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
Isaac Nkosi, I.N. Associates Project Managers, SACPCMP council
Itumeleng Molosi, DPW director, SACPCMP council
Joep Joubert, IOSM /OHSAP, SACPCMP contractor
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
Tseliso Makhetha, QS to Limpopo Education, CIDB, SACPCMP council
And some (not all) of the 950 SACPCMP applicants
Commentators supporting construction OHS registration under certain conditions;
Brian Irlam, consultant
Koos Duvenhage (pseudonym)
Mark Anthony Bower
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;
Alet Van Graan
Andre van der Riet
Andre’ van Niekerk
Bert Denton Houghton
Brenda Johanna Holder
Caitano White Snr
Carel Du Plessis
Chris van der Merwe
Colleen van Staden
Consti van Coller
Danny van Zyl
Deon van Heerden
Derrick James Minnie
Doreen Jansen van Vuuren
Ellah Felicity Ngamone
Eric van der Westhuizen
Ernst de Vries
Ezra van Heerden
Gareth Van Leeve
Henry de Klerk
Hermann Jacques Keyser
Jacques van Graan
Jamela S Melusi
Johan van der Walt
Joseph Muzikayise Makahya
Karen Ann Gilbert-De Klerk
Katlego Kush Elviz
Kember Stanley McMaster
Kevin Anthony Hunt
Louis F Zehmke
Luke van den Berg
Mario Steenkamp, Dr
Marius du Plessis
Neil Van der Bijl
Obed Mantentewane Mhlanga
Peter, Just Peter
Philip van der Vyver
Piet van der Westhuizen
Pieter van der Walt
Pieter Van Zyl
Riekie van den Berg
Rudy Maritz, NIOCCSA
Ryan van Greunen
Sydwell Prosperous Khanyi
Wayne van Heerden
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 firstname.lastname@example.org 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.
Latest posts by Edmond Furter (see all)
- Competition Commission could stop construction safety registration - 2 March 2017
- Mines sue inspectors for mine safety stoppages - 25 February 2017
- Mine Health and Safety Centre of Excellence opens in 2017 - 25 February 2017