Part-time work

[ian gough]

Despite my earlier post - I cannot seriously disagree with you Colin. This is just another area where perhaps some new issues relating the 'modern' fire safety world will be tested via litigation?

[colin todd]

Ian, Personally, I am less concerned about the legal issues than the professional issues. Its more of the same sort of thing we were all discussing in the postings about retired fire officers. There is still the old arrogance about (but I must say 2000% less than when I started in fire safety) that ''I have driven a red HGV and there can't be that much to this fire safety lark, so I can potter about with it in my spare time. No need to keep up to date or anything. nothing much to it anyway.) And I ask again, would you go to see a medical consultant, who is actually a moonlighting paramedic, who never reads anything other than Ambulance Weekly.

[fireftrm]

Colin you persist in the use of the word tardy - which means late. The level of comprehension CPD in the FRS is obviously of a higher standard than in private industry as I can use correct words.......

1. If the job is a prt-time one then how do you cope with the same question if the employee is not in the FRS? Oh sorry he/she is not in today, can I pass you to someone else to deal with it, or ask him/her to ring you back when he/she is next in (giving the day/time)? Surely you do - don't be so damned pedantic.
2. Out of interest what level of CPD and  ongoing training do you provide? Do you ensure that all staff maintain their competence against a national occupational standard? If so do you use the one designed by the fire industry, including the FRS, or one of your own? Do you record alll such competence? All FRS now do and it is set at NQF level4 (degree level) and must be fully reassessed constantly. Some, like mine, make this a part of normal activity and a requirement of the PDR - which is 6 monthly - that the records are up to date. High quantity of records and of a high quality with externally set standards.
3. How would you for any part-time employee?
4. Then Ffs aren't qualified to do the job, so don't emply them.
5. So? Surely you assess whether he/she can work to your requirements and not a set of their own during recruitment? Good managers would use the correct tools for identifying the right staff.

And as I said before.......

All of this is easily overcome fully, it would be unprofessional to do otherwise, oh and it would be better to do it properly rather than tardily (late) and not one bit would be due to the FRS person more the employer of them..........

[colin todd]

Actually, tardy has a broader sense--suggest you consult Mr Roget, who confirms that a suitable synonym is plodding. Its a sort of pottering about that these people do, messing around at their own pace in their spare time. If you let me have your email, I will scan the relevant page from Roget.
Turning now to your questions,
1. If an employee is part time, his hours will not be dictated by the needs of another employer usually. Moreover, I still remain of the view there is a difference between telling a client that someone has a day off and telling them he only works for you ON HIS DAYS OFF. Don't be so damned obtuse.
2. Our CPD is, as in the case of most reptubale practices in our profession significantly grater than in most FRS. Sadly, if you are selling services as opposed to merely enforcing legislation it needs to be. We have our own standards for maintenance of competence, which accord with BS EN ISO 9000, which is an international standard, bot a national standard. All such competence is recorded, and staff are required to complete records of CPD monthly, often with additional records created during the month.
3. We dont really have part time employees as such, although the WP staff do not usually do a 37.5 hour week, but they too have CPd records.
4 I dont employ firefighters, but many seem to think they can do the job and some people are stupid enough to believe them.

[fireftrm]

Colin

Tardy has some synonyms as you correctly state, however they all mean some form of slow, or late; including the 'pottering about' you refer to. I fail to see how someone working (on a day when they are free to do so) for an employer can be termed plodding, late, tardy, delayed, slow, overdue, behind etc unless the employer has chosen the wrong people - see point 5. Your tone implies that you are so much better than a FRS employee and that these people are lazy and incompetent. If you don't want to employ them don't, but don't make assumptions based on your silly little prejudices. Prejudice is not accepted here in the FRS and it shouldn't be in private industry.
1. You said "there is a difference between telling a client that someone has a day off and telling them he only works for you ON HIS DAYS OFF. Don't be so damned obtuse" I think this rather indicates, as I suggested, that it is you who is being obtuse - after all any normal, sensible, business person would not say that their employee only works for them on a day off from someone else - or would they so demena their own business?
2. ISO 9000 is a standard for the quality of management systems. The fire industry national occupational standards are for the work of personnel against a standard for that job role. It is entirely possible to get ISO9001 accrediattion without operating to a NOS, though it would be auditably good practice if (in a suitbale management system) you employed a NOS to which you could assess developent needs.
3. Maybe YOU don't but that wasn't the basis of the original post to which you gave your answer, mine is aimed at the correct point.
4. Fine you don't employ Ffs - so why bring them into a discussion that seems clealry, to me, to be about suitable personnel for the job available, unless that was simply another dig at FRS personnel?
5. I see you couldn't answer that one so I take it you agree?

[colin todd]

1. It is not our practice to lie to clients. If they were at their ''proper job'' and there is nothing unprofessional about them pottering about in their spre time, why would one not admit it. Is there some reason to hide the fact that a practice employes moonlighters, idf so why I wonder.
2. ISO 9000 is a standard for management OF quality. It would not be possible to obtain accreditation without proper attention to staff training and also control of the qulaity of sub-contractors; not sure how you do that with moonlighters, though I confess since we would not employ them I dont need to know.
3 . The relevance of the posting is a moot point.
4. It was a dig at fire service personnel. Is that clear enough for you.
5. 5 was such a truism I did not think it warranted discussion.

I note that you seem to have lost interest in the CPD debate. Funny how we always seem to be having to tell FRS people about new standards that were issued in some cases 8 months ago if they are all doing this CPD.

[messy]

Exciting stuff. Not at all tardy

4 - 3  to Colin so far..........

(New balls please!)

[colin todd]

And at least, coming from a certain large Met FRS, Messy, no one could say you are prejudiced, as we  are totally intolerant to intolerance in that FRS! Trust you are well and are remaining well out of burning buildings.

[Paul]

Colin,

In my experience NVQ assesses the ability of the individual to undertake the job they are already doing.  Not sure but I don't seem to remember it covering CPD.  all well and good that a FRS runs a generic assessment process and I for one would not question the actual process as in my opinion it is an improvement on years gone by whereby very little in the way of assessment of individuals took place.  However CPD it is not.

Paul

[fireftrm]

Nope not lost interest in CPD at all, indeed that was the main brunt of my disagreement with you.........

1. Saying someone is not in until "day they are back" as they only work part-time is not lying, surely? Saying "sorry, they only work for us when they aren't at their other proper job" would suggest your sis a business of with a very poor quality of customer service and almost certainly lead to customer complaints of the sort that would lose a business its ISO9001 accreditation. No sensible business person would dream of using such twaddle. This is just you being obnoxious and trying to justify an unjustifiable point. Moonlighting is for persons who do work without informig the IR or their other employers, surely you wouldn't condone such actions and would only employ, not pay cash-in-hand?
2. Quite - as I said it is not a standard agaionst which you assess/develop staff, as you suggested in your first atttemt at a response. I am more than aware what ISO9001 consists of having been involved in quality management systems. So what occupational standard do you assess against? IFE etc?
3. Quite
4. As I thought - so jealousy, or just plain awkwardness?
5. Agree with me - are you sure?
 You must have quite a job on your hands training/developing all these useless FRS staff when you do take them on, after all with 37.5% of your declared team being retired ADOs (still being paid a pension by a FRS)...................
As for FRS staff not knowing some new standards I cannot comment on other areas of the country, but I have always found the south to be a little slow in keeping up. I do agree that they should be maintianing their skills and knowledge, but don't assume (you know waht assume does) that all FRS staff are behinbd the times, any more than all 'consultants' are the bees knees.

PS to Chris - the majority of consulants (and this is why I truly believe that the fire industry should drop that title) are thsoe who failed in the real job and set up as consultants instead. I am not saying this applies here, that is the point of suggesting another title that does not have the same high disapproval rating amongst the general public.

[fireftrm]

as the ad says "those who can teach" well "those who can't consult"

[Chris Houston]

PS to Chris - the majority of consulants (and this is why I truly believe that the fire industry should drop that title) are thsoe who failed in the real job and set up as consultants instead. I am not saying this applies here, that is the point of suggesting another title that does not have the same high disapproval rating amongst the general public.

I would dispute this.  As a "Risk Management Consultant" myself, I would suggest that most consultants are employed by large public limited companies and consult on a wide varierty of topics in a professional manner.

On the point that the general public don't like the job title, I think you are right, however personaly speaking, I have never found this to be a barrier to success.  That said, if one is being a consultant, one should perhaps call oneself a consultant.  Traffic wardens call themselves traffic wardens.

Debate is good and healthy, but this one is getting stale and I am minded to close the thread.  Perhaps those with strong opinions on the matters in question could agree to disagree.

Thank you.

Chris.

[fireftrm]

Chris I have no doubt, whatsoever, that the professionals in this industry are just that. I do stand by more point about the genearl consulting world, though. It has become the area for failed managers and finance, not as it began as a professional branch of advisors. As you then go on to agree "On the point that the general public don't like the job title, I think you are right, however personaly speaking, I have never found this to be a barrier to success" - the whole title is becoming more tarred with the brush of distastae caused by management and financial consultants. I think now is a good time to review the use and perhaps you should start by becoming a Risk Management Engineer/Advisor...........

A last to Colin on the use of NOS - a report by Skills for Justice (the Sector Skills Council for the Justice Sector) states that, amongst the 78 reasosn for adopting a NOS:

Assurance of Product and Service delivery

16.   Quality specification for work processes/outcomes
17.   Structuring and ‘loading’ production systems
18.   Monitoring of work processes
19.   Guaranteeing customer service quality/standards by licensing job holders
20.   Specification for contract tendering
21.   Monitoring contract delivery/compliance
22.   Evidence of competence for compliance with international standards (BS5750/ISO9000)

[dave bev]

mr houston, it doesnt seem stale to me. if you follow that line then you will also need to start closing all the threads (and actually some of the groups!) that have little or no input - i say leave it open - it isnt abusive, its honest open debat with people have alternative and differnt point so view expressing those differences.

i may not agree with what some people say, but i will defend their right to say it - so long as it is not designed to cause injustice or hurt to anyone - free speech brings with it a responsibility ..........

dave bev

[Chris Houston]

OK point taken.  Watching with a beady eye.