This is part of a discussion on the NASC posted on Linkedin by Terry Withers of The Admiral Scaffold Group.
Please read and comment.
You can find the whole discussion on Linkedin - The Scaffolding Market Place.
Although I agree with every word Terry says I have no connection at all with either Terry Withers or the Admiral Scaffold Group.
Terry Withers • We at The Admiral Scaffolding Group used to be members of the NASC. We left because a fellow director at the time did not want to continue membership. When he left we re-applied. Our application was refused because we had insufficient PAYE staff. We are as qualified as any NASC member to perform scaffold undertakings but their ruling, which is contrary to employment law, means that we cannot become members.
The NASC infers, in its website, that only NASC members guarantee a good product and this attitude is endorsed by many main contractors. This is a restriction of trade that is promoted by the NASC to the detriment of all other companies. I have witnessed numerous examples of NASC scaffolds not being erected to TG20:08 or using the methods of SG4:10 . Let us all get real, we all employ from the same labour pool so the chances of an operative changing his practices overnight is not real. He will get us into trouble as much as his last employer or his next one.
The NASC is meant to represent our industry. Unfortunately it has spent more time pandering to the Main Contractor's Group, the Health and Safety Executive and the Insurance Companies than looking after us.
With regard to TG20:08, why have we tried to regulate our traditional scaffold to conform with the systems scaffolds that are available? We are not comparing apples with apples; okay both of these provide access but so do mastclimbers and power cradles but everyone with half a brain realises that these supplies require their own set of regulations that relate to the service they offer. So why have the NASC thought that it is correct to try to assimilate our business with system scaffolds? By the sheer nature of system scaffold the design is regularised, standards spacings, lift heights, etc. traditional scaffold is often erected as a rule of thumb where the odd couple of millimetres either way does not affect the stability of the structure. What we have now though, are specifics which the world and his dog can look at and measure and claim that a scaffold does not conform whilst we experts know full well that it is fit for purpose. This has all come about as a result of European legislation. What our association should have done rather than try to fit our round peg into their square hole was to lobby for us to be distinguished from, rather than conformed to, these regulations.
At the same time as the HSE, in association with the NASC were producing their directive regarding designed scaffolds, the NASC missed another "once in a lifetime" opportunity for scaffold contractors. I know of no other trade who are asked to quote on something and hope that what it quotes for would latterly appear on a design. Can you imagine a tender to an electrician that read "Please quote to put all power and light into my new building". Yet this is precisely what happens within our industry. The NASC should have written into TG20:08 that it was the responsibility of the contractors to get a scaffold designed prior to tender. This could then have been issued at tender stage which would have meant that we were all pricing the same interpretation of the scheme. The spin-off from that would be that any alterations in the scheme would easily be picked up and ultimately strengthen our position when it came to getting paid for a variation. The reality is we now guess at the requirements because we cannot go to the expense of having a design drawing done for each tender and even if we did there is no guarantee that this design would be what the contractor really wanted. End result - all liability and cost to scaffold contractor. Good move NASC!
Then we get to the delicate issue of SG4:10. In the introduction to this document the NASC proudly boasts that in 2009 13,124 scaffold operatives achieved 20 falls from height. This is a great reduction from the 93 in 1999 and the NASC must be heralded for their introduction of the use of harnesses. What the figures of 2009 tell you though is that in 27,297,920 manhours worked by scaffolders there was an accident every 1.36million hours. To put this into perspective you scaffolders can expect to suffer a fall from height every 653 years. Be careful. It should be noted that none of these accidents proved fatal. Why in the world therefore did the NASC decides to issue a whole new set of guidelines to try to further improve this? It should have patted itself on the back and pointed out to the construction industry that we are far from being a most dangerous member; indeed we are one of the safest. By issuing this document we have once again fallen into the trap of trying to compete with system scaffolds which have the feature of an advanced guardrail system in place. The outcome is that labour costs will rise by about 15% plus the kit that will need to be purchased, which will not work outside of a display theatre, will costs around £380 per operative.
Scaffolders become scaffolders because they want to use their hands. If they had wanted to be chemical engineers they would have stayed at school and studied. They chose not to. Now the NASC has issued a 60 page document to tell them how to actively stop the fall they may experience every 653 years. Perhaps the NASC should have been the ones to leave school early. If you look at the committee that prepared this guidance it is hardly surprising that the content is as it is, there is a vested interest. Two of the companies sell and use system scaffolding, one company represents the interests of the insurance industry and would not give a hoot to the practicality of the situation as long as it reduces their paymaster's risk and a further input came from the HSE.
These guidances will increase the cost of scaffolding by anything up to 35%, the question is, "Who is going to pay?” If you ask the contractor they will all too readily quote that we must conform to TG20:08 and SG4:10. So NASC, a good day’s work at the office, your members should be very proud of your achievements. Let us all hope that in 2015 we are not looking at accident statistics that exceed those currently being achieved because it will be a costly exercise for all concerned.
Since October 2011 Siobhain McDonagh, the Labour Member of Parliament for Mitcham and Morden, has been requesting a meeting with the NASC to discuss this dilemma. To date both Gerry Cooper and Robin James have refused this.
NASC A managing director's opinion.
