NASC telling more Porkies.

aom said:
haha, I love all this. The NASC get slated on numerous threads for running a closed shop and keeping the wee man down and all that jazz, only an organisation for the big boy's despite one of the smallest firms being a member and despite my many posts of cash is king if you are a member or not, and now they are getting slated because some other firms who have taken an understatement to only use NASC registered firms for their own ends no doubt are not sticking to that statement. Well while we are at it, I think the NASC should come up here and rub my back as it's a bit sore.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that they are stitching their members up? (As well as the vast majority of the industry)
 
Well the NASC are saying join us and work for these companies, but there is obviously no need.
 
Strangest 'cartel' that I have ever heard of then...
 
Swifty, if you stood and thought about it for 5 minutes you would see the problem there lies with the organisations who have told all and sundry they will do something and then failing to do it.
 
am suprise theres actullay no cheif ex or director of suits from the nasc on this site why do you think this is ?
 
scaff1989 said:
am suprise theres actullay no cheif ex or director of suits from the nasc on this site why do you think this is ?
Click to expand...

Far too many awkward and unanswerable (without taking the 5th amendment) questions.
And no cash to be made.
 
Actually, a lot of good guy's who give up a lot of their own time to attend these committee meetings.
 
Aom you are one of the good guys and I doubt if you are alone, but they are not all like you are they?
 
Don't know Swifty, I haven't met them all. The people I have met are a very mixed bunch especially the one's who give up loads of time effort and cash to travel all over the country to these meetings. I know I will get shot to bits for speaking as I see but honestly bores me too tears how the NASC get blamed for absolutely everything at every turn when most of it is totally out of their control.
 
SG4:10, out of their hands? An expensive design that for a job any capable scaffolder should build with his eyes shut, out of their hands? Banning of impact wrenches, out of their hands?

The theory is good but in practice it doesn't work
 
SWIFTY said:
SG4:10, out of their hands? An expensive design that for a job any capable scaffolder should build with his eyes shut, out of their hands? Banning of impact wrenches, out of their hands?

The theory is good but in practice it doesn't work
Click to expand...

The NASC cannot 'ban' anything unless it's solely for their membership policy (their members vote on these things) Non NASC companies - it's not their concern.

As for SG4:10 (and TG20:08) - the facts are that if the NASC hadn't pleaded and begged to write these documents then the HSE would have had them comissioned themselves. The HSE were actually pushing for scaffolds to be erected from MEWPs and other access equipment! I bet you didn't know that, did you!

And that would have been fun, wouldn't it?
 
All these things you quoted are out of their hands. They may well have written the guidance on them and developed TG 20 of which I am no fan but they didn't just wake up one morning and say, I know lets feck with Swifty today and spend loads of cash at solving a problem that doesn't exist. These were all problems arising through regulation changes at the highest level and we must move on. Even the IW's of which I am a big fan and have no intention of relinquishing but if a development in technology has arisen they are bound to be interested and if that technology is found to be defective they are bound to want to say something about it, and they haven't banned them.
 
aom, I take my hat off to you for taking the time and effort to become a member of the NASC, really I do. I also appreciate the effort it takes to keep up with the criteria of their membership.

The thing that gets me about the NASC is their arrogance and their willingness to put themselves forward as some sort of regulator for the scaffolding industry.

They are not regulators, they are a trade association, nothing but a membership fee charging club. Yes, they have their standards for being accepted into their little club, but we all know that a lot of what they say and publish is little more than marketing, wind and p1ss. A lot of their members blatantly flout the NASC's own rules and the NASC know this. The problem is, the NASC don't have the balls to pull their bigger member companies into line for fear of them leaving their club (and a hole in their finances)
 
The HSE also wanted every lift to be fully boarded and handrailed on every single scaffold.

Credit to NASC where its due.
 
We have regular meetings with the HSE and this had been discussed (Unlike the NASC the HSE always keep appointments)
I was also informed that it would never have happened as cost, practicality and common sense would have made it unworkable.
 
Dass said:
The thing that gets me about the NASC is their arrogance and their willingness to put themselves forward as some sort of regulator for the scaffolding industry.

They are not regulators, they are a trade association, nothing but a membership fee charging club.
Click to expand...

And thats what annoys me about them. 100% spot on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom