Brits talkin about Brit stuff
- Thread starter ROLLACOSTA
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
Yellow Fox
ArboristSite Lurker
Regulation is a form of taxation anyway that you look at it. Just think where a fair proportion of the fees that are paid end up! And thats after various parties have had their cut - often all within the public sector loop. Anything to do with H+S is an easy target. Just wait for the arguments - if it save just one life its worth it - maybe, but the cost implications of 3 yr refresher courses is huge. What follows? A yearly refresher? Anybody want to estimate the costs of putting all their staff through through refresher courses for every module that they have completed. Of course, this type of thing can only be applied to legitimate companies, because the grinning clots at the HSE can only track THEM down. Looks like the Dodge City brigade are free and clear again!!
nohope
ArboristSite Lurker
you don't have to get personal Yellow Fox, It may not be easy for us to catch up with the dodge city brigade in amongst the rest of our work (there are fewer field operational inspectors in the country than MP's and we have to cover every industrial and agricultural premises) but that does not mean that some of us do not try. I do resent being refered to as a 'grinning clot'
Debate about whether refresher training is a good or bad thing, and whether that should need 're-certification' is the sort of debate I came in here for. I know I will get some flack but it doesn't have to be personal.
Debate about whether refresher training is a good or bad thing, and whether that should need 're-certification' is the sort of debate I came in here for. I know I will get some flack but it doesn't have to be personal.
stumpy66
ArboristSite Operative
why do not HSE stop it at source....(taking the devils advacate view) say that only people with training can,
a) purchase chainsaws
b) perform tree work with, and only with the relevent license...or ticket...
simple....like tpo's fine the person performing the work....
if you have not the ticket, cannot be employed....
this will not work of course.....goverment not interested...tree work undervalued...
so we kick the ass of tree workers...but do not realise that most of the people in the stats as injured are not qualified anyway.....
i am happy to work within the law as long as it works for everyone....(i do work with in the law anyway)......but competing (not so much as the tree folk) with other with less overheads...ie less training/legislation overheads..
a) purchase chainsaws
b) perform tree work with, and only with the relevent license...or ticket...
simple....like tpo's fine the person performing the work....
if you have not the ticket, cannot be employed....
this will not work of course.....goverment not interested...tree work undervalued...
so we kick the ass of tree workers...but do not realise that most of the people in the stats as injured are not qualified anyway.....
i am happy to work within the law as long as it works for everyone....(i do work with in the law anyway)......but competing (not so much as the tree folk) with other with less overheads...ie less training/legislation overheads..
blue
ArboristSite Operative
oh whoopee do more money to spend on re-assesment if this becomes law.i'm self employed and i know there is no way i could afford to do this.
i worked out last year how much to do all the NPTC's i have.from memory it was over £5k in course's and nearly the same in lost wages.
my guess for re-assesment for me would about £1k and 2 weeks lost pay.
if this happens then :censored: it i'll buy a caravan and transit and off i go a travelin'
i worked out last year how much to do all the NPTC's i have.from memory it was over £5k in course's and nearly the same in lost wages.
my guess for re-assesment for me would about £1k and 2 weeks lost pay.
if this happens then :censored: it i'll buy a caravan and transit and off i go a travelin'
stumpy66
ArboristSite Operative
why not, if you cannot bet them....join em....
highpoint-utd
ArboristSite Operative
well now the way things are going it seems that the arb industry is doomed to over regulation and they wont be happy till there aint no decent tree lads left,so when an unsafe tree hits some lovely passerby on the head who they gonna call not us :monkey:
highpoint-utd
ArboristSite Operative
while were at it ,why dont the bulding firms get mithered to death by the hse theres more lunatics than you can shake a stick at in the building game .stihl grinders for instance ? no chain brake ,so aint gonna stop quickly in the event of an accident .and the amount of brickies ive seen cutting bricks with apair of trainers on with the brick under there shoe is unreal .no nptc for them i see .i suggest someone gives puwer a shout and lets see what he has to say .nptc's aint the only training route to go from my conversations with puwer .
Well here's one for the HSE - Any idea how many roadworkers are killed each year....
And yet are reported as RTA's, not industrial deaths?
HSE are going to get a real shock when they work that one out...
And yet are reported as RTA's, not industrial deaths?
HSE are going to get a real shock when they work that one out...
stumpy66
ArboristSite Operative
hey, guys...steady now...with a socialist government (tax collecting cooperative...whatever) someone will suggest next that we have a properly representative council.......or union......hang on...some one check that we havent already!!!
Yellow Fox
ArboristSite Lurker
The use of statistics ti reinforce and justify new regs should always be treated with suspicion. All to often they are highly selective and taken with a skewed approach - usually to fit the already decided conclusion. Any impartial examination of these 'facts' could only conclude that far too much new and reviewed regulation is part of a process of obsfucation designed to provide the continuance of cosy pensionable positions and an ever increasing income stream.
No Hope; I am sorry that you take my comments personally, they were meant generally. But as my mother said, " If the cap fits...................."
No Hope; I am sorry that you take my comments personally, they were meant generally. But as my mother said, " If the cap fits...................."
Big A - this is an extract from a post i posted in Oct 2005
"The issue of re-certification is one that has been visited many times by both NPTC and the HSE many times, but so far has been rejected by all involved, primarily as the industry would not accept this. NPTC have made it clear that to attempt to do this at this time would be a logistical nightmare and if they had maybe done this from the start in time of the development of the certs of comp then this wouldn't be an issue! Literature produced and guidance sought from the HSE does reccommended professional users undergo refresher training every five years and the discussion has been had as to whether this refresher training could be added to an NPTC i.d card, this also presents problems and is unlikely at this time to happen. Certs of comp and evidence of update training will provide a portfolio for the end user that meets the requirments under the PUWER regulations."
However they may well have moved the goalposts, the system is changing in regard to how technical standards are maintained so you never know. I've asked a few questions to the poeple i know i will get a straight answer from, so if i hear anything i will let you know.
"The issue of re-certification is one that has been visited many times by both NPTC and the HSE many times, but so far has been rejected by all involved, primarily as the industry would not accept this. NPTC have made it clear that to attempt to do this at this time would be a logistical nightmare and if they had maybe done this from the start in time of the development of the certs of comp then this wouldn't be an issue! Literature produced and guidance sought from the HSE does reccommended professional users undergo refresher training every five years and the discussion has been had as to whether this refresher training could be added to an NPTC i.d card, this also presents problems and is unlikely at this time to happen. Certs of comp and evidence of update training will provide a portfolio for the end user that meets the requirments under the PUWER regulations."
However they may well have moved the goalposts, the system is changing in regard to how technical standards are maintained so you never know. I've asked a few questions to the poeple i know i will get a straight answer from, so if i hear anything i will let you know.
The way I was told was that re-assessment every three years is definitely on the way, if you dont do them then you dont work for the main contractors, sure you'd be ok on the private work. HOWEVER, if you do happen to have PLI, then you'd have to disclose proof of training for cover, fair enough, but thats how they'll get you via the back-door. Of course, could always let the tickets lapse, drop the PLI and say PooH! to authority and work for cash. Once again the little man pays through the teeth.
Acer
ArboristSite Operative
Big A said:
Where are they going to find all the trees to be assessed on? If everyone's going to have to go through every unit again every 3 years, there won't be a tree left standing in the whole country. I suppose that's the idea, turn the country into a treeless desert, and watch the tree work accident stats fall.:bang:
You couldn't make this stuff up
hi guys, am new to site
Only found this site a couple of days ago, just like to say hi and how useful the info has been. Have been cutting for 10 years and climbing for 5, mostly utility stuff (lines and rail), just blew a knee ligament and landed behind a desk temporarily with the job of sorting my firms training- dont know whats scarier, desk work or trying to work out the nest that is NPTC/LANTRA/HSE/insurancce demands! Keep climbing, keep smilin!
Only found this site a couple of days ago, just like to say hi and how useful the info has been. Have been cutting for 10 years and climbing for 5, mostly utility stuff (lines and rail), just blew a knee ligament and landed behind a desk temporarily with the job of sorting my firms training- dont know whats scarier, desk work or trying to work out the nest that is NPTC/LANTRA/HSE/insurancce demands! Keep climbing, keep smilin!
Acer
ArboristSite Operative
nohope said:
Thanks for the reply nohope.
I take the point on safe systems of work. When I did have employees, I always had difficulty trusting them to work safely on their own, and I can see how dangerous practices can creep in in larger firms with more people with no policy or guidance on how to go about things.
So, having done the risk assessment as in the previous post, and you or another inspector came across me using my 020T (with both hands, as I described) for the specific task of cutting off stake tops, what would you do?
Personally I would want to look over your safe system of work or method statement for the operation being undertaken, justifcation for the operation of such machinery on a risk assessments merits only would mean a very detailed RA to be produced.
So info ..... Method Statements:
Section 2 (2) (a) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 requires the provision and maintenance of safe systems of work that are, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe without risks to health.
Where a Risk Assessment has identified that certain hazards cannot be eliminated and risk factors remain during the task, a safe system of work will be required.
Safe Method of Work Statements (Method Statements), are one way in which Safe Systems of Work can be formally defined and recorded, enabling the employer to fulfil his legal obligations through providing information and instruction to his employees whilst keeping a formal record of Company Safety Management.
Method Statements provide a sequence for carrying out an identified task safely and they usually contain more detail than Risk Assessments.
Contractors should be required to define the way in which they intend to execute tasks which have inherent safety, health or environmental risks attached to them. This is best done by producing a Method Statement. Generalized Method Statements are sometimes submitted during the bid stage of a contract. These often prove to be of little use when it comes to carrying out the work, and job specific Method Statements should always be provided where the hazards warrant a statement being produced at all.
Key features of competent Method Statements include:
1. Identification of the individual(s) who are responsible for ensuring compliance with the Method Statement, including deputising arrangements.
2. The qualifications/training/experience of those permitted to carry out the type of work and any special training for the specific job.
3. Specification of the personal protective equipment and safety equipment to be used.
4. Definition of the safe means of access to and from the work location, including permanent platforms, scaffolds (hand rails, toe boards, etc.), mobile towers. Requirements for barriers and notices to limit access to safe areas also need to be spelled out.
5. Identification of the safe access routes for plant and equipment, especially in congested areas and taking into account the need to maintain emergency access routes.
6. Locations for equipment and material storage and handling and security arrangements.
7. Equipment required to carry out the work, how it will be provided and what inspections need to be identified, including cranes, slings, etc.
8. Definition of the sequence by which the work will be carrried out and any limitations to part completed work, e.g. need for temporary guys.
9. The need for any temporary works to be provided and the responsibility for their competent design.
10. Consideration of the impact of weather and limitations to working in adverse conditions.
11. The Method Statement should generally indicate how risks are to be avoided, including those to other workers and the public at large, and to this end, it is useful if it prohibits bad practices, which are known to exist in the industry or can be anticipated on this particular job.
12. It is important to ensure that acceptance of the Method Statement by NERC does not detract from the contractors responsibility for his own Health & Safety performance.
So info ..... Method Statements:
Section 2 (2) (a) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 requires the provision and maintenance of safe systems of work that are, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe without risks to health.
Where a Risk Assessment has identified that certain hazards cannot be eliminated and risk factors remain during the task, a safe system of work will be required.
Safe Method of Work Statements (Method Statements), are one way in which Safe Systems of Work can be formally defined and recorded, enabling the employer to fulfil his legal obligations through providing information and instruction to his employees whilst keeping a formal record of Company Safety Management.
Method Statements provide a sequence for carrying out an identified task safely and they usually contain more detail than Risk Assessments.
Contractors should be required to define the way in which they intend to execute tasks which have inherent safety, health or environmental risks attached to them. This is best done by producing a Method Statement. Generalized Method Statements are sometimes submitted during the bid stage of a contract. These often prove to be of little use when it comes to carrying out the work, and job specific Method Statements should always be provided where the hazards warrant a statement being produced at all.
Key features of competent Method Statements include:
1. Identification of the individual(s) who are responsible for ensuring compliance with the Method Statement, including deputising arrangements.
2. The qualifications/training/experience of those permitted to carry out the type of work and any special training for the specific job.
3. Specification of the personal protective equipment and safety equipment to be used.
4. Definition of the safe means of access to and from the work location, including permanent platforms, scaffolds (hand rails, toe boards, etc.), mobile towers. Requirements for barriers and notices to limit access to safe areas also need to be spelled out.
5. Identification of the safe access routes for plant and equipment, especially in congested areas and taking into account the need to maintain emergency access routes.
6. Locations for equipment and material storage and handling and security arrangements.
7. Equipment required to carry out the work, how it will be provided and what inspections need to be identified, including cranes, slings, etc.
8. Definition of the sequence by which the work will be carrried out and any limitations to part completed work, e.g. need for temporary guys.
9. The need for any temporary works to be provided and the responsibility for their competent design.
10. Consideration of the impact of weather and limitations to working in adverse conditions.
11. The Method Statement should generally indicate how risks are to be avoided, including those to other workers and the public at large, and to this end, it is useful if it prohibits bad practices, which are known to exist in the industry or can be anticipated on this particular job.
12. It is important to ensure that acceptance of the Method Statement by NERC does not detract from the contractors responsibility for his own Health & Safety performance.
Working at height (again) Regs
Picture this, large conifer hedge,( about forty feet tall) river on one side, and excavation spoil on the other to reduce to about 8 metres and side up. Kit available, climbing gear, saws and long reach hedgecutters and A-frame ladders. Uneven ground along the entire length of the hedge,( once I'd had the spoil removed). I feel that the safest way to do the job is to hire in a cherry picker. The company I worked for cant afford it on the price, the company who subbed out the work couldnt afford it on their price, although my feeling is that it would take far lees time with the c/p than climbing etc. The site manager, (for a large building contractor) says go by the method statement as he wasnt even sure of the safety aspects for arb work. Re-read method statement, doesnt actually describe how the job should be carried out. Im just a temp subbie, given the kit for the job and the relevant paperwork and sent on the job with no prior site visits to check it for myself. Legally, where would I stand if the fan gets a dusting of the brown stuff, surely others are in this scenario. Opinions please.
Picture this, large conifer hedge,( about forty feet tall) river on one side, and excavation spoil on the other to reduce to about 8 metres and side up. Kit available, climbing gear, saws and long reach hedgecutters and A-frame ladders. Uneven ground along the entire length of the hedge,( once I'd had the spoil removed). I feel that the safest way to do the job is to hire in a cherry picker. The company I worked for cant afford it on the price, the company who subbed out the work couldnt afford it on their price, although my feeling is that it would take far lees time with the c/p than climbing etc. The site manager, (for a large building contractor) says go by the method statement as he wasnt even sure of the safety aspects for arb work. Re-read method statement, doesnt actually describe how the job should be carried out. Im just a temp subbie, given the kit for the job and the relevant paperwork and sent on the job with no prior site visits to check it for myself. Legally, where would I stand if the fan gets a dusting of the brown stuff, surely others are in this scenario. Opinions please.
ROLLACOSTA
Addicted to ArboristSite
I would say Andy if it went TIPS-UP you would be PART responsible no one put a gun to your head and said reduce the hedge with rope and harness..
My god talk about regulation /legislation gone absolutely mad,I don't even understand half of it and i'm a company owner..
Its as though a new load of BS is made up on a weekly basis..
My god talk about regulation /legislation gone absolutely mad,I don't even understand half of it and i'm a company owner..
Its as though a new load of BS is made up on a weekly basis..
Buzzlightyear
ArboristSite Operative
pete mctree said:
EXACTLY that's what really pisses me off
We spend 10-12hr days running our company and instead of down time in the evening we are obligated to spend hours trying to find out what new bollox laws we are breaking !! This is why I alone do all our climbing, if i kill myself there's only me to blame :biggrinbounce2:Similar threads
