Nasc

[PW]

I have read all the comments about the NASC and was about to prepare a long winded answer based on our experiences but I thought I would keep it pretty brief, these are my own personal views and in no way that of the company I represent.

Audit Process
Having an Auditor from the same region that your company trades in is flawed, no matter how upstanding the person claims to be there will or will be perceived by the Auditee a level of self intrest. In regard to the cost of application I would suggest it is excessive, if I were a cynical person I would think that due to high failure rate this is a very nice cash generator.

Current NASC Members
In our region (South Yorkshire) I see on a daily basis NASC members continued non-compliance issues, the very same actual issues that would deny an applying company membership, in one particular companies case just about every job you see, and yes before anyone asks, we have sent pictures of their work to the NASC on numerous occasions and to our knowledge they are still members. To me this is double standards, these companies in my view joined the organisation when basically all you had to do was pay the subs, now they judge on the very same standards they dont comply too.

NASC Literature
I agree the organisation has invested heavily in the TG and SG Series, however, correct me if I'm wrong but dont they charge for this information? I think a TG20:08 is currently around £100+ for a non member, furthermore, they have the subs which I think will swell the coffers quite nicely.

In summary, from my experience, its an Old Boys Club who want as little new membership as possible so they can carve up the gullible PC's that have been frightened/talked into specifying members as their only scaffold contractors basically trying to form a cartel under the pretence of Health, Safety & Quality which in many cases their members are not any better and are indeed worse than Non -Members.

 

[Dazzc]

PW,

I take my hat off to you. You get the points raised in my original post but you have put them into words a lot better than I did.

 

[kendodd]

while were at it why does doddy who has a advanced ticket need to do a two day appreciation course to work with cuplock and haki its rediculas,pathetic very unnessesery who decided this just doent getit some t#wats on the take ???no fu#kn way am i payin for this ,comeon owenup !!

 

[frederik]

It is rediculous Doddy,but different systems ,different training, Under hse guidelines no training means yur aint competent.

 

[kendodd]

well in protest tomorrow i will be working of a two board run supported by 3 trannys,single handrail minus the stop end ,no harness,no hard hat, overalls replaced by a pair of cutdown wranglers a welly on one foot and a trainee on theother time for change the old style lets get back to basics lads before our spanners or your toffeehammer end up in the river.

 

[phil181]

I have read all the comments about the NASC and was about to prepare a long winded answer based on our experiences but I thought I would keep it pretty brief, these are my own personal views and in no way that of the company I represent.

Audit Process
Having an Auditor from the same region that your company trades in is flawed, no matter how upstanding the person claims to be there will or will be perceived by the Auditee a level of self intrest. In regard to the cost of application I would suggest it is excessive, if I were a cynical person I would think that due to high failure rate this is a very nice cash generator.

Current NASC Members
In our region (South Yorkshire) I see on a daily basis NASC members continued non-compliance issues, the very same actual issues that would deny an applying company membership, in one particular companies case just about every job you see, and yes before anyone asks, we have sent pictures of their work to the NASC on numerous occasions and to our knowledge they are still members. To me this is double standards, these companies in my view joined the organisation when basically all you had to do was pay the subs, now they judge on the very same standards they dont comply too.

NASC Literature
I agree the organisation has invested heavily in the TG and SG Series, however, correct me if I'm wrong but dont they charge for this information? I think a TG20:08 is currently around £100+ for a non member, furthermore, they have the subs which I think will swell the coffers quite nicely.

In summary, from my experience, its an Old Boys Club who want as little new membership as possible so they can carve up the gullible PC's that have been frightened/talked into specifying members as their only scaffold contractors basically trying to form a cartel under the pretence of Health, Safety & Quality which in many cases their members are not any better and are indeed worse than Non -Members.

A couple of points mate.

I think that a copy of TG20:08 is £135.00 for non-NASC members and about half of that for members.

I think it's a fairly reasonable price considering that it cost around £600,000 to produce. Contrary to poular opinion, money does not materialise out of thin air.

Nobody is under any obligation to adhere to it's guidance, so if anyone thinks it's sh1t, why would they want to buy a copy?

Just put together your own scaffolding manual....

 

[dangeruss]

A couple of points mate.

I think that a copy of TG20:08 is £135.00 for non-NASC members and about half of that for members.

I think it's a fairly reasonable price considering that it cost around £600,000 to produce. Contrary to poular opinion, money does not materialise out of thin air.

Nobody is under any obligation to adhere to it's guidance, so if anyone thinks it's sh1t, why would they want to buy a copy?

Just put together your own scaffolding manual....

Actually Phil I have done just that ! I am going to call it "Freebie 20 oh ah" its took a couple of evenings now to compile. I used Lego and Knex for the practical stuff and Mechano for some of the more complex stuctures.

I'm thinking of a starting price of £3.25 seeing as I did a lot of research in between watching the Champions leauge. Anyway it loads better than the other thing and you dont even have to join NASA

 

[scaffoldingsafetyservices]

A couple of points mate.

I think that a copy of TG20:08 is £135.00 for non-NASC members and about half of that for members.

I think it's a fairly reasonable price considering that it cost around £600,000 to produce. Contrary to poular opinion, money does not materialise out of thin air.

Nobody is under any obligation to adhere to it's guidance, so if anyone thinks it's sh1t, why would they want to buy a copy?

Just put together your own scaffolding manual....

.
Does that incorporate the price of the balls up they made of TG20:05 Phil


.
Regards

Ian

 

[phil181]

Actually Phil I have done just that ! I am going to call it "Freebie 20 oh ah" its took a couple of evenings now to compile. I used Lego and Knex for the practical stuff and Mechano for some of the more complex stuctures.

I'm thinking of a starting price of £3.25 seeing as I did a lot of research in between watching the Champions leauge. Anyway it loads better than the other thing and you dont even have to join NASA

So are you suggesting that a group of individuals compile an alternative scaffolding guidance group?

Sounds a bit 'elitist' to me mate....

Oh yeah and I'm not thanking you until you thank me. Rules are rules.

---------- Post added at 08:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:26 PM ----------

.
Does that incorporate the price of the balls up they made of TG20:05 Phil


.
Regards

Ian

No, but I haven't seen any alternative ideas.

 

[dangeruss]

So are you suggesting that a group of individuals compile an alternative scaffolding guidance group?

Sounds a bit 'elitist' to me mate....

Oh yeah and I'm not thanking you until you thank me. Rules are rules.

---------- Post added at 08:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:26 PM ----------



No, but I haven't seen any alternative ideas.

God, thats 3 lots of thanks I gave you there mate, my fingers killing me.

My new thingy is actually better than the other thingy, admittedly its got some baked bean juice on page 2,but its all there. It even mentions the old catch all "Right is tight" you know when you do things up with your spanner.

Anyway I revised the wwl on loading bays, now there aren't any as nobody bothers anyway. Fans, cantilevers, gantry's all out don't need em mate. Standard spacings have changed to "as long as both arms stretched out".Ties have also changed, you don't need them either.

Anyway I'm giving it away, buy the book. Incedentally I also cocked up my first go but after 10 minutes or so I realised I had spelt kantalever wrong and hey presto ! job done

 

[Dazzc]

A couple of points mate.

I think that a copy of TG20:08 is £135.00 for non-NASC members and about half of that for members.

I think it's a fairly reasonable price considering that it cost around £600,000 to produce. Contrary to poular opinion, money does not materialise out of thin air.

Nobody is under any obligation to adhere to it's guidance, so if anyone thinks it's sh1t, why would they want to buy a copy?

Just put together your own scaffolding manual....

This gets back to my original point. The NASC consists of around 200 companies' but the material and guidelines are taken as gospel by safety officers and site managers. I would put money that if we put our own version of SG4 on our method statement, we wouldn't be allowed on site unless SG4 was mentioned by name.

 

[phil181]

God, thats 3 lots of thanks I gave you there mate, my fingers killing me.

My new thingy is actually better than the other thingy, admittedly its got some baked bean juice on page 2,but its all there. It even mentions the old catch all "Right is tight" you know when you do things up with your spanner.

Anyway I revised the wwl on loading bays, now there aren't any as nobody bothers anyway. Fans, cantilevers, gantry's all out don't need em mate. Standard spacings have changed to "as long as both arms stretched out".Ties have also changed, you don't need them either.

Anyway I'm giving it away, buy the book. Incedentally I also cocked up my first go but after 10 minutes or so I realised I had spelt kantalever wrong and hey presto ! job done

Russ, are you not over complicating things here?

These documents are a peice of piss to put together. Surely you just need to get together a handful of scaffolders who clearly don't understand the complexities of compiling this type of guidance and just write on the back of an old sign board "We've been scaffolding for ages, so we know what we're doing"

Who can argue with that?...

---------- Post added at 08:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 PM ----------

This gets back to my original point. The NASC consists of around 200 companies' but the material and guidelines are taken as gospel by safety officers and site managers. I would put money that if we put our own version of SG4 on our method statement, we wouldn't be allowed on site unless SG4 was mentioned by name.

That's because it's the only qualified guidance available.

 

[dangeruss]

Russ, are you not over complicating things here?

These documents are a peice of piss to put together. Surely you just need to get together a handful of scaffolders who clearly don't understand the complexities of compiling this type of guidance and just write on the back of an old sign board "We've been scaffolding for ages, so we know what we're doing"

Who can argue with that?...

---------- Post added at 08:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 PM ----------



That's because it's the only qualified guidance available.

Slow down mate, let me write that down, seriously now mate its easier than you think. All I did was throw a few hastily prepared ideas in the air, got some unqualified people to agree with my ill though out scrawlings ,put the whole thing down on a plan thingy, kick any other rival guidance into touch as i didn't like some bits of it and guess what ? TG20: 08 is looking a bit better !

 

[phil181]

Slow down mate, let me write that down, seriously now mate its easier than you think. All I did was throw a few hastily prepared ideas in the air, got some unqualified people to agree with my ill though out scrawlings ,put the whole thing down on a plan thingy, kick any other rival guidance into touch as i didn't like some bits of it and guess what ? TG20: 08 is looking a bit better !

Good idea mate.

Now, let me see. Let's just imagine that I'm a Project Director for, say, Carillion. Which contactor should I offer my scaffolding tender package out to, with TWO choices, each company using a different guidance document?

It would be a tough decision...

 

[dangeruss]

Good idea mate.

Now, let me see. Let's just imagine that I'm a Project Director for, say, Carillion. Which contactor should I offer my scaffolding tender package out to, with TWO choices, each company using a different guidance document?

It would be a tough decision...

Me me me , oh go on , we are mates .... go on ... be ya best friend ...

 

[PW]

You two crack me up!! Genuinely Laughing Out Loud!!

In regard to TG20:05...I was at an NASC regional meeting (Midlands Region, when I worked for a different company and I was the allocated person to attend the meeting) when they rolled the document out, it was presented by one of the boffins who had been commisioned to research/prepare etc...I thought then what a load of old tosh...They only did it to conform with European Standards hence the EN, tell me a European Country that has the same scaffolding capabilty as the UK? It should have been Europe adopting BS5973!! You cannot tell me that the scaffolds we have been putting up for eons have always been inherently dangerous, if thats the case why werent we having mass collaspes every single day?? Once again, if I were a cynical man I would suggest someone within NASC sensed a commercial opportunity and jumped on it, hawked the idea around to the PCs, HSE etc and voila!! We have all to abide to it.

 

[Dazzc]

Would I seem to be cynical if I suggested that the NASC couldn't survive financially from just members subs and selling their overpriced guides?

Would I be out of order if I suggested that they like to keep changing and revising guidelines and procedures so people will have to buy the newer and revised versions?

Ker-ching ££££££££££££

 

[phil181]

You two crack me up!! Genuinely Laughing Out Loud!!

In regard to TG20:05...I was at an NASC regional meeting (Midlands Region, when I worked for a different company and I was the allocated person to attend the meeting) when they rolled the document out, it was presented by one of the boffins who had been commisioned to research/prepare etc...I thought then what a load of old tosh...They only did it to conform with European Standards hence the EN, tell me a European Country that has the same scaffolding capabilty as the UK? It should have been Europe adopting BS5973!! You cannot tell me that the scaffolds we have been putting up for eons have always been inherently dangerous, if thats the case why werent we having mass collaspes every single day?? Once again, if I were a cynical man I would suggest someone within NASC sensed a commercial opportunity and jumped on it, hawked the idea around to the PCs, HSE etc and voila!! We have all to abide to it.

So what's the alternative idea then?

 

[Dazzc]

So what's the alternative idea then?

In all seriousness, what was so fundamentally wrong with BS5973 that it had to be changed so radically?

Also, as has been mentioned in earlier posts, if EN relates to a european standard, how come most of us in this forum have seen criminal standards of scaffolding when we have been to spain or greece etc?

 

[phil181]

In all seriousness, what was so fundamentally wrong with BS5973 that it had to be changed so radically?

Also, as has been mentioned in earlier posts, if EN relates to a european standard, how come most of us in this forum have seen criminal standards of scaffolding when we have been to spain or greece etc?

Whilst doing research into the structural integrity of tube & fitting scaffolds, engineers discovered that these typical structures reacted completely differently when a load or stress was imposed on it, than what was originally thought.

The long and short of it is that this is what has led to the structural changes that are recommended in the recent two TG20 series.

The rest has some nonsense to do with the EU.