Sccr

Hi Skyhook

At this moment in time I do not have the Authority to name names, however, for those who read the recent posts will have sussed who Challenger 4 is…

You know then Skyhook
 
I know what's going one with one 'challenger' that's not to say there isn't another.
 
Skyhook

Aye, Challenger 4... there are Four of them…all heavy weights in their Field ( now their another clue ) not that you need it by now...
 
Interesting indeed, numbers need to increase and equal or exceed the oppositions for any real leverage though. Although in time they will.
 
aye, time is running out, with approx 7 1/2 Months before the CISRS CPD is brought into force Challenger 4 needs all the help and support it can muster to launch a realistic challenge…

The majority of Scaff thought that CPD was a step to far Challanger 4 are like minded…would make sense to join forces…
 
I don't think it will suceed unless a good majority make a stand.
I would imagine a generic skill test and continuous W@H training would be one alternative.
 
Skyhook…generic trade Test coupled with in-house Bolt-on Training in the particle Sector you find yourself employed in...
 
Have any lessons from the past been learned and actioned? If so, what were they and how do the big 4 intend to progress this time?

I personally would require a lot more information before deciding on anything.
 
lmk said:
Have any lessons from the past been learned and actioned? If so, what were they and how do the big 4 intend to progress this time?

I personally would require a lot more information before deciding on anything.
Click to expand...

Hi lmk

Ask the Question Bro ???
 
Hi Philliosmaximus

As yet I haven't asked Admin how to set one up, do you know how to set a pol up ???

Got to set out the case first before anyone can come to their own conclusion, however, it comes down to the Question : would you support an alternative route of competency…

They have reached out their hand to CISRS and they slammed the door in their face's…sound familiar eh ???, thats what they did to us exempt they kicked us in the Baz ana in the form of CPD...
 
Surely, an alternative route of competency is just another form of CPD in disguise, meaning no change whatsoever?
 
lmk

Alternative Route would include a form of on the job continuos skills development in the workplace…

The Scaffolders are not the only ones who are sick and tired of shelling out monies to CISRS…the Producers are asking questions of their Service Companies, why are their so many layers of Training, have we been brain washed into thinking that their is no other alternative to CISRS... can we as an Industry do it for our selfs, Regulate competency within the Oil and Gas Sector, make no mistake recent event have been driven by the Service Companies Pay Masters...

---------- Post added at 10:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 PM ----------

Hi Derryscaff

Aye, I'm just trying to get a consensus of opinion and if its time for change, I think its worth debating…

Thanks, its got my vote too…feckin sick of paying protection money to CISRS for the privilege to work…
 
A bit of competition can only improve things. I personally think a change is long overdue I just hope that people get behind it and it works for the better of the industry and not just another money making machine with no regard for the people they are supposed to be helping
 
I concur, but, change won't come by itself…it won't be a money making machine…competency compliance will be easier, backed up with in-house Training to gain a Trackable Record of Training…the Service Co's supply the Training…
 
Change will come relatively easily in the oil and gas sector, as in the most part, they always ignored NASC and all their guidance including TG:20 & SG4. They also refused to recognise the CITB card then later the CISRS card, preferring the ECITB card, and we all know how that turned up. Some service providers issued their own card, but added the proviso that you still needed to carry the CISRS card. There may of been much gnashing of teeth in private in some quarters, but not one registered any formal protest when the ECITB card was finally removed and a lot of experienced men were very much left to sort that little mess out for themselves. Now I'm to be polled on if I would back these same service providers, eh, no thanks, reminds me of the yanks choice, Trump or Clinton. :sick:
 
It's a good idea in principle but this challenge is not for the scaffolders benefit.
 
It certainly looks that way on first inspection.
 
lmk said:
Change will come relatively easily in the oil and gas sector, as in the most part, they always ignored NASC and all their guidance including TG:20 & SG4. They also refused to recognise the CITB card then later the CISRS card, preferring the ECITB card, and we all know how that turned up. Some service providers issued their own card, but added the proviso that you still needed to carry the CISRS card. There may of been much gnashing of teeth in private in some quarters, but not one registered any formal protest when the ECITB card was finally removed and a lot of experienced men were very much left to sort that little mess out for themselves. Now I'm to be polled on if I would back these same service providers, eh, no thanks, reminds me of the yanks choice, Trump or Clinton. :sick:
Click to expand...

Hi lmk…great post and I hear what your saying...

Change will come very easily the Oil and Gas Sector, the in-house Training Programs are of the highest Standards…

All of the Service Cos refer to NASC TG:20 and Safety Guidance Series, although only one of them are a Member of NASC…

I concur, the ECITB Scaffolders were dealt with very badly indeed…Scaffs didn't have enough clout and let David Mosley run rough shot…

Trump or Clinton : I like the analogy, do you think that it comes down to the lesser of two evils…better the Devil you know philosophy, keep things as they are ???

---------- Post added at 12:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:49 PM ----------

Skyhook…who's benefit is it for ???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom