IPAF, PASMA, CSCS, JIB etc.

[bigclive]

IPAF, PASMA, CSCS, JIB etc. I'm getting sick of all these "certifications" with 3 or 5 year expiry dates. It now costs hundreds of pounds a year just to be "allowed" to work.

 

The IPAF, PASMA and CSCS certificates are patronising twaddle. You're not expected to resit your driving test every three years, so why do you have to do it for a less sophisticated piece of equipment?

 

This is just blatant protection-money racketeering, and I'm getting sick of it. Especially when the scaffold and access equipment supplied by "PASMA and IPAF approved" suppliers is often not fit for use.

[pjb304]

Agreed I've often wondered why such tickets expire. I can understand it when it comes to first aid training, as that's (hopefully) not something you use regularly.

[brainwave-generator]

Completely agree. Was driving pickers daily from 2006 to 2010, but still had to go and get my ticket renewed for £170 in 2011.

 

It's just a money making thing. The worst are many things aren't even 'renewals', you have to do the whole course every 5 years.

 

That said, none of these are 'compulsory'. They're privatised, and there is no law saying you can't drive a picker without an IPAF. Employers use it as an easy workaround for their responsibilities under the HASAWA. So your companies are just as much to blame as those who run the schemes.

[gordontech]

This is another point where legislation screws people around.

 

 

If your insisting on having a qualification then have ONE qualification, you can still have lots of suppliers. Just have ONE thats legally recognised. I hate it.

 

 

 

I attended 7 training courses under a previous job and recieved certificates that are only recognised by their parent company. Opting in to all of these courses and spending my days off sitting exams only to have all of my "new skills" (old skills a.k.a. common sense) simply certified is a joke.

[madorangepanda]

The certificates themselves aren't the main problem. The employers that insist you have them are.

 

Most of the associations that provide the training have created a monopoly. There are other people who provide similar courses that are often better, more flexible so that they can be tailored to the work you do. And most importantly cheaper. But when an employer doesn't have a clue and says it "must" be a certificate from so and so, then there is a problem.

 

The HSE have admitted that they would prefer there to be several main training bodies in any one field as it encourages competition and an improvement in standards of the training provided.

 

@bigclive It is a legal requirement that a supplier gives you access equipment that is up to standard, along with any necessary instructions. If it is not get the HSE on to it, PASMA are also pretty hot on this.

 

Disclaimer: I work at an access equipment supplier, but we do not provide our own training courses. Using both PASMA and non-PASMA training companies to do this where appropriate.

[Seano]

This is another point where legislation screws people around.

 

No it isn't, the source of the screwing around lies elsewhere - there's no legislation requiring any of those tickets.

(And certainly no legislation requiring you to renew them when they "expire".)

[bigclive]

The problem is that when you go on construction sites they do ask for them. Not that I go on construction sites any more (to the annoyance of NL who wish I would), since the retarded health and safety politics of companies like Balfour and Carillion were approaching bullying. I get the feeling that if I was ever involved in an incident with a cherrypicker then a lawyer would instantly use the lack of a current IPAF "certificate" to imply that I was driving without a "licence".

 

Here's a picture of an 80 foot Geni cherrypicker supplied by Hewdens crane hire. As you can see the cage is rusted right through right above the safety harness attachment point. Many Scottish hire companies get the offcasts from their English divisions. The use of Hewden for the hire of the unit was most certainly not my choice. Cranes fine, cherrypickers no.

http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk164/bigclivedotcom/random/IPAF.jpg

[bigclive]

A friend has just mentioned an alternative to IPAF training in the form of LANTRA mewp (Mobile Elevated Work Platform) training. It's aimed at the road building and construction industries, so it's a strong possibility as an alternative. It certainly looks a lot deeper than the frivolous Powerpoint presentation that IPAF charge 200 quid plus for.

[Simon Lewis]

Doesn't the whole training issue arise from HASAW and PUWER - where there is a requirement to ensure that work equipment is used only by "people who have received adequate information, instruction and training "? The ACOP suggests refersher training as necessary...

[bigclive]

The refresher training as necessary bit doesn't really justify every three years. Can you honestly recall when there was a major change in a cherry picker or scissor lift that made you look at a manual? I've been using them for 30 years and apart from the fact that the internal electronic control systems in them have changed, there have been no major non intuitive user changes.

 

Now cars on the other hand. Lots of big changes there, and they have no upper speed limit. So does that justify making people resit their driving test every three years? I'm sure the management of these racketeering self appointed standards agencies would be unhappy with that.

[kerry davies]

Agreed, Simon but it has been corrupted. The employer does need to ensure competence, part of which is training, but a ticket demonstrating training is a short cut for employers assuming that tickets prove competence. Other elements of employer duty are support and supervision which, if carried out, would allow him to judge competence rather than assume it.

 

I've banned, and most of us have experienced, the ticketed forklift driver who is a lethal liability and I know amazing drivers who have never seen a ticket. Yes the ACOP suggests re-training but only "as necessary" and an employer who does not supervise his staff cannot judge that.

 

Training/tickets are only one third of competence and without skills and practice of those skills are worth little. This is where Seano's "screwing around" is sourced, in employers who do not understand that they too have duties to support and supervise their staff and misinterpret the word competence as the word ticket carrying. (Opinion.)

 

One of the messages from the report on TDS's is the lack of toolbox talks and supervision on our sites. It's a hint. When that report states that our management structures are a bit "fluid", that too is a hint.

 

Clive, you could try reporting that cherry picker to the local authority or at; HSE I was BT trained over 40 hours on MEWPs, was given one, used it every day, was supervised regularly and never considered for re-training. This too is a management failure, clive. Re-training without assessment by employers is worthless.

[bigclive]

Maybe this is an issue to approach BECTU with, since it does appear that these self appointed approval organisations have set an unrealistic re-training time purely for their personal profit. It does make me wonder how many fully competent individuals have been denied work as a direct result of this.

 

Maybe BECTU cards should also carry skill endorsements like the back of the JIB cards do.

[ramdram]

Nobody mentioned Insurers.

 

It may be that "the" Insurer insists everyone is ticketed for everything conceivable otherwise no cover. Pointless to do the bash the employer thing if the employer has to comply with the insurers' conditions? There again it is the insurers's risk.

 

For all we know Insurers are hand in glove with the "training and certification industry" to extract more cash??? Or am I just being cynical?

 

Recently we were obliged to have the alloy structure (supports the canopy over our venue) tested in order to renew the "buildings" insurance. Some young lady engineer pitched up from some testing consultant outfit with some device (was not there regrettably) which she clipped onto the stanchions and pronounced the alloy perfectly sound (been there for 20 odd years) and was able to attest to the structural integrity of the framework.

 

It was the insurers who insisted on this test btw.

[kerry davies]

Clive, watch this space, skills cards have been on the menu for a couple of years and are in process. The PSA has been working toward an agreed method of introduction for a while. I believe BECTY and/or ABTT are in discussions. Bit out of the loop these days.

 

 

BECTY????? BECTU obviously.

[bigclive]

But of course what we DON'T want is a suite of new "qualifications" that we are forced to "do" to be allowed to work or avoid being replaced by newbie college kids. <_<

 

Nobody mentioned Insurers.

 

It may be that "the" Insurer insists everyone is ticketed for everything conceivable otherwise no cover. Pointless to do the bash the employer thing if the employer has to comply with the insurers' conditions? There again it is the insurers's risk.

 

For all we know Insurers are hand in glove with the "training and certification industry" to extract more cash??? Or am I just being cynical?

 

I've got no problem having some form of certificate to show I have experience in access equipment. It's just the having to pay through the nose every three years that is the issue. And as mentioned elsewhere, there should be competing qualifiers to ensure competition.

 

I think there's been a history in the past of self appointed standards agencies presenting themselves to insurers as being official, and as soon as that happens they can charge whatever they like. That's pretty much how the NICEIC started.