Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 59

Thread: SCCR to call ECITB meeting

  1. #21
    ragscaff's Avatar
    ragscaff Guest

    Default

    Phil most contractors don't accept the ECITB card now & have not for a long time. All we have asked for is clarity.

    The question of refunds etc.

    Why do you think no one wants to talk about the deals that were done.

    The whole situation has been poorly handled by all concerned. Should be interesting to say the least. But I do not expect any of the invited to turn up.

    Stewart

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,971
    Thanks
    1,038
    Thanked 1,717 Times in 1,075 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ragscaff View Post
    Phil most contractors don't accept the ECITB card now & have not for a long time. All we have asked for is clarity.

    The question of refunds etc.

    Why do you think no one wants to talk about the deals that were done.

    The whole situation has been poorly handled by all concerned. Should be interesting to say the least. But I do not expect any of the invited to turn up.

    Stewart
    Nor do I!
    Cientos aplicados, seis fue elegido!!!

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    kent
    Posts
    3,523
    Thanks
    2,962
    Thanked 1,850 Times in 1,204 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simian View Post
    Don't bite my head off either but if the ECITB card scaffolders get a deal do all the ones who attended training get a refund
    questionaires are out there wouldnt want to be the person that rights out the cheque!!!
    harp stays sharpe to the bottom of the glass!! if you can remember that your old too

  4. #24
    ragscaff's Avatar
    ragscaff Guest

    Default

    Crazy idea I know, just want to make sure the same is not going to happen to ASRE guys & try & get some answers for the ECITB guys.

    When ever I talk to people about this issue I am asked have I treid contacting the powers to be, yes I have & this is another attempt.

    Stewart

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,971
    Thanks
    1,038
    Thanked 1,717 Times in 1,075 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ragscaff View Post
    Crazy idea I know, just want to make sure the same is not going to happen to ASRE guys & try & get some answers for the ECITB guys.

    When ever I talk to people about this issue I am asked have I treid contacting the powers to be, yes I have & this is another attempt.

    Stewart
    Maybe 'the powers to be' will decide that all the CISRS ARE lads will need to start from scratch.

    That'll make you popular....

    ---------- Post added at 07:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:46 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by phil181 View Post
    Maybe 'the powers to be' will decide that all the CISRS ARE lads will need to start from scratch.

    That'll make you popular....
    As an after thought, this can only go one of two ways.

    First way, will be that the ECITB continue to ignore you, in which case you will have to take your argument to court (if you can find the resourses to do this) It will probably take even the daftest of Judges about 5 minutes of flicking through the WAH Regs 2005, to dismiss your case and award costs to whoever it is that you decided to sue.

    Second way, same scenario, but you make a load of noise about how unfair it is that a shed-load of lads were awarded their CISRS cards on the back of an assessed route of entry. In this instance the Judge will dismiss your case and question the legalities of the ARE.
    Last edited by phil181; 19th May 2011 at 06:11 PM.
    Cientos aplicados, seis fue elegido!!!

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    634
    Thanks
    101
    Thanked 339 Times in 194 Posts

    Default

    Phil, if you look at the Reason ARE was stopped. It was because the work at height regs stated training, the regs before did not. So a judge should say ARE was ok at the time, I think anyone who ever did ARE will never have to undertake any new scaffold training as they are in the system under cisrs.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,971
    Thanks
    1,038
    Thanked 1,717 Times in 1,075 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simian View Post
    Phil, if you look at the Reason ARE was stopped. It was because the work at height regs stated training, the regs before did not. So a judge should say ARE was ok at the time, I think anyone who ever did ARE will never have to undertake any new scaffold training as they are in the system under cisrs.
    Fair point and I understand the argument.

    However, with point one being the most likely scenario, I would not rule out a judge asking for the ARE to at least be looked into if that was forming part of the initial argument.
    Cientos aplicados, seis fue elegido!!!

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    kent
    Posts
    3,523
    Thanks
    2,962
    Thanked 1,850 Times in 1,204 Posts

    Default

    were all scaffolders !!! leave the legalities to the laywers!! as for ase hope thats raffled a few feathers cause your no how the ecitb scaffolder feels cant have a rule for one and a rule for another failed notification the word i would use as for resourses if iam out of work come 2011 with this ticket i will have loads and it wont cost me a penny!!!!
    harp stays sharpe to the bottom of the glass!! if you can remember that your old too

  9. #29
    ragscaff's Avatar
    ragscaff Guest

    Default

    The legality is not in the legislation or regs of scaffolding its in reference to the removal of a mans likelihood without allowing him to gain the equivalent employment. Taking away a mans right to earn. Due to the un professional way all parties have handled this guys have been left in the cold.

    Don't mind you taking the p**s again mate but this is not a case of thick scaffolders with nothing better to do causing trouble.

    Guys have lost jobs & are still losing jobs, it might be funny to you but we still come across some who do not know about their ECITB card. We are not all working for corporate companies who know it all. CISRS is still new to some believe it or not. ECITB do not know who had them so it could not be seen as a valid card that is why the skills test came in on ARE, should have been kept open for ECITB holders then this would have been sorted.

    Stewart

  10. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to ragscaff For This Useful Post:

    celticbhoy (20th May 2011), dico (19th May 2011), frenchy (19th May 2011), simian (19th May 2011), SWIFTY (19th May 2011)

  11. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    634
    Thanks
    101
    Thanked 339 Times in 194 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phil181 View Post
    Fair point and I understand the argument.

    However, with point one being the most likely scenario, I would not rule out a judge asking for the ARE to at least be looked into if that was forming part of the initial argument.
    I agree but all ARE were conducted in cisrs training centres under supervision of instructors and assessors. Unfortunately Ecitb had no assessment or training. No1 in all this is the unions have hung the scaffs out to dry and they should have worked with the men on a solution before dropping the card.

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to simian For This Useful Post:

    celticbhoy (20th May 2011), SWIFTY (19th May 2011)

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

New To Site? Need Help?