NASC and they're 75% (soon to be 90%) employment criteria (1 Viewer)

lavish

Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Hello all,

The scaffolding firm i'm working for is finding that an increasing amount of companies are asking for scaffolders who are only NASC members. Our major downfall is that our scaffolders are all sub-contractors (approx 50men) and we can see no foreseeable way of taking on the required percentage on the books without severe financial problems. Luckily a number of our key clients have looked and found the idea unplausible due to the nature of our work (house building) but we are still being urged by some.

We have successfuly won ROSPA awards, and become members of SMAS etc. and feel confident we would pass NASC's strict membership criteria apart from this one item.

Do people have any views or are having similar problems?
 
Looked at it and seemed to restrictive , id say it was worth joining but then only if you are looking to work for Willmott Dixon Bam ect , none of these are major players in our area so cost wasnt worth it for us

We have Chas , and all the ISO certs
 
We are seeing that more and more companies are being given the NASC sale pitch at the top levels and are looking at adopting a NASC member only policy.

Again the employment criteria seems to have nothing to do with how good/safe/etc. the scaffolding firm are but more a restriction to keep companies out!
 
We are seeing that more and more companies are being given the NASC sale pitch at the top levels and are looking at adopting a NASC member only policy.

Again the employment criteria seems to have nothing to do with how good/safe/etc. the scaffolding firm are but more a restriction to keep companies out!

Hello lavish

For what it is worth most bonafide clients have a clause within their processes in that, when stating NASC members only it is solely on the basis that member company's have been audited and proven to adopt competent standards. The clause being NASC members OR contractors able to demonstrate similar/better standards as being acceptable. Otherwise the term NASC members only is a restriction of trade, especially when there are nonmembers that perform to similar standards.

My experience of this has seen me contact the client and requested an audit (at my expense!) a meeting to present the company's H&S based documentation, PL & EL insurance, SWP's and a copy of the wage role demonstrating PAYE staff. It also helps if you can also submit a more "cost-effective" quotation for the works or project at hand.:D

Suntzu.
 
of course asking for companies to be NASC members would certainly give the client a good ground to start on as these companies have been previously audited and proven competent by the trade association running scaffolding! Of course pretty much everything we tender has to be under TG20:05 but we have had a number of previous clients tell us as we are not NASC members we cant work for them (although they are still happy to use us as a tendering service).

NASC only has just over 200 member yet they seem to be signing up more companies to be using NASC members only. Here are some of the companys they claim only use NASC members . . BAM, WIllmott Dixon, Carillion, Costain, Lovells . . Persimmon Homes (which is odd because we are working for these now and have not seen one mention of NASC from them).

But anyway why the 90% employment rule?
 
of course asking for companies to be NASC members would certainly give the client a good ground to start on as these companies have been previously audited and proven competent by the trade association running scaffolding! Of course pretty much everything we tender has to be under TG20:05 but we have had a number of previous clients tell us as we are not NASC members we cant work for them (although they are still happy to use us as a tendering service).

NASC only has just over 200 member yet they seem to be signing up more companies to be using NASC members only. Here are some of the companys they claim only use NASC members . . BAM, WIllmott Dixon, Carillion, Costain, Lovells . . Persimmon Homes (which is odd because we are working for these now and have not seen one mention of NASC from them).

But anyway why the 90% employment rule?

The members (most of them that is) wanted the 75% to be increased to 100%, but the big players like SGB & Deborah Services whom carry a vast amount of clout within the NASC ensured that rule was not passed. Because they wanted to be able to use subbies for big projects and lay off without notice and subsequently not encounter financial penalties as a result of employing a straight PAYE workforce. It seems sense prevails and the smaller member companies are now getting their way so 90% increase change. I know there are companies that somehow legally manage to solely employ subcontract staff, but this situation is not seen as a legal option by HMRC. Companies are now being investigated by the HMRC that are using employment agencies to manage their subcontractor workforces and backdating NI contributions and applying massive fines to boot!! This situation has recently happened to a company called A&S from Marchwood near Fawley in Hants.

regards
Suntzu
 
As mentioned the company I work for uses solely sub-contract scaffolders. These men are not employed in anyway by the company i work for, they simply do the work we sub-contract to them. They have the option not to do this work as is they're right. These scaffolders can do as much or as little work as we can give them and are entitled to do sub-contract work with anyone else in the area. They all have contracts and invoice weekly the work they have done and are paid. They are all trained, carded etc by us to maintain our high levels of training.

The problems with taking these men on as employed members of staff would be
  • A fixed wage (we would definetly see a slow down in production)
  • We cant gaurentee work so it's possible they could be sitting on they're asses somewhere
  • holiday pay, sick pay etc etc.
  • transport to numerous sites over a large area
  • etc. etc.

In the downturn of the market in 97-98 if we had employed members of a scaffolding team we would not exist anymore.

I am yet to see a reason why NASC need this employment rule to be a member.
 
As mentioned the company I work for uses solely sub-contract scaffolders. These men are not employed in anyway by the company i work for, they simply do the work we sub-contract to them. They have the option not to do this work as is they're right. These scaffolders can do as much or as little work as we can give them and are entitled to do sub-contract work with anyone else in the area. They all have contracts and invoice weekly the work they have done and are paid. They are all trained, carded etc by us to maintain our high levels of training.

The problems with taking these men on as employed members of staff would be
  • A fixed wage (we would definetly see a slow down in production)
  • We cant gaurentee work so it's possible they could be sitting on they're asses somewhere
  • holiday pay, sick pay etc etc.
  • transport to numerous sites over a large area
  • etc. etc.

In the downturn of the market in 97-98 if we had employed members of a scaffolding team we would not exist anymore.

I am yet to see a reason why NASC need this employment rule to be a member.

Lavish

Who supervises these men on the various sites from your company?
How are these subbies covered by your companies insurance?
Being that they are not directly employed, who provides the RAMS documents for each specific project, who signs them and the daily toolbox/work allocation brief?
Who has overall responsibility for the subbies undertakings and actions on site and how is that demonstrated through documentation?
Who undertakes the company induction training and which company's SWP's & H&S policy is provided, signed for as understood and subsequently implimented on site?
Who signs of the completed works, provides a handover certificate to the client and is responsible for undertaking inspection and monitoring the subbies work from your company and how, where is that information recorded?

All the above are not an exhaustive list of requirements needing to be satisfied under HASAW & WAHR regs, but are easily demonstrable and legal requirments for a company directly employing its staff. This is not so easily covered by companies operating subbies only and is rarely complied with in totality. This is the reason why NASC member companies are required to carry the largest percentage of PAYE staff in its ranks, thus demonstrating acountability and accepting responsibility for those staff.
regards
Suntzu
 
wowsers! a lot of questions :)

I could answer each and every one but i dont think u are actually looking for a response but just demonstrating your point :) but yes all insurances are covered, H&S information covered etc etc.

We are in no way unusual in having the majority of our work completed by sub-contractors and infact it seems the more sensible option to do this in the current economic climate.

Forcing (well not really forcing but u catch my drift) companies to employ more scaffolders is again not beneficial ... i just think it's unjustified. at £500+£500 fees to just try and become a member and then approx £3k a year the least they could do is have a bit of flexibility.

If we, as a company can prove we do everything as as a company with 90% employment surely that should be suitable . . .

I just dont agree with it.
 
wowsers! a lot of questions :)

I could answer each and every one but i dont think u are actually looking for a response but just demonstrating your point :) but yes all insurances are covered, H&S information covered etc etc.

We are in no way unusual in having the majority of our work completed by sub-contractors and infact it seems the more sensible option to do this in the current economic climate.

Forcing (well not really forcing but u catch my drift) companies to employ more scaffolders is again not beneficial ... i just think it's unjustified. at £500+£500 fees to just try and become a member and then approx £3k a year the least they could do is have a bit of flexibility.

If we, as a company can prove we do everything as as a company with 90% employment surely that should be suitable . . .

I just dont agree with it.

I see your point lavish and cannot provide a counter argument to any of it on behalf of the NASC's joining, membership rules. If you are compliant, then you are compliant and should be a level playing for everyone to operate on.
regards
suntzu.
 
joining nasc

i dont know if its still the case but i know of one firm that joined purely because his insurance premiums came down that much they more than covered the fees. what about the site audits youve got some right numptys working for you i asked. the reply was ive only shown them your jobs, a compliment at last from a boss
 
I agree with the 90% as when I price against another member I know his overhead wage and NI is similar to mine. Anyone with subbies murders my price
 
Top Bottom