think ill walk away from this chat now as this one point could run and run and run

 

lookikng at the above posts prhaps the thing im picking up is peole would like some clearer information on when ill get done when i wont, what factors to consider etc.

 

now that ill give some thought

 

cheers

[Andy Clark]

ive enjoyed this thread, and you have given me an idear or two

 

 

Hmmm.... interesting....

 

 

Fancy a beer and a chinwag sometime Kev??

[Arbocop]

can do andy not sure where in the world you are but i get all over mail me on the e mail below and well sort the world out

 

kev