Nasc (1 Viewer)

D

Dazzc

Guest
Apologies for starting a different thread about the NASC but I didn't want to take anything away from digsie's well made point.

Anyways, I'm sure I'm preaching to the already converted here. The NASC should be exposed for what they are. It seems to be a two bit organisation run on a shoestring with jobs for the big boys.

I work for a scaffolding company in the North East and we recently enquired about joining the NASC.
We were told we would have to pay a non refundable fee to have an assessment carried out. The assessment would apparently be carried out by someone from an NASC member company.
Is it just me but surely having one of your competitors sniffing through your paperwork isn't the most commercially sound ideas?

On another point, there are less than 200 members of the NASC. I read somewhere that there are around 4-5000 scaffolding companies' in the UK.
Can anyone explain how the NASC gets to dictate to the majority about new guidelines and regulations?

I'm all for an organisation that puts up a united front for this industry but unfortunately the NASC isn't and never has done that.
The NASC has the big company mentality where everything is done in meetings behind closed doors and the decisions of the meetings are forced on the rest of us
 
Dazzc

The only viable alternative to the NASC may be the SCCR.

Some where along the line the original National Association of Scaffolding Contractors has been corrupted---perhaps it is time to return to the original motive of the NASC which can be found within the SCCR Statement of Intent...

We can all do our bit to change this present culture of closed shop, old school tie, cartel mentality within the self appointed Regulators of our Industry, simply join the SCCR and get to work and supersede the NASC Technical Guidance, Systems of Work and Procedures ect ect ect...

Garry...
 
Apologies for starting a different thread about the NASC but I didn't want to take anything away from digsie's well made point.

Anyways, I'm sure I'm preaching to the already converted here. The NASC should be exposed for what they are. It seems to be a two bit organisation run on a shoestring with jobs for the big boys.

I work for a scaffolding company in the North East and we recently enquired about joining the NASC.
We were told we would have to pay a non refundable fee to have an assessment carried out. The assessment would apparently be carried out by someone from an NASC member company.
Is it just me but surely having one of your competitors sniffing through your paperwork isn't the most commercially sound ideas?

On another point, there are less than 200 members of the NASC. I read somewhere that there are around 4-5000 scaffolding companies' in the UK.
Can anyone explain how the NASC gets to dictate to the majority about new guidelines and regulations?

I'm all for an organisation that puts up a united front for this industry but unfortunately the NASC isn't and never has done that.
The NASC has the big company mentality where everything is done in meetings behind closed doors and the decisions of the meetings are forced on the rest of us

A few points about your post mate.

Firstly, why would the NASC offer a refunadable fee for carrying out an audit on a prospective member? The guidlines for joining are clearly set out at the enquiry stage and regardless of whether that particular company is successful in thier application or not, then money still needs to be found from somewhere for the auditors time and expense. This is how businesses and other orginisations (Including 'not for profit' orginisations) pay for their staff and other business expenses like offices, stationary, computers, the office cleaner etc.

Secondly, the NASC doesn't dictate anything to anyone. It's the only recognised voice of the scaffolding industry and has invested millions of pounds in guidance documents and training manuals. Nobody in the industry is under any obligation to join, follow or utilise any of this work that the NASC has produced.

Thirdly, 'decisions of the meetings' are made by NASC members. It would be a bit silly to let anyone else make decisions on their behalf. It would be a bit like Greenpeace letting The National Arts Council have a vote at their board meetings. Does the SCCR allow a non-member a vote at their meetings?

Lastly, nobody is stopping anyone else from setting up a scaffolding industry body or producing their own technical scaffolding manual, or SSOW guidance, or training structure. But you're not going to find the £Millions needed by offering free audits to your prospective members.

Have a go yourselves if you think you can do better. I don't really care either way, I have no involvement in the NASC, nor do I want to. But slagging and bitching about it isn't going to help your cause.
 
Although you have to pay to have an assessment carried out, surely it is better that a trade membership body actually inspect your work? I'm aware that certain roofing trade membership bodies make you pay to be a member and do not even inspect, which seems to defeat the whole object.

Many insurers' (including ourselves) also give you additional discounts for being members of the NASC.
 
fair point phil,but they millions they have invested in producing all there technical guidance has to have come from somewhere mate,i personally think(with all the data and stories collated on here)that the nasc is very elitiest,its also absurd that we have this organisation representing the scaffolding industry when the majority it claims to represent has no input or chance of input...........on the other hand ive spoken to members who wax lyrical on being inclusive of its membership,i think a little more openness is needed all round.
 
fair point phil,but they millions they have invested in producing all there technical guidance has to have come from somewhere mate,i personally think(with all the data and stories collated on here)that the nasc is very elitiest,its also absurd that we have this organisation representing the scaffolding industry when the majority it claims to represent has no input or chance of input...........on the other hand ive spoken to members who wax lyrical on being inclusive of its membership,i think a little more openness is needed all round.

I disagree mate.

The NASC is open to all scaffolding contractors and affiliated companies in the UK who can meet the required critera for membership.

How is that any more elitist than any other trade industry body or group? That is exactly what the SCCR are proposing - An audit to ensure that the company applying for their membership is up to the required standards. How is that any different to the current NASC model mate?

Agreed that the SCCR is allowing individual membership to scaffolders, but at the end of the day these major changes to our industry are on the whole being client driven (as I'm sure our friends at Anglia Insurance will testify)

The HSE will be pleased to discuss any issues with the SCCR to tick a few boxes and demonstrate their ability to talk to 'the man on the ground' and listen to their concerns, but that's where the relationship will end.

My point is that the HSE/CISRS are not the people to be approaching if you're gonna make any sort of impact to current working practices. The relationship needs to be built up directly with the 'clients' who employ the sevices of scaffolding contractors - not the other way round.

They are the ones who are dictating the employment of NASC contractors on their jobs, or at the very least contractors who follow NASC guidance - Because they have no other alternative at the moment!

But that's not the fault of the NASC.

I hope you get the point I'm trying to make mate.
 
That has been started a long time ago.

I have had meetings with three large construction companies that are country based. They point you back to the HSE.

That is why we have the meetings with the HSE & are producing working guidelines focusing on legislation along with practicality of the job you are doing which will be based on the four sectors with input from a clients needs.

As you have indicated Phil this is not an over night challenge but it is work in progress.

Stewart
 
nasc lol all they do is ponder all year round to think what they can change in the sg and tg to justify bringing another book and ruleings.
ie 2010 5 transoms to a 13ft board
mmm 2011 6 transoms to a 13ft board
mmmm 2012 7 transoms to a 13ft board
and so on and so on.
 
What about periodic inspection and certification for the scaff step.
 
nasc lol all they do is ponder all year round to think what they can change in the sg and tg to justify bringing another book and ruleings.
ie 2010 5 transoms to a 13ft board
mmm 2011 6 transoms to a 13ft board
mmmm 2012 7 transoms to a 13ft board
and so on and so on.

hasnt it been 5 transoms to a board for ages cos you have to put a tranny on the standard which usually makes 5?
 
That has been started a long time ago.

I have had meetings with three large construction companies that are country based. They point you back to the HSE.

That is why we have the meetings with the HSE & are producing working guidelines focusing on legislation along with practicality of the job you are doing which will be based on the four sectors with input from a clients needs.

As you have indicated Phil this is not an over night challenge but it is work in progress.

Stewart

Stewart

In fairness, that's what the NASC have done.

Do you think that the NASC (Which is basically made up by a load of scaffolding contractors) want to adopt these practices and systems which have been slowly introduced in the last 10-15 years? Of course they don't! It costs them time, effort and money.

These guidance documents have been introduced to appease a client base that will not accept fatalities, riddors or other minor injuries on their jobs. They are insisting that all health damaging scenarios are designed out of the scaffolding methodoligy as much as possible. If this cannot happen then they will just look at alternative access solutions. They don't care about some scaffolder who doesn't like the safety step because it's a pain in the a*se to carry about. They don't care about some scaffolder who doesn't like wearing a harness because it rubs against his b0llocks. All they want to do is keep their insurance premiums to a minimum and to keep their arse's covered.

The industry has been forced to adopt these measures, or potentially see the end of the scaffolding industry as we know it. The NASC has done it's upmost to keep these procedures to an 'acceptable' level and they have spent huge sums of time and money in coming to a solution that the client pool is happy to accept. Unfortunately 'acceptable' has got a little bit out of hand.

It's going to take an absolutely superb idea to convince any of these individuals to put their neck on the block and sanction a significant change to the current standard practices within the scaffolding industry.
 
Over the last year I have been told the changes were down to the HSE. NASC did not want these changes & the HSE pushed for it.

Go to the HSE & they say NASC advised for these changes.

Go to the construction companies & they say they have to enforce whats in the guidelines (SG) but see it now as over the top. Not cost effective hard to control.

No middle ground & three main contributors to the current changes stood in a triangle pointing saying he did it :worried:
 
Credit where its due, good logic there Phil. I have always been of the opinion that over the top safety is insurance driven, of course if you mention that to safety officers their aghast, some of them consider their job as a vocation. On another note, has Nasc ever withdrawn membership of a company for non compliance other than for lapse payment of membership.
 
Dont know how true it is but i have heard companies from NASC have a prohibition on them if they do find anything wrong, dont know how long it lasts. or if its true!
 
Credit where its due, good logic there Phil. I have always been of the opinion that over the top safety is insurance driven, of course if you mention that to safety officers their aghast, some of them consider their job as a vocation. On another note, has Nasc ever withdrawn membership of a company for non compliance other than for lapse payment of membership.

I reckon definitely Brandy
 
Top Bottom