Tg e-guide

good question. I asked the Cads guy that today, what way he see's it going. To be honest, my primary reason for getting it was to prove compliance. That way, I would never need to read that fekin book, just input the details and let cads work it out. The drawing's or illustrations came as a bit of a surprise to me, how easy some were impressed with them and yes, I know they have swung a tender or two my way but this smaller guide will have a similar effect but not quite as effective as the drawings to kick off a good discussion on how they expect the job is to be built. A long winded way of saying, whilst I wouldn't choose the full smart scaffolder if I had the free guide but now I have it I still think it's going to help me start a dialogue with clients and the load lists are good too.

Wait till you get a look at what this guide does and what it will cost before deciding.
 
Must be a conspiracy, first they bring out TG20-05 / TG20-08 make us spend all our money on design, then provide a solution that we have to pay them for. There've had this planned!
 
Well, as Mask ISL has just reliably informed me, he thinks it may have been one of Phil's wind ups. For that, I apologise. The thing is though, it didn't surprise me in the slightest. It wouldn't shock me if the NASC went to bed with one of the plastic board manufacturers and made it so. Money talks, and the rest of us follow the precedents set by our all knowing NASC overlords. At the risk of repeating myself. . . The game's f@cked.
 
Sorry matey, the NASC whatever you think about them have always refrained from giving any company or item an endorsement of any kind.
 
Marra, I don't know how many times I have to say this but if you don't like the step, don't use it. The NASC just accept it is part of a solution to comply with the work at height regs, they don't endorse it in any way shape or form.
 
Alright AOM, if that's the official stance you're taking. . . Forgive me me if I'm somewhat sceptical. HSWT was on here talking about a certain 'arrangement' with monarflex. I'll refrain from further insinuations for fear of liable. Again, the 'arrangement' to which I'm referring has been mentioned on here recently. I'll say no more.:confused:
 
Well, if HSWT has revealed the agreement, it must be true. No need for an official stance, I'm not the nasc, just a lowly member who knows how they work and as I said they will not give an endorsement just a variety of solutions so you can pick whatever works for you.
 
aom said:
Marra, I don't know how many times I have to say this but if you don't like the step, don't use it. The NASC just accept it is part of a solution to comply with the work at height regs, they don't endorse it in any way shape or form.
Click to expand...

we use it all this time at the new gaff dont mind it ad rather have that than advanced guard rail. still getting use to the fact when woring out gear i dont account for handrail lol its like another proccese ina chain i need ta git me eed round
 
It's like everything marra, the more you use it the better you get. Not so sure about the AGR now, some are pretty good, just expensive.
 
aom said:
Well, if HSWT has revealed the agreement, it must be true. No need for an official stance, I'm not the nasc, just a lowly member who knows how they work and as I said they will not give an endorsement just a variety of solutions so you can pick whatever works for you.
Click to expand...

They work the same as any other self-governing body, to suit their own interests. It (the NASC) may masquerade as being for the benefit of the working man. (We make the decisions so you don't have to) but ultimately it's self-sufficiency and self-legitimising that they're about. How can a body that regulates itself, unanswerable to anyone else, be considered as being the governing entity to our industry? It's funded and financed by the big players to suit their own ends. If you're not NASC affiliated, you don't matter. It's elitist ******** aom. Money talks.
 
Your kidding, they are answerable to all, including their membership. Every single rule we have to work too comes from regulation and without a voice the game really would be fecked. TG20 is a prime example, Europeans got a say in how we work and that was rushed out to comply, this revision redresses the balance more in our favour. Funded and financed it may well be by the big players, but I'm afraid I am as small as they come and have the same voice at the table as firms ten and twenty times my size, in fact much more than that.
 
Answerable to all that signs up to the 'confederation', which is the new name for the National Association of Scaffolding Contractors. We'll have to agree to disagree here aom. It's blatantly obvious to me that it's elitist as you have to pay to become an affiliated member. Having the badge on your lorry/yard signage/company letterhead does not automatically equate to a better standard of scaffolding, as much as they would liike the public to believe it to be so.
 
Fair enough but, answerable to every government agency who have a passing connection to working at height at home and abroad. I have never proclaimed to be better than the next man and get my work through reputation and delivering what I say I can deliver, the sticker on the truck never brought me work. I joined to stay up to date with all current regulation, which was very hard to do living in the sticks pre forum, simple. No one is going to change their mind about anything on a forum, so fair enough, agree to disagree.
 
Sound mate, I've got my proletariat views on the system as you my have gathered. I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that you're a top poster on here and your knowledge is invaluable to many of the lads that visit the site. Good healthy debate is the foundation on which our society is built upon. Hope all is well in Argyll (I'm looking at a place in Dalmally to make an honest women of the good lady next year).:love:
 
Dalmally, nice one, is it the place just opposite the church right on the road side?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom