Comments on health and safety registration

Comments on the call on the Department of Labour to cancel SACPCMP construction health and safety registration. The number of objectors by 2015 January, are 264 (see below).

The names of known proponents (including SACPCMP councillors) and opponents to construction OHS registration are listed first, followed by a summary of the contested points, then the first batch of ‘open letter’ comments in 2014. [For more recent comments, see Comments below this posts, and Comments below other related posts.]

Known supporters of SACPCMP construction health and safety registration;
Bonke Simelane, DPW expenditure consultant, PACE, SACPCMP council
Claire Deacon, CREATE, ACHASM, BEP, IOSH UK, SAIOSH, CIOB, Ergon Soc, SASOHN, SACPCMP council
Doug Michell, Master Builders North, Saqa learnerships, formerly DOL ACOHS, SACPCMP council
Eric Manchidi, DPW director, Asset Procurement and Operating Partnership, SACPCMP council
Geben
Isaac Nkosi, I.N. Associates Project Managers, SACPCMP council
Itumeleng Molosi, DPW director, SACPCMP council
Jabu /Ambrose
James Flynt
Joep Joubert, IOSM /OHSAP, SACPCMP contractor
Katiso Mosebi
Makgati Phaladi, DPW Correctional Services construction manager, SACPCMP council
Neels Nortje, SAIOSH /IOSH SA /Master Builders /ACOHS
Ray Strydom, OHSAP /IOSM
Rowan Crowie, Crowie Holdings, formerly RB, affirmative procurement, SACPCMP council
Rudolph Murray
Thumelo Ramafikeng
Tseliso Makhetha, QS to Limpopo Education, CIDB, SACPCMP council
William Senior
And some (not all) of the 950 SACPCMP applicants

Commentators supporting construction OHS registration under certain conditions;
Brian Irlam, consultant
Shane Lishman
Donovan Andrews
Koos Duvenhage (pseudonym)
Mark Anthony Bower
Richard, Rhesq
Saide Mansur
Lesetja Moraka
And some of the SACPCMP applicants

Commentators asking to cancel construction health and safety registration, or convert it to a DOL listing, total 263 at 2015 January 31;
Abe Buys
Abraham Jacobs
Ade Dzone
Adrian Sewell
Adrian Woon
Alet Van Graan
Amu Nyambi
Ana Dema
Andre Harmse
Andre van der Riet
Andre’ van Niekerk
Andrew Martin
Andrew Morrison
Annelize Jacobs
Anni Carstens
Anton Joseph
Asait Ssalimu
Aubrey
Aubrey Burger
Barend Potgieter
Bert Denton Houghton
Beverley Coetzee
Boitumelo Makinta
Bongani Joel
Brenda Adams
Brenda Johanna Holder
Brenda Wells
Brendon
brendon jacobs
Brian Dalton
Brooks
Bruce Meyer
Bruce Mills
Caitano White Snr
Calmin H
Carel Du Plessis
Carl Niekerk
Carl Pfutzenreuter
Carl Staack
Carlien Koen
Charles Schoeman
Charmaine Gradwell
Cheyanne Westlake
Christiaan Jansen
Christopher Morsner
Chris van der Merwe
CJ Pieterse
Clarence Fynn
Clayton Dauglas
Clement Mogohlwane
Clint Summers
Clive Mans
Cobus Viljoen
Coen Walters
Colin Boshoff
Colin Sherry
Colleen van Staden
Consti van Coller
Craig Parker
Danie Nienaber
Danie Raath
Danie Terblanche
Danny Eastes
Danny van Zyl
Darren Simes
Daryl Andrews
Daryl Stoffels
David Clegg
Dawid Naude
Deon Potgieter
Deon van Heerden
Derrick James Minnie
Desigan Pather
Desmond Maseko
Dineo Maitisa
Donald S
Donald Sonakile
Donovan Andrews
Doreen Jansen van Vuuren
Dumani Kangelani
Earl Henry
Edmond Furter
Ellah Felicity Ngamone
Eric Smith
Eric van der Westhuizen
Ernst de Vries
Ernst P
Eugene Stephenson
Ezra van Heerden
Fabian Buckley
Ferdi Roetz
Fiona Pelman
Fortune Monneng
Francois Kloppers
Frank Matlala
Frans Gerber
Franz Franke
Garald Bok
Gareth Van Leeve
Garret Pelser
Gaston Richards
Gerhard Marais
Gordon Stofberg
Hannes Coetzee
Hannes Kellerman
Hendrik Meyer
Henry de Klerk
Herman Besler
Hermann Jacques Keyser
Hilton Mavata
Hlakaniphile Zungu
Hopewell Magobongo
Hopolang Ramarou
Ilna Castelyn
Irfaan Ahmed
Isaac Chauke
Jabu Ambrose
Jaco Flemix
Jacques Redelinghuis
Jacques van Graan
Jake Neethling
Jakes Koen
Jamela S Melusi
Jan Horváth
Jana Britz
Jeremy Rundle
Johan van der Walt
Johann Botha
Johnny Bray
Jose Pereira
Joseph Muzikayise Makahya
Jtee Mthombeni
Juan-Pierre Louw
Karen Ann Gilbert-De Klerk
Karen Minnie
Karl N
Katlego Kush Elviz
Keegan Myrone
Keenan Moneval
Kember Stanley McMaster
Kevin Anthony Hunt
Kevin Higgs
Kgaugela
Kuda
Kyle Bekker
Laurelle Moodley
Lazarus Mlangeni
Lee Matthys
Lefa Maponyane
Leon Kaltwasser
Lifa Mdakane
Lin-Marie Swart
Liz Erasmus
Logan Horsley
Louis Coetzee
Louis F Zehmke
Lourence Smit
Luke van den Berg
Luvhengo Mutheiwana
Malambula Madida
Malobele-mogake Mahlase
Mario Steenkamp, Dr
Marius du Plessis
Marlon Fynn
Martin Mechanic
Martin Millar
matshidiso Motsapi
Mavusana Mgiba
Mawiller Sibeko
Mduduzi Sofoni
Melane Fryer
Mendi Sigenu
Mervin Cullen
Mike Botha
Musiiwa Mposhomane
Natasha Dhaver
Nathan Samuel
Neil Louwrens
Neil Van der Bijl
Neville Botha
Ntomboxolo Mhlongo
Obed Mantentewane Mhlanga
Onward Machaka
Owatimehin Shina
Patrick Africa
Patrick Mtwa
Paul Ntswe
Paul Schneider
Pedro Pinto
Perry Notley
Peter Jembula
Peter Raley
Peter Shields
Peter, Just Peter
Philip van der Vyver
Phineas
Phuti Matsi
Phyllis Fouche
Pierre Wet
Piet van der Westhuizen
Pieter Botes
Pieter van der Walt
Pieter Van Zyl
Raamesh Maharaj
Randy Ramphai
Raphael Dunn
Rene Fitz-Gerald
Riaan Kruger
Riaan Nel
Riekie van den Berg
Riette Badenhorst
Rosswill Meyer
Rudie Botha
Rudy Maritz, NIOCCSA
Russel Loder
Ruth Dickson
Ruwaan Fourie
Ryan van Greunen
Sam Craucamp
Shadrack Mulungufhala
Shareetha J
Siduduzile M
Silas Mulaudzi
Siphesihle Ndlovu
Sipho Ramasobane
Skoku Nosana
Sphelele Dlamini
Stephen Barnard
Stephen Woolfenden
Sthembiso Ngobeni
Susan Glover
Sydwell Prosperous Khanyi
Sylvia Nyama
Taana Peterson
Terence Meth
Teresa Bryce
Tertius Theron
Thandeka Mashego
Thato Kheswa
Themb’z Mveleli
Tshepo Ngoasheng
Tshidi Tsepetsi
Victor Garcia
Vincent Holloway
Vincent Mabuza
Vusimuzi Nkosi
Wayne van Heerden
Werner
Willem Rossouw
William Danielz
Willie Engelbrecht
Wimpie Kruger
Wynand Mans
Xolile Nala
Zamo Cindi
Zoltan Gilbert
Zonia Visser
and the Safety and Related Services Union (SARSU) leadership; and petitioners; and some of the 950 SACPCMP applicants

Registration issues raised by opponents

About 30 distinct issues emerge from comments by objectors, and from alternative suggestions, against various occupational health and safety registration schemes;
[] The processes are onerous and expensive.
[] Fees are set at arbitrary levels, based on the maximum that practitioners may accept.
[] The numbers of designated practitioners, eg Construction Health and Safety Officers, are too small to support a viable and cost-effective registration scheme.
[] Exam question variants, essay assessment, and interviews are subjective, depending on the examiner and reviewer.
[] Sectoral schemes, and competing schemes, cause proliferation of designations, and dilution of numbers of each designation.
[] Human resources practitioners could be misled by complicated designations.
[] Human resources practitioners would file designations, and not bother to compare the job specification against the applicants’ training and experience.
[] Registration processes and costs move the focus of practitioners away from education and training.
[] Employers do not provide sufficient or reliable mentor systems, leading to fudged experience reports.
[] Registrars have low capacity and resort to hiring contractors, for example to set and mark exams, and to offer online CPD. Contractors have a profit motive.
[] Registrars are directed by boards consisting of volunteers with various individual and factional agendas.
[] Registrars may not train applicants in terms of the SAQA policy on professional bodies, preventing direct development.
[] Some elements of the scope of services in legislation contradict industrial practice.
[] Employer liabilities and consciences would be soothed by designations on file, against the spirit of the law and Sheq ethics.
[] Some operational liabilities would be shared by professional OHS practitionters.
[] Phasing in of enforcement of registration on employers would discriminate against the potentially designated Classes of construction, and such discrimination may endure for years.
[] Scope of work in law, scope of designation, scope of training and scope of job does not articulate at all the levels, or from one to the other. There is scoping disjunction.
[] The number of objections and objectors are significant.
[] Professional designations are generalist and thus false. A ‘health and safety professional’ very rarely has a degree in an occupational health or hygiene, as well as safety engineering or BBS discipline.
[] Occupational health regimes already have firm qualification and registration schemes.
[] Registration exams, which are essentially re-examinations, are insufficient for testing the broad scope of generic OHS, as well as the industry-specific aspects expected of practitioners.
[] Essays or case study scenarios tend to be copied, or adapted from good examples, or written by some service providers.
[] Portfolios of evidence tend to reduce to set formats, which tend to be offered by some service providers.
[] The Department of Labour, SAQA, and other stakeholders did not sufficiently consult, and did not sufficiently apply their minds to comments, before enforcing registration, and allowing four registrars (SAIOSH, IOSM, Saioh, SACPCMP) to issue OHS designations.
[] Registration legislation, bodies, processes, exemptions, and postponements have become complicated and confusing to employers, practitioners, and other role-players.
[] Training quality differs, yet registrars could only account NQF levels and unit points.
[] Construction Health and Safety Agents, mostly engineers, may move their process effectively away from the SACPCMP.
[] The motivation for registration is to raise skills, but in practice it is more likely to legitimise the lack of skills.
[] The stated aim of voluntary bodies to expand enforced registration to all sectors, leading to a lack of capacity for assessing specialised OHS practitioners, some of whom typically require specialised skills other than OHS in their industries.
[] Tertiary OHS research and training in South Africa is poor, and a greater priority to the state, employers, labour, and practitioners, than problematic registration schemes.
[] The education system, including NQF, SAQA, NLRD, DHE, Setas, and some other organisations, is flawed, particularly in OHS, which registration could not resolve.
[] The QCTO vocational training system has not yet taken effect, and may resolve many of the skills issues that registration could not.
[] DOL enforcement capacity is low, and employers are unlikely to comply with ideal appointment procedures.
[] CPD is pseudo-training, resulting in questionable CPD points schemes, such as double-counting of the same training and experience awarded to member of voluntary registration schemes, which in turn also all some pseudo-training by way of meetings and workshops that are not quality-controlled.
[] The SAQA National Learnership Records Database (NLRD) should fulfill some of the functions that registrars want to take over, leading to privatisation of what should be a core education system function.
[] Registration exams lead to cram study, and a demand for cram material and workshops, resulting in more pseudo-training.
[] Registration schemes are prone to politicisation, for example, job reservation for political supporters. The DOL has already proven its tendency to serve political agendas, by forcing employers to use the state employment agency. Health and safety jobs may become the prime target for political engineering.
[] Enforcing registration may be unfair to some practitioners and some small businesses, in terms of rights to work.
[] Registrars in some other sectors, such as municipal engineering institute IMESA, security services institutes, estate agents’ boards, financial services boards, and others, offer case studies of many malpractices, supposed teething problems, escalating costs, and loss of skills. These pitfalls loom even larger in OHS.
[] Some registrars may incur legal costs, to be funded by applicants or the state.
[] Voluntary bodies have split identities and split bank accounts, indicating fronting for private businesses.
[] Registrars ideally should represent practitioners and advocate their issues with the state and with employers, which functions neither registrar has proven capable or willing to fulfill.
[] OHS practice stand to suffer reputational harm from the registration saga.
[] Further issues, and current complaints against policy or administrative incidents at some registrars, are posted below and in related posts.

Registration comments to NIOCCSA

“This registration process was never looked at correctly and I think no consultation was done. CPD is costly and as a consultant, time is not always available to attend courses. As a Registered Safety Practitioner (IoSM), I don’t see the need to be registered at SACPCMP.”

“We already have ISO Certifications which cover ALL the requirements, which this useless registration is going to cost us!”

“I lodge my objection to this [SACPCMP registration].”

“I Pledge support to NIOCCSA in its bid to amend the Construction Regulations, and apply to the Minister of Labour and to withdraw the registration requirements.”

“I agree. There must another way of monitoring.”

“There is also a move to downplay certain qualifications, as it is deemed inappropriate. I have Nebosh -IGC. I have been informed that companies only accept the two-week course SAMTRAC. This we all know is far lower than any other standard, but it has now been accepted as the qualification of choice. This proves that it is all a political game and not about the profession. I strongly object to individuals and organisations trying to have a monopoly on HSE. This should be managed by objective institutions, not by companies or organisations with a conflict of interest. Bring in proper standards and objective people.”

“I agree and support your [objection] aspects, HSE is already an expensive career and feel this is only a blame shifter, and too costly and unreasonable for HSE practitioners.”

“I entirely support your objection to the regulations requiring SACPCMP registration. It cuts across the work of many professional engineers, and originated without any proper consultation with the interested and affected parties.”

Rudie Botha; Thank you for your stand in this regard. Where are we gonna end up. If the SACPCMP is a non-profit organisation, why are we forced to register and pay this astronomical amount just to get embarrassed. They want to run your company in the sense that you are not competent to own a business, or to be called a safety manager. I agree scrap the process, and force the people in the safety industry to belong to any accredited organisation of their choice.

I would like to see in law, where any OHS consultant is part of a construction site and either he is part-time or full-time safety officer, 1% of the contract amount is allocated as bonus at the end of the contract if no serious incidents occur.

This will be a motivation for the safety officer/manager. This will cover the expenses for training and CPD. This way we will be able to stay up to date with new legislation and improve our own skills and knowledge. Principal contractors do not use the money that they tender for on OHS. Why don’t the DOL and SACPCMP enforce this as part of legislation.

Colin Sherry; I have a National Diploma in Safety and I support the scrapping of this disastrous system ASAP. It is too costly; a monopoly of an industry; non-recognition of some previous training such as Technikon SA Diploma and some degrees; will retard South Africa’s economic growth; leading to greater unemployment.

We should all simply register with the DOL as AIAs do, at a fraction of the cost. We need to stop this SACPCMP registration now!

Annelize Jacobs; I am happy that people object to the SACPCMP. I think the only reason they created this body, is to generate money for someone. I worked for a company for 14 years and left. Now SACPCMP expects me to complete a CV, and inform them in detail about all the projects I have worked on. My previous company will not let me know and look at all the construction work that has been done, and some of the managers I worked for have left. How do they expect us to get experience signed off. Who makes them more competent than us. Who decided they can decide our future.

They must regulate safety companies. People are just opening companies around every corner to make money. Some clients do not know right from wrong and use these companies.

Mervin Cullen; Please add me to the list of persons supporting the cancellation of the registration process. I believe that the current model does not give sufficient credit for experience, and some people among my opposition now decide if I can be an Agent or Manager. Does this not constitute a conflict of interest?

Ruwaan Fourie; I fully support the campaign to stop the registration of construction Health and Safety Officers. I am a junior safety Officer and I find it ridiculous to register. Stop the registration, I think it is a dumb idea!

Pieter Van Zyl; This registration is bad, a money-making, manipulative, government inspired scheme to benefit selected groups or persons.

Ryan van Greunen; We are a small Sheq consulting firm that work with clients in various industries. Some of our clients are blue chip, and even now without registration, they all drive a hard bargain for service rates. If we have to register our employees, our service rates would increase for registration costs, and we would lose some clients.

I support the scrapping of registration for numerous reasons. If you register your employees, there is no guarantee that they will stay with the company. If we hire registered people, they would want packages that we will not be able to afford.

Thousands of people who have obtained training do not have the required experience, will have to change careers.

Deon van Heerden; I support the objection to register with SACPCMP. I am a Health and Safety consultant and do not always work in the construction industry. This will make it difficult for me to register as I do not have the required sector-specific experience as per the registration requirements. It is very cumbersome and expensive to register and then you have to pay an annual membership fees on top of it. It will be expensive to obtain the required CPD points. At the moment I do not earn enough income to afford it. Please use all your influence to get it scrapped.

Registration comments on Sheqafrica.com

Cathy; Our company is planning to retrench around 200 HS people in SA, because they are outsourcing the function to a consulting firm. The annual costs for the company to keep us ‘registered’ is too much and we are facing unemployment.

Jan Hartzer; We are a small consultancy firm. Registration of our two consultants would have a massive financial impact on our institution. I definitely support scrapping this process, or drastically cutting the costs.

Brian Irlam; Do not scrap registration of suitably capable and competent HSE practitioners, but make it affordable and ensure that those who are registered get something positive in return… The stigma that some private individuals are making money off this scheme needs to be sorted out, just like SANRAL. Such a process needs the support of government, the DOL and those that advocate it, not because they can make money or influence the organisations, department or government, but because they are seriously concerned, interested and passionate for the success of the profession… I bet they would not be doing anything if they were not being financially compensated or rewarded, now would they.

Koos Duvenhage; There should be a number of streams that allow persons to achieve a similar level. The UK NVQ is similar to the NQF in South Africa, I personally do not place a lot of value on those types of qualifications.

On my Masters programme, a fellow a student had already completed the NVQ level required to progress to CMIOSH and had expressed disatisfaction with the learning experience, and what he actually derived from the qualifcation.

Generally, combined with good experience, the NEBOSH Diploma, or a Degree or Masters, are premier qualifications.

Edmond Furter; Some of the South African licensed versions of Nebosh, use the term ‘diploma’ loosely. HR people know the difference. About real diplomas, the Unisa intake is limited, and changing to a BCom. Some Sheq practitioners should follow this hint, study managerial subjects, and change career.

We should all specialise after She Rep level, in either OH health, hygiene, safety, environment, quality, project management, management, or engineering. There is no Sheq ‘profession’. Some engineers and managers will add OHS modules to their training to become OHS Agents, starting in construction.

Let engineers decide whether they accept SACPCMP registration, or whether they will add an OHS Agent designation to their bodies. Sheq generalism will slowly phase out, and continue to be exploited by employers and the state. But we will not agree to pay useless fees for the privilege.

Hopewell; This process is like crazy and a waste of money, I even doubt if this is going to last. By August next year they are probably gonna appoint another body. We have spent time money and doing diploma and worked for years and now we have to pay so much MONEY just to be registered in such a long process.
One must come with the solution to end this. Government must just recognise a formal qualification, a Degree or Diploma from the university and STOP this. Students should be registered by their institution direct to government upon completion of their qualification.

We are tired of many short courses one after another, one company want SAMTRAC, anpther want NEbosh, incident investigation, and the list is endless. How much money are we gonna spend in this course and then spend on this so-called professional SACPCMP registration?

Willem; You may have all the certificates that the world offers, but field experience is more important than your stupid degrees, you cant even spot a hazard if it smacks you in the face because you only look at what the book teaches you, not at the real problem, so scrap this registration and hire people with work experience in the relevant industry.

Charles Schoeman; Make the registration free with the necessary qualifications, and leave out the interview board. Or scrap registration. Too many conflicts of interest and money-making schemes. Not interested to pay again for things I have already learned and paid for… Stop this registration bullshit.

Jana Britz; I agree that a proper and valid degree is the first step in getting this right. Irrelevant whether the health and safety construction registration is going ahead or not. When I left school I didn’t even know that Sheq existed and that there were degrees or BTech diplomas in this field. I had to work my way up, sometimes nominated as first aider, fire fighter, She Rep, without really even knowing what the hell I was doing. Assuming that the one-day course here and there would deem me competent. In some way I blame my employers, they also didn’t understand what Health and Safety was all about and what the OHS Act and other regulations require. I’m in my 30s and only now have the opportunity to study (again). But I need to find an institution that can accommodate a working person.

Peter Shields; Those in favor of this process do not have to spend their own money to get there. Their employers will have to fork out the costs. They cannot fend for themselves. They need a father figure to bail them out.

Just look at the difference between Saamtrekkers fees, and professional fees in the application process. Register them and declare them competent. And put Brinky and the Pain in charge – they wear the SAQA skirt.

Danny van Zyl; Safety officers do not want to be labelled incompetent, but don’t want others to be labeled incompetent either… They want to be registered but the majority does not like the two bodies they have had for 30 years to register with… Your average rate is R73 an hour, but you want to rub shoulders with lawyers, doctors, engineers and architects, earning ten times as much. You cry over regulations and a lack of consultation but when you get the chance to speak you all go silent. And if someone dares to speak out, you cannot wait to run to mommy and complain about it.

You all moan like weeds in a storm about lower level of training, and downplay short courses against degrees, but when a degree is needed to get registered, you all are up in arms? The DOL should not register you guys. They should write your functions and limitations into the OHS Act. They should write a definition into law, defining your competency like with mechanical engineers (GMR2).

You know as little about health, hygiene and ergonomics as the average Grade 8 learner, but are quick to reject a medical report issued by a registered occupational health practitioner. You think you are the only people who deserves the “professionalisation” and even think it is your right. And then you object being called “dom”?

Get a degree in Health and safety or move out of the way for the professionals to advance. Your Samtrac or whatever trek you claim you have does not cut it. Your Nadsam does not cut it anymore, it’s a dinosaur. You need decent education, not some silly pie in the sky that will make you competent.
You need a professional body that can stand up and say what you need to have to get “in” to the profession. Not selling Chamois for any “relevant” NQF level 6 qualification.

Just look at the list of courses “accredited” by the SACPCMP to “include” you in CHS. Architects, Engineers, QS, and Building Managers are soon going to eat away at the cake you are fighting over, and ECSA has far more clout.

Mr Maphaha (DOL), register these morons, they deserve to be turned down as “not qualified enough”. Staan in die Ray and get your log boekies signed. And go on your CPD koek en tee parties. And blame the H&S practitioners for every single slab than falls between now and 2050. They want the job, make ‘em pay for their negligence. Make them pay for the people they killed because they are too worried about files and vormpies that they hardly get out on site to see how things are built. Register them all, and turn down as many as you can, so you can make a killing with re-assessments, appeal fees, and “how to fake an orgasm” courses. I support registration.

Peter Shields; In Hong Kong, for regulation 5 and the Second Schedule, the qualifications for registration as a safety officer are;
A. Recognised degree or post-graduate diploma in occupational safety and health, or equivalent, and relevant experience of not less than 1 year.
B. A degree in Science or Engineering, or equivalent, and a recognized certificate, diploma or higher diploma in occupational safety and health, and relevant experience of not less than 1 year.
C. A recognized certificate, diploma or higher diploma in occupational safety and health, and relevant experience of not less than 2 years, of which one year must be obtained after the academic qualification.
D. A recognized certificate in construction safety and relevant experience of not less than 2 years, of which one year must be obtained after the academic qualification.

Our company is planning to retrench around 200 H&S people in SA, because they are outsourcing the function to a consulting firm. The annual costs for the company to keep us “registered” is too much and now we are all facing unemployment.

Pinky and the Brain would not rule this profession? They have been ruling this profession for 30 years. That is why the standards in education of OHS are so low, and whey there is no single professional body, no standards of practice, and as many types of site files as there are practitioners. They choose to not understand the law.

And the DOL is too blind to see that registration would not “fix” what is damaged beyond repair.
Perhaps Bluetooth and Blackberry would do a better job than Pinky and the Brain.
From where I sit, the problem is the profession itself – it believes it exists.

Or like this person who said; “I must say I was privileged enough to be qualified in all, and a government certificate of competence (CM)IOSH.” CMIOSH is now the new Government Certificate of Competence?

Danny van Zyl; Since when is this registration a ‘right’? You have no legal duty to register. Your right to work is compromised. Just issue a general prohibition; all those without at least a B degree should be removed from the profession.

Koos Duvenhge; Even in the UK it is not mandatory to practice under any form of registration. But at least enforcement and the threat of prosecution keep HS practitioners for the most part honest.

Craig Parker; There will be lots of persons supporting this call, hundreds if not thousands, all those incompetent persons that do not hold formal qualifications but operate as Agents and do not qualify to be registered as Agents with SACPCMP. For those I say think twice before you send your letter of support to NIOCCSA, you are the very same persons that they will be listed on their “incompetence register”.

Eric; I want to do my diploma or degree, I came across a BA Degree in Disaster and Safety Management from Lyceum College, is such a qualification is acceptable in the safety field?

Edmond Furter; Employers would consider the reputation of graduates of the other courses of that supplier; its tertiary capacity; the quality of competing courses such as Unisa; research backing up the course content; recognition of the qualification by other universities and overseas; how employers and industry bodies are consulted on the curriculum; practical components of the degree; relevant practical experience of the lecturers; the quality of CV detail supporting the degree; admin capacity of the supplier.

If the initiative for finding this information has to come from the employer’s HR department, forget it. Yet it is worth investigating because UNISA does not score well on any of the above questions. Note that there seems to be no occupational health or hygiene modules in this degree, nor in the Unisa degree of Nadsam. Health modules belong among the health sciences. Nor environmental components. Your ideal job after this degree is in fire prevention and emergency response. Very few employers appoint safety specialists. Therefore enquire with the FPA and other emergency bodies how they are involved.

Mark; Maritz ran down everyone and everything remotely related to HS on public forums, now he wants the people to support his schemes and his pathetic call for ‘no registration’. No my friend, the time had come for this profession to be professionalised and I like thousands of others have the right to be professionally registered in construction HS. Pinky and the Brain is not going to rule this profession.

Donovan Andrews; In which other countries are statutory registration of HS practitioners enforced? I cannot find anything in the UK, USA, Canada, Australia, Singapore or New Zealand.

For 7 CPD points you can attend the Construction Management Conference. Registration for this event (if you are already registered) is R7182. At R1026 per CPD point, how much do you have to spend over 5 years to get to the required 52 to prevent deregistration? R52 000? Plus travel and accommodation costs. I support scrapping the registration process.

Danny van Zyl; You cannot sue the SACPCMP. They have no accountability for who they approve and who not. It is only a scam to make money.

Peter Shields; If someone dies because of the negligence of a registered person, I will sue him and the ticket office that sold him the ‘competency’ SACPCMP or SAIOSH ticket. If that is the way competency is assured, let them accept the consequences, just like doctors gets sued for malpractice.

Peter Shields; The names of these assessors should be made public so we know who to take to court if they turn us down… a trust to start a class action suit against the SACPCMP.

Edmond Furter; The registration crack-filler formula is more complicated. The main stakeholders in the SACPCMP are employers, represented by Master Builders, voluntary association board members, advisors, lawyers, some state officials, and others. Their agenda is to keep the cost of health and safety labour low, and to shift blame from corporate HR policies, to statutory agencies. Registration designations have wonderful meanings in court and in the public mind. It soothes painful consciences.

Koos Duvenhage; Danny is blaming DOL instead of the membership schemes. That took you a while, you must be taking on board my comments.

Danny van Zyl; The SACPCMP SeePeePeeWePay? Why give your money to a corrupt government so you can do the job the DOL is not capable of doing?… Why would you want to be taxed under the blindfold of professionalism? Let the DOL sort out their own incompetence first… They create laws that benefit a few crawlers dubbed as stakeholders, who believe money solves stupidity.

Shane Lishman; No problem with an incompetence register. This is the same system as is done in the UK, where the HSE Exec would receive the complaints.

Craig Parker; The junior Safety Officer with grade 12 and an NQF level 5 short course is not the professional in question. There is a place for these lower level HS employees to do the donkey work, run around on site telling workers to wear their PPE. It is not these guys that will be sitting with the designer to discuss the method of sequence and baseline risk assessments for a project, it will be registered Pr CH Agents, people like yourself with proper qualifications and experience. Professional registration will identify those persons that are competent to act as the Client’s HS Agent.

Rudy Maritz; What would determine competence? Professional Registration? Do you think government, with their strategic objectives and transformation, will stop people who do not have the competencies needed, from being registered? When I started at age 24 as inspector with the DOL (then Dept of Manpower), a minimum T4 (National Higher Diploma) was required to be an inspector. Should HS officers not be better equipped than the inspectors in order to advise their employers? Where is that now, 28 years of transformation later? Or are we moving back 28 years with the new dispensation of professionalisation?

Craig Parker; Health and safety persons are not responsible for construction design and management failures.

Ryan; Let us hope that a revision of the new CR are on the cards. Specifically to include competent engineers.

Kuda; The issue of slab collapses and building failures cannot be addressed by the SACPCMP registration of Construction Safety Practitioners. Safety practitioners are not engineers and cannot influence design and the engineering. This leaves us wondering on the competence of the SACPCMP when they say the registration will address this problem. There is need to revise the Construction Regulations Amendment 2014 and incorporate the role of competent engineers in the regulations.

Mike Botha; My apologies that the Institute of Municipal Engineering did not respond to your correspondence. I have had no end of communication problems with ‘IMESA’ much to my embarrassment, so much so that I have removed myself from their National Council, effective at the end of my current term. Keep up the good work.

Danny van Zyl; I sell files because people want them… without it they cannot get a purchase order or become a vendor with the big guns of tender rigging. So they fill in an online form, and they get an email with a word document to print their file… many people just tick a sheet, nobody cares. Safety is a farce. Koos, you have no idea what this profession has become in SA. Now they want you to join this orgasm and that organism and the other organisation and all of a sudden you will be COMPETENT. To do what? Check files? Stop a site for not having a file?

Donovan Andrews; The professional bodies will not go away. SACPCMP will not go away. Listing the bad guys will not make them go away. Before the NQF we would not have had this debate as all involved in HS would have the same qualification. But government corrected the wrongs of the past, as they still do 20 years later. We have people leaving school with just enough skills to cross a street without getting killed, and enter the profession as safety advisors.

It will take more than 20 years to “fix” the problem. The best advice I can give any professional with a diploma or degree is to get out of this profession. Call yourself anything else but stay away from titles involving health and safety in the same sentence.

If you want people to respect your opinion as professional, show your qualifications on your business card; not some acronym of a Peer or ‘Pierre’ reviewed one-man show. ROSPROF sounds like some veterinary dip for sheep or pigs suffering some incurable disease. And OSHPRAC sounds like a baby milk formula. And the only reason why these titles are in demand, is that very few can write BCom, MBA, PhD or BSc next to their names. The best our professional body owners have is a National Diploma, but they are the peers to review the PhDs and Masters graduates of the profession. I would hate passing a grade 12 exam marked by grade 8s.

The DOL is far from being a law enforcement agent. It took them 11 years to publish a cancer-infected copy of the UK regulations, and then publication took 7 months.

The SACPCMP is under the influence of IOSM and the ‘Ray of Bly Dom’ who believes that tests will prove competence of those who are taught how to pass exams.

The new version of the Bly Dom king is his knight in shrinking armour, Neelsie, and his eye specialist, Mr Shane… CEOs and managers do not care how incompetent you are… You can Stry, but you will always be Dom. Get a degree or get out of HS… And let’s build a profession with professionals.

Just Peter; What medicine do you recommend if you have this nasty Cough Prof?… you get peers to review your CV while they stand in the Ray at the bank to deposit your contribution to the promotion of their own agendas. I refuse to employ anybody listed with IOSH SA [Saiosh] or IOSM [Ohsap].

Health and safety registration alternatives

NIOCCSA responded to the initial comments; “We may approach the DOL with an alternative proposal, perhaps a general exemption for all industries, and to let Master Builders SA and civil engineering body SAFCEC deal with the rest. They created it, they must live with it.

“Many practitioners will leave the profession based on the misinterpretation of the Construction Regulations. OHS professionals do not all agree on when to appoint a registered person. It is legally enforceable only on projects requiring Construction Permits, but experience tells us it will become a condition of employment, because occupational health and safety has become an insurance exercise.

• Consulting body NIOCCSA could apply to the Minister of Labour to amend the Construction Regulations and withdraw the registration requirements. Many people working as consultants will no longer be allowed to practice; and the CPD requirements are too costly to make consulting viable in a market that is saturated with offers. If you support this, email objections@nioccsa.org.za or comment in the COMMENT window below.

Sheqafrica.com supports the call to cancel construction health and safety registration with the SACPCMP, for these reasons;• Registration does not address flaws in the NQF, DHE, universities, QCTO, SETAs, legislation, or enforcement, nor in business employment, HR and operational practices.
• Registration does not compensate or ‘plaster over’ these flaws.
• Registration is based on semi-privatisation of pseudo-training functions such as exams, interviews, CPD, workshops, and quality assessment.
• Registration would perpetuate and magnify systemic flaws such as duplication, OHS generalism (health, safety, and often environment, quality, and training lumped together at managerial level), sectoral fragmentation (construction only).
• Registration is expensive, and further flawed by low institutional capacity.
• The roles of voluntary board members in the SACPCMP activate conflicts of interest.
• Moving the focus of health and safety employers and practitioners towards institutions, weakens our fragile education and training system, and diverts the role of associations into pseudo-training and pseudo-discipline, instead of representation and advocacy.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
The following two tabs change content below.
Sheqafrica.com is Africa's largest independent SHEQ Magazine, hosting over 2 000 articles and news items since 2007. Sheqafrica.com is owned by the Cygma Group, a global provider of risk management and compliance solutions. Sheqafrica.com is registered as a digital publication with the ISSN.

Latest posts by sheqafrica (see all)

Share

80 thoughts on “Comments on health and safety registration

  1. I am against the idea of registering safety practitioners with SACPCMP. After graduating my MSc in health and Safety at Manchester 9years ago, I registered with a proffessional body called IOSH and an Association called IIRSM. My registration was as easy as registering my qualification with SAQA. They only needed to comfirm my certificates and transcripts and then they registered me with a tittle that was.fitted my expirience and qualifications.The same thing happenned to me way back in the nineties when I completed

    1. I am happy that people object to the SACPCMP. I think the only reason they created this body, is to generate money for someone. I worked for a company for 14 years and left. Now SACPCMP expects me to complete a CV, and inform them in detail about all the projects I have worked on. My previous company will not let me know and look at all the construction work that has been done, and some of the managers I worked for have left. How do they expect us to get experience signed off. Who makes them more competent than us. Who decided they can decide our future.

  2. I am also against this registration process especially the CDP Points criteria and annual fees. I am working for my family, I don’t see the need to pay SACPMP every year, infact I don’t see a need to pay them a cent, I work hard for my salary and have to put up with long hours and be away from home, then someone sitting in an office in Midrand wants a cut every year for what?
    I AM PAYING MY TAX HAND OFF OUR PROFESION-SACPMP-the whole process to me is more about money for SACPCMP than developing the OHS Profession, this registration needs to be reviewed for the benefit of the profession.

  3. This is a waste of time. What do I benefit from SACPCMP, they do not have any unit standard to measure us on. That is why a lot of us enrole for the NEBOSH training.

  4. As a health & safety professional I have been servicing the Construction Industry in the Western Cape for 10 years. I am well aware of the fact that there many incompetents practicing in the industry and that as a result many inconsistencies affect the reputation and success of Health & Safety within the construction industry. I also appreciate the fact the some of the intention behind the process of registration is an attempt to raise the standard, the process itself has not been thought through and planned.
    The mere fact that an agent cannot be represented on a project by a junior is simple madness as there are never enough agents and are likely never going to be enough to service the industry.
    The process and cost implication is onerous and excessive, not to mention time consuming.

    The above said, my real objection is simple: a registration process though intended to raise the professional standard most certainly has never historically achieved such an objective in a First World / Third World economy, it merely creates a stronghold on the lucrative segments while hindering the real progress within the broader industry.
    If we haven’t been able to affect the middle and lower end of the construction market with the previous regs, new regs and registration processes that focus on the professional end will definitely not develop skills on the ground level.

    1. Very valid point. The SAPeePee, estimates that of all 20 000 H&S people, only 271 are good enough to be registered as agents. This means that the number of permits the DOL can issue will be limited, which will limit the DPW’s infrastructure development plan, which in turn will limit job creation and foreign investment, which in turn will prevent economic growth. Thought through? Yes, by incompetent people who’s only interest was to ensure they get a piece of the SAPeePee’s business.
      Now, if you want to increase the VALUE of H&S, DONT REGISTER for the next 24 months. There will be such a shortage, NOBODY will be issued with permits. And then you can NAME your price. R2000 an hour is mine. Take it or PeePee off.
      Do not think “registration” – think MONEY!!!! If the market cannot supply, the demand will increase. I am not registered, and I will not register.

  5. I’m not against the registration process but I do not agree / appreciate it when CLEARLY INCOMPETENT persons are registered and allowed to practice when their specs, audits, comments and findings are not even worth the paper it is written on. I know of a registered CHS Agent that can’t even do a baseline risk assessment or get the numbering of the new regulations right but is allowed to practice. What a joke! My reputation, experience and quality of work speaks for itself. No, I’m not a graduate and yes, I was refused registration as an CHS Agent. But bring on your registered professionals and I’ll wipe the floor with them. Have a look at my work an decide then? SACPCMP is a joke.

    1. Louis
      That is exactly why the process needs to be stopped. Registration should be like a tv licence – you hand in your certificate / degree at the DOL, they check it, and give you a registration number – for R150 or so for the year. End of Story.
      When a permit application is submitted, the registration number on the application can be checked and they will know you are “qualified” – what makes the construction industry so special that they want a deep throat, swallowing our money faster than Linda Lovelace?

    2. About the statement; “I’m not a graduate, and yes, I was refused registration as an CHS Agent.”
      Yes, Louis and many others may soon have to close their doors.
      Fear not, the DOL has a plan B – UIF! They will prevent you to work so you can get Unemployment Insurance from them.
      I am more convinced than ever that the process is going to be stopped in its tracks. I have a plan B myself, but I will not tell until it is time. The DOL and their cronies are up for one helluva fight from Danny Boy and his followers. Out with registration!!
      Construction OHS is a farce of the highest order, proof that it has anything to do with “saving lives”. It has to do with covering CEO’s against civil litigation and insurance claims. Why would an agent stop work on a site because the contractor does not have a medical in the form of Annexure 3? Will this kill anybody? Is the medical test invalid? Hey Doctor, the safety officer says your examination is not valid.
      Bulloney!! But Danny will fix these issues and make a fortune, just because the agents are dumb asses.

  6. I object most strongly to this registration, costs and qualifying criteria required by SACPCMP. I have been involved in SHE and professional waste management for over 30 years, have international and national experience in projects valued from R12,5 million to R2.4 billion as a SHE consultant and Safety manager with large corporate companies. I have been part of a team that wroteworld class safety standards and although 68 years of age, am still active in his field. Now I am expected to submit all sorts of paperwork (some of which is no longer available) and pay a large amount of money to register as a Safety Practitioner?? – This smacks of extortion at the least…I think this is a ploy by government to extract yet more money from working people and to make the private sector assume responsibility for where government is lacking in it’s inability to police construction through ineptitude.. This registration is causing major problems in the construction industry and further eroding business confidence in the sustainability of enterprises in this country.

  7. Environmental Health graduates are expected to do short courses to work in construction health and safety. That means the value of a degree is flushed and short courses are upgraded to greater heights. Registration with the Health Professions Council HPCSA is mandatory. Therefore the registration of health and safety should also be mandatory albeit only diploma, B-degrees, honours in health/safety science are considered. The short courses should not be a requirement in health and safety.

    How can a person with grade 12 and some short courses advice an engineer on health and safety? People with only short courses should not be considered as health and safety professionals. Qualified people with diplomas and higher degrees should be the only ones considered professionals. The rest should be allowed to practice in the profession only to the level of health and safety representatives.

    People should bring forward advice on how to improve the profession, not just shoot down the idea of registration. Many professions are already on a continuous development points system so why not in health and safety. The money required for registration is too high but that could be challenged on another platform. Thank you for making South African workplaces as healthy and safe as possible.

    1. Lesetja
      HPCSA registration for EHO’s is only compulsory if you work as a EHO for a local authority. Not if you want to work in the private sector.
      And another thing about the HPCSA. IF you register now, and do not keep your registration valid, even if you stop working as an EHO for ten years, and then want to register again, you will fork out all the arrears from day one. Having said that, have you compared the HPCSA’s annual fees with the SACPCMP’s?
      And what benefit do you get, other than the right to work?

      1. Peter, I totally agree with you on all accounts. SACPCMP annual fees are ridiculously high and as for the assessment I don’t know what they are trying to achieve. A person cannot work in a field for 10 years, and you want to re-assess them. There should be a way of controlling the profession though.

      2. I have worked out in the private sector for more than 20 years. I have not been registered for more than 15 years with the HPCSA. When I contacted them, yes I had to pay all the back charges, and do a re-assessment. You can guess what I told them. So I registered in the UK, easy as pie, and guess what….it was stated that they need my type of experience, 1st vs. 3rd world.

        Shane

    2. I have one thing to say about degrees or diplomas and other “higher” education; what is it worth when things change? Everything you where spoon fed, how much of it are you really using? If you say you use “everything”, go jump off a bridge as you are telling a big fat lie. You can have the highest degrees, but when you set foot on site with a safety officer that has experience in his field, you will loose! He knows it like the back of his hand. Experience beats everything out there! Think about it.

      1. Competence is not about only having qualifications – experience counts for a lot if not more.
        However, ever thought that without that entry-level knowledge, getting that experience and enhancing skills might be extra difficult?

        There is room for on the job vocational learning – but here is the rub – it should be subject to a robust level of validation and mentorship to ensure the person is developing competence in line with the recognised realms of scientific evidence for that area of work – facts, that cannot be disputed. Of course, there should be allowance for creativity in solving problems, and much of that is derived from experience, but it must be done the right way!

      2. Whilst I agree that experience is an important factor, one cannot rule out the importance of a tertiary education as this will give the practitioner the under-pinning knowledge. One should then undertake CPD to build upon, and broaden, their skill base.

      3. “a safety officer that has experience in his field”? They also need Spellcheck! Now that brings me to technical report writing… nope, perhaps not.

        ==== Editor notes; Manual spellcheck applied. The comment columns are like offroad biking trails. We stand less on typography, and more on individual views and practical information.

  8. I agree that registration with SACPCMP will not address the problems in the industry. The registration will not address competence. Once you complete your education and training, registration with the DoL should be compulsory. The costs associated with registration is ridiculously high. This will lead to competent practitioners leaving the industry because they cannot afford to take time off work to keep their CPD requirement up to scratch.

  9. Yes I agree with the withdrawal of the SACPCMP registration. This thing is like e-toll were our government never sat down to think deeply on the matter. I fail to understand that how the criteria of this registration is almost the same for different levels. Even the people on the assessment board are ex-members or construction; who assessed them?
    I am registered at SAIOSH, I do not hide [from assessment]. The SACPCMP is a money making scheme that DOL will not benefit from. As our government, let them come with a reasonable solution to suit everyone in the HSEQ field.
    There are many documents required for this registration that we cannot access at our organisations, so we will have insufficient information in our portfolio of evidence POE’s.

  10. I do agree with the registration, however have an issue with the criteria used. the problem with the profession is that there are a lot of people who have done Samtrac and think that they are now competent, well that is where I also started until I pursued further studies and my eyes were really opened. I believe there are two types of safety practitioners, first type: safety watchers, all they know is to observe people working and correct and second type are those that combine the first type and good administrative skills which is very important in the modern safety practitioner’s profession. Well where I work I advise the company on making multi million rands decisions and as such have to bring a high level of competency. I also work with various companies whom we do installations for and as a result have to be highly flexible to grasp and comply to their complex requirements. I believe the profession in its current format has been reduced to an every “Tom Dick and Harry” scenario. I believe this will make those registered highly valuable, not necessarily competent, but goes a long way towards regulating what is becoming a free for all profession. To emphasize my point, what are the requirements for studying Samtrac and becoming a safety practitioner, absolutely zilch, can you imagine a situation where everyone can just study to become a doctor or engineer without meeting the qualifying criteria.I also deal with various companies and it is appalling how many interpretations of the OHSACT one comes across, simply because of lack of competency and reluctance of companies to hire properly qualified safety practitioners. As for registration fees, already I have an undertaking from my company to pay for those fees as this will hugely benefit them.

    ==== Editor notes; Registration would make practitioners “highly valuable, not necessarily competent”?
    This rhetoric reveals registration for the confidence trick it is.
    Tom, Dick and Harry will register instead of study.

  11. The registration process is a good idea for the simple reason that a professional standard must not only be met and maintained, but adhered to at all times. Specifically where human lives are involved, be it construction work itself or using the completed construction project, such as buildings, malls, plants, structures, stadiums, industries.
    A lot of people think by doing safety short courses they are qualified safety officers, but this cannot be further from the truth. One course does not a safety officer make.
    But the problem with the implementation of this registration system is that there is a huge shortfall in the competency department and the time given for compliance is way too short for the “gap” training to take place timeously across the board.
    No consultation with the construction industry was done to the point that what they propose is to bring the construction industry to its’ knees or standstill. Once again the SANRAL idea applies. There are way too many “clever” people with too much to say about the industry of which they know too little. Another way to rape the people and businesses of this country of their livelihoods and giving nothing in return.
    Consider the repercussions of what you are doing to this country and it’s industries of which many depend, including you! A lot more thought should go into this and how it can be feasibly achieved, while safely maintaining and creating the jobs this country so deperately needs.

  12. This registration has to stop, its a waste of time and money. The Construction Regulations should regulate the formal qualifications for a competent person, not this money spending exercise! Who has time to write essays. Do not treat us as project engineers, we are not project engineers.

  13. I keep an eye on the register to see if the person who keeps issuing the same OHS specification for all his projects gets registered. That would add proof that the SACPCMP has no idea what they are doing.
    I have seen four specifications under the old Construction Regulations issued to various local authorities, all containing the exact same text. The only thing that resembles a site-specific item is the name of the client and the project. Mark my words… it will be winter before that process carries any credibility.

    1. Hello Danny, My name is Mark Winter and i am a safety agent, could you give me a call as i am very interested in one of your comments posted online and would like to discuss this with you further

      1. Peter, I might have touched a nerve, but the wrong person responded.
        I therefore rephrase my last sentence;
        “Mark my words… it will be a cold day in hell before that process carries any credibility.”

        All names and characters in this post is fictional. Any resemblance to an actual person is purely incidental. No animals were harmed during the typing of this post. If this post offends you, you can lodge a complaint at complaints@bccsa.co.za. Copyright 2014 – all rights reserved.
        Did I leave anything out?

  14. I found this post in search of a solution to a problem with a Sheq practitioner at a major company. For eight weeks we have been trying to get a file approved so we can do THEIR work. When I asked him if he is registered, he responded that he does not need to, as he does not work “on-site”.
    Houston, we have a problem….if “clients” can say “File Rejected” without even having the skills to inform us on the reasons for rejection, why should we even bother?
    I looked at the regulations and it seems a huge gap in the law, where a “Company employed” person can dictate and call the shots, and we as registered “competent” people will have to fork out more and more money to cover ‘Their” arses.
    They kill 10% of the total number of people in the construction industry every year, but are not classified as “Building” contractors, and every time one of their own employees are killed, their “partners” or contractors has to fork out more money.
    They will do everything to convince the DOL they are not “performing construction work” but then turns around and follow the Safety File Church.
    I no longer believe that big business are committed to Health & safety for the right reasons. “Zero Harm to our own bottom line” is all they care about. And we have to jump through all sorts of hoops to make it happen, because we are their “partners”.
    They cannot even tell you what they “want” in a file, let alone give you assistance.
    I think the SACPCMP can pack up and go home. They will not make any difference, as the fat cats will just worm their way out of compliance, like they have always done.

  15. In one of my articles I wrote the following; referring to a profession and skills
    We all have failed because we have:
    1.Not formalised a profession with level descriptors.
    2.Not supported, no matter how badly, the advancement of Health and Safety in South Africa.
    3.Not worked within our profession. We are too quick to accept all the add-ons like Quality and Environmental management, stragglers, gardeners etc.
    4.Failed to inform the various HR bodies and recruiters what is required of an incumbent, and what that person will do in that particular organsation in relation to their skill, education, experience and communication capabilities.
    5.Failed to explain that there are differences in roles, for example, liasing with government institutions on matters of health and safety is not a middle-management role, it is a senior management role. Strategic Health and Safety planning and forecasting is an executive role, and so on.
    6.Failed to provide the job technical specifications for many of the levels of persons in the Health and Safety profession.
    7.Because of no regulation, persons can act as Health and Safety consultants, advisors and professional services providers without peril, and those who will be affected in the future, are obviously dead against this.
    8.This “profession” has done a dis-service to many business enterprises because I’m sure they have been duped into believing that they are getting the “real deal”, when in fact they end up employing “disasters” waiting to happen.
    9.Not providing sufficient research papers on Health and Safety, thus failing to provide a window for our professionalism to shine through.
    10.How true have we been to our chosen profession?

    Shane

  16. I agree to STOP registration! I am also a Junior Safety Officer and the requirements for registration are just ridiculous. This is really discouraging for new comers like myself.

  17. Well where do i start? I agree on some form of the registration, but the time limit is ridiculous. We as safety professionals now have to pay to work, Gentleman and ladies, i have read some posts on the site and have come to this conclusion; No matter what systems you have in place no matter the skill level of your safety professionals, we are working with a human factor and you can give as much training as you want if a person wants to or commits an unsafe act and is injured he/or she is to blame, we are all responsible fore our own safety on a site or area where we work.

    Yes i agree companies take short cuts and they must be dealt with, All this talk about safety registration in my view is nonsense,

    I studied for four years for my diploma and have been in safety for 19 years and i can say no matter what registration we have it will not stop the incidents on site, the only way to curb it or reduce it is by training the locals and mentoring on a daily basis.

  18. SACPCMP Registration is here to stay guys, nothing we say will change the situation, we just need to calm down compile the reports, profiles ect and pay them to be registered, “its not worth it in fighting a battle when you know very well you cant win”.

    1. Jabu, I wrote down this post and the date and time. I will rub your nose it it later.
      If everyone takes your view; which I do by no means disrespect, the battle is already lost. BUT if we all say to the SACPCMP “find some other fools”, where will than leave the process? In a puff of smoke of marijuana!
      The DOL will stop it. They know it is doomed. They know it can only work if they do it themselves and make it affordable. They know!
      And the Minister of Labour knows it, and Parliament knows it.
      They are just figuring out how to stop it and still look smart in doing so. And that answer is quite simply “We listened to the voters of South Africa”.

      1. The best part is, those who register and just keep quite, stand to benefit from fewer people registering – supply and demand principles – they will be able to make a handsome earning.

      2. OR…. They will join Julius singing Pay back the money!
        And I doubt if SACPCMP /KFC will do that.

  19. In this article the editor list 6 persons that he believe are supporters of SACPCMP construction health and safety registration. The are in fact thousands, more than a 1000 persons have already applied for this registration and much more to follow.

    There also seems to be double standards or agendas, in this article there is a call for comments and support for the DOL to cancel the SACPCMP construction health and safety (all categories) whereas in another article (newer to this one) their is a call for support to move the registration of CHS Officers from the SACPCMP to the DOL, and to leave the registration of Pr CHS Agents with the SACPCM? If seems that the “callers” don’t know what they are calling for.

    ==== Editor notes; Apparently 902 have applied to the SACPCMP and about 500 are said to be ‘in process’. Teething problems (a very handy political and administrative phrase). Some of those candidates would like to see some changes, and some are against the scheme, some are hedging their bets in case there is some unfair advantage to be had. Some have applied just to get some SACPCMP correspondence or candidate status on their files. HR may not know the difference.

    Construction Health and Safety Agents would probably come mostly from the ranks of related existing professions, such as engineers, architects, project managers. Most of them may support registration in principle, but they are likely to handle that additional registration and CPD within their existing institutes, and just copy their names to the SACPCMP if that may be necessary.

    Construction Health and Safety Managers are a bone of contention, but also a small one judging by their numbers.

    Construction Health and Safety Officers is the bulk of the number or affected parties, perhaps a potential of about 3000?

    Market research by the SACPCMP, for which they contracted Prof John Smallwood and others, determined the fees that the different levels may accept to pay, or at least some would pay to get the ball rolling. The objectors, raising a total of about 33 points of contention, do not want to play either this ball, or some of these rules, or multi-disciplinary registration, or sectoral registration games at all.

  20. William Sr, about your comment; “It seems that the “callers” don’t know what they are calling for.”
    Allow me to explain the process we followed. The first step was to call for comments on the intention to ask the DOL to scrap the registration process. Based on the comments and responses, we reacted.
    It revealed that those who are to be registered as AGENTS, prefer the system as it is for various reasons, the biggest one being “financial accountability”.
    The others objected, and hence the proposal to recall CHS Officer registration, with the SACPCMP.
    We also involved around 400 contractors in our survey.
    We also involved 250 engineers and architects.
    The “callers” have spoken, and know exactly what they want.

    1. SACPCMP to handle Agents due to the “design risk” element, for which very few current agents have the competencies. This notion is supported by the majority of contractors who are tired of being abused by Client H&S Agents and need a route to lodge complaints and disciplinary sanction.

    2. DOL to list the CHSM, and CHSMs, as most are mere employees and not involved in the “upstream” stages of the construction process.

  21. Andrew, This very same post that you and I are commenting on, calls for the total ban of registration. If someone landed on this forum for the first time and read this post, he/she would comment in relation to the total scrapping of registration. Based on your reply, this is no longer the call.

    It also seems that comments in full support of “scrapping the crapping” is fine and will pass with distinction, however any comment slightly to the left or right is immediately countered by either the award wining editor or a member of the NIOCCSA marketing team. I wish you luck with your call for support, whatever that call might be.

  22. William Sr, you have a point. However, if one wants to express an opinion in public, should one not do some research on the subject? The heading is “Comments on the call” to scrap the crap (expect http://www.scrapthecrap.co.za to launch soon!! lol). A reasonably intelligent person would then first find out what the call is all about before commenting, not so?
    The SACPCMP publishes calls for comment all the time, but you have to go read the actual document first. And those who missed it, would find the new rules that SAIOSH should comply with, published in the Government Gazette;
    “The South African Council for the Project and Construction Management Professions(SACPCMP) is empowered, in terms of Section 36(1) of the Project and Construction Management Profession Act 2000 (Act No. 48 of 2000) to determine the rules and requirements for the recognition of Voluntary Associations, as contemplated in Section 14(d) and 25(1) of the Act.
    The Amended Rules and Requirements for the Recognition of Voluntary Associations Document can be downloaded from http://www.sacpcmp.org.za.

    Now if you read this, then you can comment as follows:
    1. Does a CC have perpetual succession as in rule 2.3? The answer is NO.
    2. How did they get recognised then? The answer is, Who Knows?

    Hahahahah! I pack my case

    1. “I pack my case”? Are you going to the sand dunes or the snow towns Peter? I suppose anywhere is better than the country of brandy and load shedding.

      1. That Craig, is a sad reality. But winter can be a wonderful thing. Skiing and snowboarding can be brilliant fun.

      2. Hi Craig, Off to the desert lands of Namibia. Cannot snow-board there lol.
        And Satan has now decided to take legal action as he owns the professional designation of “Prince of Darkness”. He plans to sue the CEO of Eskom for copyright infringements.

  23. About SACPMP registration, I am totally against this registration because I feel that in the years I have worked as a safety officer I was competent enough to perform my duties. Now I have to be judged by a essay, to say if I qualify, and furthermore I have to pay every year. Why do we have to pay to work. Is it not enough that we paid to study, and our expertise have been utilised by companies without this registration.

    1. Registration has nothing to do with competence. It is a sick plan of the ANC to force transformation on us.
      Soon you will see the truth in my words. Just give it time and then compare the results of who was registered and who not.
      The 80 / 20 rule will soon find its way into H&S. Just listen to the Chief Mampara of the DPW – Transformation in the Building Sector needs to be quicker.

  24. Click on my name Terence, Click on my name!!!!
    I agree with you. For a very long time we have been GOOD enough. Now that the DOL has been exposed by the Media after the Tongaat Mall and Meyersdal incidents, they want to shift the blame onto us, even before investigating the matter properly.
    The DOL (As Koos Woon previously commented) cannot do their job, now they want us to to do it for them and pay for it.
    SCRAP THE CRAP!

    1. Hey Peter (I’m not Adrian by the way, try another one wise guy) – what education are you promoting if you don’t want registration? Come, on draw a line in the sand and state the minimum qualifications you think a person delivering health and safety services should hold? How much experience should they have? Should they be doing CPD? What is your requirement for a competent health and safety advisor? This is not a trick question, I genuinely want to know. This is because I’ve had a look at the SACMP requirements and I qualify for all levels – they actually appear to have thought out what persons need to operate and have outlined criteria that suit the definition of competence – a widely held definition for that matter However, I would argue that the administration and cost are probably excessive, couple that with the potential for corruption and you have a flawed registration process. So those okes who are moaning, possibly need to take long hard look at their qualifications and start studying if they want to stay in the field – yes, experience counts, but there needs to be a sound underpinning knowledge – just ask you friends at NIEKAKSE.

      1. “So those okes who are moaning, possibly need to take long hard look at their qualifications and start studying if they want to stay in the field”

        Now that is hitting the nail right on the head Koos. At Pr CHA level many will not make the cut simply because they do not have formal qualifications.

      2. Yes, Craig, and many good ones will be lost because of that. The upside is true. The bucket-shops at client level will be sorted out. (It will have a great effect on unemployment records for the government’s next election, but hey, we stopped the malls from collapsing – vote for us.)
        Then there is the issue of the Principal contractors who does absolutely nothing except passing the buck and rigging tenders.

      3. Yes, take a good long hard look at qualifications. The SACPCMP will not register any forensic examiners – too close to home. And not many cars falling from heights on construction sites.

        Eish Mapere, When you post, right-click on all the words with red lines under them. They are not proffetionully spelled.

      4. You searched for:
        All Records
        Who match ANY of the following Member Types ‘Construction Health & Safety Manager, Construction Health & Safety Officer, Professional Construction Health & Safety Agent’
        Having a Name containing ‘craig parker’

        No records matched your search criteria.
        Now Shut up Spartacus!!!

        Let the wall fall!

        ==== Editor notes; Danny, it is OK to re-post or comment on information in the public domain. It is not OK to re-post or comment on absence of personal information, since it does not constitute evidence of absence. Particularly not on forums that the named people do not openly frequent. I removed such personalised negative results.
        For example, we cannot say that engineer XYZ is not on a certain list that we found.

  25. Koos
    I find it hard to believe that a person of your experience would actually agree with the SACPCMP registration criteria, but I am not sure at which level you looked.
    Firstly, there are three types of H&S criteria:
    1. Construction related qualifications with H&S training,
    2. H&S qualifications with Construction training,
    3. Other qualifications with components of OHS and related training
    For agents a total of 11 qualifications are acceptable, from NADSAM to M.Sc. Mechanical Engineering and others.
    For Managers the top levels are dropped.
    For Officers (The one in dispute) a two day course at NQF level 3 is adequate.

    The problem we all have with registration with the SACPCMP is that a person entering at level 1, will get a certificate, start working and there would be no need to continue studying towards a Btech Safety Management for instance.
    Clients will not engage top level practitioners. They will seek out the lower levels as these people are willing to work for anything, even R5000 a month (Which devalues the profession).

    Since you asked my personal opinion, a minimum qualification for H&S should be a National Diploma (not some piece of paper with “diploma” written on it, but an actual diploma issued by a recognised higher education institute.) However, since every man and his dog offers “training” recognised by the King of Skills Shortage (SAQA), the profession has regressed into a worthless job.

    Given the current situation, I agree with the NIOCCSA opinion that safety officers should not be subjected to non-profession related training via conferences and workshops, but Government, and Universities should create a route for a SHE Rep, to earn credits for continuous “Study”, which can then be used to obtain a degree at 480 credits. Tertiary qualifications is not linked to unit standards in South Africa, and FET courses are in essence worthless in this regard.

    One of my pet hates about this entire SACPCMP process, is that it follows the same route we have been regressing into for the last 20 years. It is not designed to serve the interest of the H&S Practitioner, to force them to develop. Look at the list of qualifications. Engineers, Architects, QS, electrical, mechanical, civil engineers, Building services managers, construction managers etc will now enter into the H&S arena and eat away at the cake which is already too small. This will eventually result in H&S being assimilated into other professions and disappear altogether.
    This is the SACPCMP intention, and this is what some H&S practitioners and their wonderful professional corpses are supporting – the demise of the H&S practitioner.

  26. Adding to this, with a slight political twist, Mr Nxesi (DPW) already told the construction & property sector that transformation aka affirmative action is not happening quickly enough within the sector and that there are too little black professionals. Agreed, but then create a education environment and a profession that is worth entering into; not some stupid council to “reject” applicants if they are not “transformed” enough to serve ANC policies.

  27. The petition posted on LinkedIn to stop the safety officer registration had 6 job applicants in a matter of 12 hours.
    Now I am wondering how registration will fix stupidity!
    Other solutions come to mind:
    Baseball bat, AK 47, electric musical chairs….

  28. Peter, I am not with the the Sacpmp, in fact I am against their money making scheme, ‘daylight robbery’ cdp points and annual fees ka….k, my point is once our gov gets involved it becomes unstoppable they were quick to review the construction regulation to accomodate this crap, take the e-tolls for example everyone is against it but its still going on, thats why i will register, i have 7 years experience as a construction safety officer an im not sleeping im in my first year for Nadsam, ‘I’m not scared of this crap registration’.

  29. Thank you Jabu.
    There are many, or as some believe thousands who support this process. But when you search their names they are not even listed as associates, let alone officers.

    Time will tell. Whether NIOCCSA and SASRU succeeds or not, I have more respect for them for going up against an army of “Flat Earth Society Supporters” than what I will ever have for Mark and his trop SAAI OSSE with their pink SAQA g-strings. And for the record. the e-toll saga is not over yet.

    Are you a registered Saai-os?
    Nope, I still have all my balls. But my dog is a registered Dalmatian, does that count for CPD?

    And meet the ISM family:
    Ray S Ism, Nepot Ism, Plagiar Ism and Gangster Ism.

  30. I have no objection to registration in order to proffetionilise SHEQ Services. But the criteria may be contentius.

    The main objection I have with the prcesses as explained is the double role that SACPCMP gives it self. For the process to be fair SACPCMP should only register Proffessional, it should not be involved in any type of training. The country has enough Quality Assuring Bodies under SAQA. All Training providers have to be registered with relevent SETA for thier learning programs. Why add SACPCMP in this mix. Or is that an advantage to help it make money by later insisting that registration is only if a person has done their programs? It may not start that way but it will end that way. SACPCMP be a Register and nothing else.

    I just hope we will structure our debate in such a way that we are not seen as being afraid of restration.

    Oh almost forgot that the previous Contraction Regulations had only existed for 10 years this year it will be interesting to see where or how many people would claim to have practiced as SHE Managers in the Construction Industry.

    1. Mapere, There are two types of training. The standard training offered by training providers to issue certificates of competency and degrees etc. These training providers are supposed to be registered with the applicable SETA or ETQA.
      The second type is the “approved providers” offering CPD. The SACPCMP does neither.
      They only approve the CPD providers. SAQA policy prohibits a professional body from training their members / registered persons for “certification” as it will make them both player and referee in their own game.
      The issue is that the SACPCMP “organise” conferences and roadshows and tea parties for which you get CPD points. These events can cost any amount of money (R7500 for the Conference in October 2014). It is not “training”, nor is it “Development”, it is FUNDRAISING, as it can be seen on their annual financial statements.

      As to you comment about the 10 year period, I gather that you are still new in the Safety arena, as the first “building work” regulations came out under the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act of 1941. H&S in construction is nothing new. We have been working in the industry under H&S laws for a very very long time. NOW after all these years H&S officers are not properly “trained”.
      I agree, but blame the government for it, not the safety officers. It was the government that introduced the NQF and SAQA so that people can earn unit standards instead of study for degrees. Now they have realised they screwed it all up, and expect the H&S officers to pay for it by funding their personal cash cow.
      I feel sorry for the people who are being misled by all these registration bodies; all claiming to have a legal mandate to take cash from the public. KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!
      And do not let people sucker you into spending money on absolutely NOTHING!

      ==== Editor notes; Construction health and safety CPD is offered mainly by the SACPCMP itself, in the form of training provided by its contractor (CPD On Demand, or a similar name, probably an IT company that sub-contracts some specialists). There will also be ‘free’ workshops, and some expensive workshops, and various points for money on offer.
      There is no legal obligation on any OHS practitioner to register anywhere, however employers are forced to hire a competent ‘and registered’ Construction Health and Safety Agent. Thus some engineers have to cram some short courses, exams, POE’s, essays, interviews, and tea parties into their work time before August 2015.
      CHS Managers and CHS Officers will be given politicial promises, be cajoled, intimidated, threatened, and pleaded with to pay up later. If they do, the DOL will soon appoint more ‘KFCC’ outlets in every business sesctor.

  31. I am glad to see that the list of opponents to the SACPCMP registration is growing strongly. It is clearly a reflection of the general consensus of SHEQ Practitioners.
    I am curious however. Where is the responses from SAIOSH and IOSM?
    Aren’t they supposed to “represent” the SHEQ practitioners as professional bodies?
    I would like them to tell us how many of their members are FOR and how many are AGAINST the SACPCMP registration. I particularly to not need the opinion of the Founders, who reportedly have their own “plans”,
    Any IOSH/IOSM members willing to respond and oppose [or defend] the registration publicly?
    Have you signed the petition, like I did? Or are you just opposing in silence?

  32. What is the date of commencement of the SACPCMP Act? I cannot find the proclamation that it has been put into operation. Please help!!!

  33. Sections 4(1), 4(2) and 26 came into operation on 22 July 2005. See Notice R 36 in Government Gazette  27828.
    A total of 46 Gazettes have been published under Act 48 of 2000 between then and 12 December 2014 of which 42 was Board Notices issued by the SACPCMP.
    No other proclamation issued by the President has yet been published as far as we know.

    Thank you for asking the hard questions.

  34. Did we just uncover the biggest government endorsed scam or what?
    Check these on the same proclamation:

    Proclamations
    Architectural Professions Act 44 of 2000
    Commencent of ss.4(1), (2) and 26 of the Act
    PR 38/GG 27828/22-07-2005

    Engineering Professions Act 46 of 2000
    Commencement of ss.4(1), (2) and 26 of the Act : 1 July 2005
    PR 34/GG 27828/22-07-2005

    Landscape Architectural Profession Act 45 of 2000
    Commencement of ss.4(1), (2) and 26 of the Act : 1 July 2005
    PR 37/GG 27828/22-07-2005

    Project and Construction Management Professions Act 48 of 2000

    Commencement of ss.4(1), (2) and 26 of the Act : 1 July 2005
    PR 36/GG 27828/22-07-2005

    Quantity Surveying Profession Act 49 of 2000
    Commencement of ss.4(1), (2) and 26 of the Act : 1 July 2005
    PR 35/GG 27828/22-07-2005

    1. Not sure…..
      In all these acts, section 4 deals with council nominations and 26 deals with consultation with affected parties, persons or bodies.
      Surely there would be another proclamation otherwise the entire SA has been paying for registration that is legally not required.
      If that is the case, it would be a good time to call the press.

  35. Let’s not jump to conclusions. It is quite possible that it slipped by unnoticed.
    We have seen the “capable manner” in which the Construction Regulations was designed and promulgated, so it is not always a matter of the pot calling the kettle black. Incompetence may even be at the very very top of Jacob’s Ladder.

    ==== Editor notes; All professional bodies are at different stages of their life cycle; and of their SAQA re-launch phase, or launch phase (currently free for all); and of their level of acceptance by their designated body of practitioners; and of their acceptance by clients or employers.

    Any Interim This and That Council could operate for some years as a cartel, adjusting its pecking order, legitimising its scams, securing its informal and formal reasons for existence, charging fees, and setting up its structure, before its is institutionalised by convention. The initial provision to elect a launch committee, which elects a board, and SAQA recognition, and statutory enforcement, are formalities.

    Bodies and boards, typically adopting the label of ‘institute’ or ‘council’, are mechanisms of self-governance, in other words, to manage the balance between competition and collusion, under the guise of “ensuring reputable service and legal compliance”.

    The price that society pays for this semblance of law and order and honesty is high; artificial shortage of supply, high prices, barriers to entry, quashing of complaints, monopolism, favouratism, whisper campaigns among employers and authorities, and so on. Shining examples of trade guild ethics are hard to find.

    Professional bodies shy away from enforcing the discipline that they promised to society, among their upstanding members. They have ways of making problems such as TB infections, slab collapses, and wetland impacts disappear into studies, commissions, and supposed suspensions that are queitly lifted.

    Health and safety practitioners and employers are generally aware that there is a difference between, for example;
    [] Engineering Council registration (engineers without health and safety training unless otherwise substantiated)
    [] Project Management registration (relevant only to state projects)
    [] SAIOH (occupational hygiene) registration (essentially voluntary, and relevant to contracting consultants, not de facto to full-time or mining hygienists)
    [] environmental assessment registration (degreed specialists about to get statutory status)
    [] SACPCMP (construction health and safety Agents and Managers, still in very low numbers, that may increase in future, or become part of engineering designations; and, theoretically, Construction OHS Officers)
    [] Volutary OHS ‘registration’ bodies (IOSM /OHSAP, IOSH SA /SAIOSH), scaring employers with willful misinterpretations of ‘SAQA recognition’, and that pliable term, ‘statutory’.

    No law is read in isolation. Some employers, and many human resources officers, are not aware that there is no law that directly requires any of the above to register; that the requirement to appoint registered people applies only to construction; that it is likely to be inspected and enforced only on state projects; that it has been exempted until August; that some of the core conditions of provisional SAQA recognition of the SACPCMP (and of the voluntary bodies that they award some Brownie points to) were not met; that there was, and is, significant opposition by the body of practitioners; that some or the relevant training, designations, and scope of service are misaligned; that OHS professionalisation is a contradiction in terms; that there are 30 reasons not to’comply’ with the agenda of the voluntary bodies who are waiting in anticipation for more ‘statutory’ powers to extend to themselves.

    About your comment to ‘call the media’, on this website, you are also the media, and I am not just the piano player, I bark along too. The famous Canadian communication commodification (identity branding) and conformism slogan of ‘The medium is the message,’ was updated in 2012 to ‘The receiver is the medium and the message.’
    The real issues, such as skills and functions, are no longer swept under branded carpets such as Coughprof and Roshpam designations.

  36. Nevermind the registration, There are some engineers that paid fines too. If the Act is not law, the fines must be refunded.

  37. The number of people registered with the SACPCMP as Construction Health & Safety Agents are out-numbered 10:1 as the Petition to stop SACPCMP registration have reached 10 times more supporters.

    I cannot believe that the Department of Labour still ignores public opinion. How do they expect us to take them seriously when it comes to wages and basic conditions of employment if they continue to cause people to leave the country to seek better prospects in other countries?

    Just read the post on the profession being divided world wide, and the DOL expect to create something that has already failed in more modern parts of the world?
    They say wise people learn from the mistakes of others. Fools make their own.
    Scrap the Crap!

  38. A comment from the NIOCCSA blog raises several issues;

    You have hit the nail on the head with the Competition Act, because this [SACPCMP appointment as designated body by DOL -Ed] seems to be favouritism, whereby the only approved authority to test [construction OHS] people is SACPCMP.

    What about all the other legal registered institutions [perhaps you mean Engineering Council and Safcec? The OHS uncles’ bodies are not registered or statutory, only ‘recognised’ by SAQA as a kind of trial and rationalisation period -Ed]. Why are they not allowed to do the testing [re-examination, interviews, and registration. Actually the real anti-competitive issue relates to employers being forced to hire certain people and not others, on the basis of a most questionable barrier to the job market].

    Secondly the SACPCMP is a private institution [no, it is appointed by the DPW with jurstiction over public works construction, see a post on the SACPCMP council on Sheqafrica.com] as i understand it, that are totally dependent on membership fees for their existence [no, they do not have any members]. Why are they not part and parcel and paid by the DOL [the DOL does not have the capacity, and they make a hash of compensation, and made a hash of their former training functions].

    It does not make sense because somebody is gaining from this. People that fail these tests and exams have to rewrite /reapply which a perfect way of generating and providing an income for them.

    Why is it when you do an enquiry for assistance /guidance concerning the exams, tests and interviews, it becomes a state secret that nobody may assist or share with you [there is currently an exemption, and some systemic and strategy-related delays, and some applicants are fast-tracked].

    Schools and universities are all there to educate and help people, but here it seems to be the more we can fail the better financially for the SACPCMP [the SACPCMP does not have any education, training, or quality assessment capacity, it is rendered by contractors].

    Lastly a lot of people that I work with daily even in DPW are all complaining about this registration. The comments from safety officers /OHS consultants on site are that it would be better to make a career change than going to all this trouble of registering and paying all that money of which some don’t have. Contractors argue that they are not sending /registering their safety officers /consultants etc because they are already running on tight budgets. Should they fail, that person may not proceed with what he was doing and they cannot afford to employ another person to the job while keep the existing person on the payroll.

    It is my opinion that a lot of leaners and experienced people are going to pull out of the industry as a result of this which is going to have a major impact on the safety and construction industry.

    [Editor notes; The relevant issues are complex. The bad reflection for misunderstanding some of it is not on you or me. It was designed by people including uncle Robin Jones, uncle Neels Nortje, uncle Ray Strydom, uncle Joep Joubert, uncle Doug Michell, auntie Claire Deacon, the DPW SACPCMP board /officials-cum-contractors, prof John Smallwood, the CBE, and other uncles; strewn with grey potholes that their bodies, their boards, their executive boards, their assessors, and their CPD and other service contractors would fix with band-aid. At a schedule of fees of course.]

  39. This SACPCMP registration must stop, it is of no help to us and it claims to be the body for occupational health and safety but there is no mention of anything about health part of it but only safety and the rest about it , is being a money making scheme and we are not money making machines.

  40. How does a person go about registering, and when is the cut-off date?

    —- Editor notes; Ask the SACPCMP. While you wait, use the Search button on this site, and enter the term Registration.

  41. ladies and guys, I like your comments, very in formative and interesting, otherwise will be doing tautology and repetition. I experienced same challenges which I could not share with anyone for my heart was broken when I was trying to register as a CHS Agent with more than 15 years in construction field and postgraduate studies in Occupational Health and Safety, to be prevented within a one hour interview, which had no observers to ascertain the justification of the process. I had the same comments but thanks that everyone is noting this malpractice.

  42. I am currently registered as CHSM and would like to encouarge others to do so. This registration is a legal requirement if you are practising as safety professional in the construction sector.
    Laws are made by political representatives of electorate called legislature after consultation with ineterested and affected groupings and once law is promulgated it is binding and whoever is not complying will be committing a crime. Only legislature and in som ecases, some courts, can amend the law.
    Rather assess yourself and see how much gap exist, and endeavour to close that gap before attempting registration. Let us not attempt to politicise this issue.

    ==== Editor notes; Most interpretations of the Construction Regulations agree that CHS Agents and Officers have to register, but not CHS Managers.
    Consultation was selective, the comment period was short, and many comments (from an unprecdented high number) were ignored. The construction inudstry played the fait accompli card, a mechanism often used by developers to subvert the law, as you know.
    I agree that self-assessment is necessary, but the skills gap analysis should be aimed at the scope of services that employers require, not the CR pie in the sky, or the SACPCMP /Joep Joubert pie in the sky.

    The registration issue was political from the moment the DOL wanted to be seen to ‘do something’ to pass its quota of amendments before the previous election, and seen to ‘do something’ to protect workers against slab collapses; and since the voluntary body split into two due to its internal personality politics; and since a voluntary ‘registrar’ was appointed to the Labour minister’s advisory council; and since the other voluntary ‘registrar’ was consulted “many times” on the text of the amendment; and since the new voluntary president was appointed as consultant to the SACPCMP; and since the big six construction companies duplicated their Arabic cabal in South Africa under the banner of safety; and since a BEE health and safety body was launched on the same stage just after the minister had appointed the SACPCMP as designated body.
    And you believe that health and safety registration is not a political issue? There are less politics in Eskom than in this conflated ‘organised’ practice. De-politicising the OHS skills issue would require dismantling most of the agendas involved, and dismantling of the health and safety registration racket (four boards – two of them doubled for accounting reasons – and four registrars, and two SMME versions, and a BEE version, at last count. And that is only in construction health and safety).
    Stop this racket before it spreads to other industries.

  43. I aggree that it is a monymaking scheme and it generates a lot of confusion in the construction industry.There is a lot of competent persons that cannot afford the exuberant fees.Incompetent persons will automatically be shut out by the industry.

Comments are closed.

close
Facebook IconLinkedInLinkedInLinkedIn
error: Contact the Cygma Group for Copyright licence.