"Competent" replaced by "qualified"

Batm, This Information Is Not Wrong, This Will Happen Unfortunately Maybe Its Time I Looked For Another Job, Because This One Is Fekked.

---------- Post added at 08:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:48 PM ----------

I Said This Would Happen About A Year Ago As Well Havespanner,(Cant Remember Being Condemed Though)
 
frederik said:
Thought assessed route closed a year back??
Click to expand...

As I reported on this forum from a meeting with the HSE they were not happy with this change because you could not control it.

Working at height is not just for scaffolders & this change would not happen due to the effect on other situations in which working at height would effect.

Minutes that were posted on here with the support of the HSE!

A case of brown envelopes again!!!
 
batm said:
Assessed route closed a long time ago.

But the guys who took this route did not have the so called training. It was an assessment of the scaffolders ability.

The test that should have been used for ECITB scaffolders.

Now you attend a course & they say you have been trained.

Qualified would need a training element hence the 10,000 scaffolders that took this route would be in danger of losing their ticket the next time it is renewed.

Cannot see how this change can be made.

1/ Who will audit the training centers?

2/ Who will grant the qualification?

3/ Will all scaffolders have to work for an NASC company.

I hope this information is wrong!
Click to expand...


Think about about it Stewart, they have now changed the wording so if you did the assessed route your qualified. Qualified apparently is word of the day with NASC , which in turn is a result of the NASC sh1tting themselves has their sister company CISRS fecked up selling an assessed route course that did not fit the regulations. I can't wait to see the new WAHRs , to see if it still contains the word trained and then contradicts with the word qualified.
You would have thought that the brains at CISRS would have picked up on this before they rolled the assessed route out, just goes to show the incompetence with the MD's at these training centres , selling courses that are not fit for purpose.
 
batm - not all scaffold companies are members of NASC, so I can see all of your points being accurate
We employ 400-800 Scaffolders and we are not members
I appreciate the smaller companies may see benifits; however the larger ones would be well out of pocket with the members fee
 
Cracking info there DS,took a while to digest. So Eictb and grandads rights still count??
So in "Qualified" theres no seperation between paper and assessed routes??
 
Qualified is qualified Fred , I suppose we will have to wait to see the exact wording. There is nothing stopping anyone erecting scaffolding as long as they can prove they are competent so an ECITB card is good enough if you can show specific training elements. CISRS cannot ban other training suppliers courses , they could tell the construction industry that they are inferior though although I'm not suggesting they do this. :)
 
Could it mean we could make a fortune in scaffold inspections tho???
 
The following has come from the people that write the policy or the ones that would make the change.

Quote

' Regarding the press release below, this is utter garbage, the facts are thus:
NASC were campaigning two years ago about wanting to change 'competent' to 'qualified'.
Nowhere does it reference 'qualified' in the regulations.
The WAHR implement an EC Directive, i.e. you can't change the regs without changing the Directive and there is no appetite in Europe to change the Directive and even if there was, it would take years as you need the agreement of all EU members states etc !!!
The WAHR were reviewed by 2013, as per Lofstedt. we reviewed the guidance in order to simplify them, the regs remained unchanged as research confirmed that people struggled interpreting the guidance not the regs.
Note NASC have not made an official statement confirming who in Government has agreed this or when it would happen anyway. '
 
That would make sense Stewart as if they changed the WAH regs then they would have to change every other regulation for the same.
 
All this to force people on to courses. What a palavar. Who else runs courses outside of cisrs??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom