FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: P GUTHARD on July 28, 2005, 01:25:08 PM
-
Hi all,
I have a fire safety consultancy company in the north of England and have been undertaking fire risk assessment for the past 4 years.
At the weekend I was approached by a friend of a friend who is in the fire service and he asked if I was prepared to offer him part time work in fire risk assessing on his days off. I explained that this was probably not legal as there is an obvious conflict of interest (your comments please).
He informed me that he has already been offered work for another consultancy in the area but would prefer to work for me (never been in direct competition so no problems with the company). He also stated that the company in question already employs wholetime firefighters on a regular basis.
I feel this is not right for both the company and the fire service personel to do this, and was wondering if any of you guys have come across this and what steps (if required) can be made to stop this?
Thanks in advance
Paul
-
From your point of view I would have thought that the most important thing would have been the skills Knowledge and experience of the prospective employee.
The conflict of interest issue is probably an ethical/moral issue and would only arise if advice was given that was contrary to the FIre Service or Your company policy that then came to court.
One way of stopping this may be to contact the relevant brigade, I believe that most brigades require that staff ask for permission to take on part time work and have the right of veto if such work may affect their ability to carry out their duties.
I have heard of a case where an individual was doing similar work and this was sanctioned by the Service as long as they did not work within their Fire Authority area.
-
Building control officers have been doing this for years - often the best people to knock up the plans for your extension - but never in your own area - sacking offence usually.
Of course they work in relatively small boroughs whereas FPOs work in counties.
-
just because its in a contract to 'ask' this doesnt make it legally binding though i reckon the 'courts' may wish to consider issues of confidentiality - not only do some people want 'control' over employees at work, they want it even when theyre not at work! so long as it doesnt come into conflict in professional terms 'seeking permission', in my opinion is boxxols
dave bev
-
Well said Dave. Absolute bo**ocks that employers, of any nature should attempt to control our lives when we are not selling our labour to them. If we are fit and capable of doing the full time job then it is none of their business whether we do FRA's or exotic dancing in our OWN time.
No FA has, to my knowledge ever tried to take anybody on for failing to abide by their new labour style rules...mainly because the know they would lose in court. This, of course makes the rules themselves unlawful.
I would though, as a matter of courtesy not work in an area where I may, in theory, have to take enforcement action against the very people I was advising.
No Japanese company man would sell his soul to the firm in the way that we are expected to!
I suppose all those bar staff don't have day jobs, or MP's, or NHS/Private doctors or nurses doing an extra bank shift or civil servants quietly networking their way onto defence companies.
Vomit
-
Every time we advertise for consultants we get applications from firemen who want to moonlight. Only a personal opinion of course, but the very idea seems tardy and unprofessional to me. Maybe I am just old fashioned.
-
Your employer has every right to be concerned when your behaviour brings the organisation into disrepute.
Doing consultancy work in the same area that you work as an FPO is about as unproffesional as you can get.
If you work outside your area then I don't have problem with it.
-
As well as the conflict of interest issue, I'd want to know what competency they had for FRAs Fire FIGHTER is not the same as a preventor - if they'd done the various FPO courses then fine, but if not then it's surely a bit arkward
-
Wee B
That may be true but the concept of bringing the organisation into disrepute is very subjective. Is working as a voluntary porter disreputable, or is it the concept of being paid? Is working as a government minister and then moving to an organisation that was within your remit disreputable? Do bricklayers get castigated for working in a charity shop or firemen for posing for 'racy' calenders? Oh, I forgot, that was for charity so no problem. This area is fraught with difficulties and if a competent FSO wants to earn a few more bob, working outside of their enforcement area making places more safe...what is the problem?
Flexible Duty Officers may work 72 hours, retained firefighters have two jobs and that is OK but if a fireman wants to earn £50 extra he has to ask permisson??? Please.
Employers and those in power want to control our every thinking moment. Big brother is surely just around the corner.
Rant over, chianti finished. BED.
-
Flexi duty offciers do not WORk 72 hours, they. like firefighters work 42 hours a week. They are then on call for another period, the actual in lenght of which depends on the individual FRS duty rota system. IN mine it is about 48 hours. They get a %age extra for this and otherwise are exactly the same as any other FRS member so please include them in the 'why shouldn't they earn some more'. As an example they earn less here than a Day crewed SubO/WM.
If the work is outside the FRA area then why not?
Colin - what is so tardy and unprofesional - for a start they are likely to be prompt (the opposite of tardy) and professional (being that they are trained professionals). I very much doubt that the people applying are moonlighting as that would be a breach of discipline, the FSOs I know (all flexi-duty by the way) who do work outside the FRA area and while off duty, all informt he FRS of such work and have approval for such secondary employment.
My problem is with the title 'consultant' a dirty word in my book for persons who come in, ask loads of questions of managers, write reports based on the answers they get and present as the 'future' together with their bill. The entire thing being based on the knowledge that was already there and a cost to boot. Some of the biggest businesses are waking up to this con and have banned any use of 'consultants'. Unless the fire industry wants to be tarred with the same brush may I suggest that you change the titles to fire engineers or safety advisors?
-
fireftrm
I was not abusing FDS, merely illustrating fire authority double standards. OK to allow some of their staff to work 48/72 hours, (retained now have to provide full cover I think), whilst trying to control the lives of those who have finished the contracted wage slave hours!
My point was that short of the person being too tired to do their job properly, it is none of the FA's business.
-
i dont think that doing part time work is an issue but maybe the type of part time work you do could be. I think that it is probably reasonable that an employer should be concerned if your second or alternative employment is likely to bring you into direct conflict with themselves. I am sure that within the commercial sector staff would not be allowed to work for a company if that company was in competion with the primary employer.
-
My problem is with the title 'consultant' a dirty word in my book for persons who come in, ask loads of questions of managers, write reports based on the answers they get and present as the 'future' together with their bill. The entire thing being based on the knowledge that was already there and a cost to boot. Some of the biggest businesses are waking up to this con and have banned any use of 'consultants'. Unless the fire industry wants to be tarred with the same brush may I suggest that you change the titles to fire engineers or safety advisors?
The consultancy process can be similar to the one you decribed above, but I would add some important points from my own experience:
-Most of the questions have never been asked before.
-While some of the conculsions reached by have been known by middle management before, they have never before been presented to senior management in the right way to persude them which is the correct course of action to take.
-Invariably the consultant can share information about how the rest of the industriy deals with their problems.
-Invariably the consultant is more qualified, knowns more about their area of expertise and can suggest solutions to problems that work.
The cost of using a consultant is agreed at the outset, and nobody forces anyone to use one. Everytime I undertake fee work for a customer I seek feedback and not once has one been unhappy with the results.
-
There is a fair bit of 'contract' law and case law surrounding this issue. Clearly it is a conflict of interest to work as a fire officer in an area where you might do fire risk assessments (and I wonder about issues such as the premises being in one part of the country, however, the 'body corporate' being elsewhere??) as it is not right to be 'both sides of the fence'. As yet, however, I understand that this particular situation is untested in law.
That being said, there is case law suggesting that it is not lawful for an employer to stop an employee doing work, when the work is not being offered by the employer. A very interesting case arose a few years ago in Nottingham (Nottingham Uni I think). In that case a research scientist, employed by the Uni, did research for someone else and got paid. He then got sacked. But the court said: because the research work done privately was different to his work at the Uni - and the Uni was not offereing the same research facilities to any potential clients - this was unfair dismissal. And the Uni had to pay compensation.
If a Fire Authority offered a fire risk assessment service therefore - any firefighter/officer employed by that authority would be in serious breach of contract for working part-time doing fire risk assessments - due to conflict of interest as they would be 'poaching' clients. That is the main rule that's been established for other industries. I do not believe that this is the case here though.
By the way, I've been following this topic whilst supporting one of my officers who took out a grievance against our fire authority who refused permission to do such work. He lost! And although he probably had a good case for the courts, we considered it too risky to risk his job or cash as the FBU were not happy to support him.
-
What is unprofessional is as follows:
1. The chap does a FRA, let us say. Then, the client phones the next day and asks a question about it. So you would end up saying 'Oh he is not here today, he is at his proper job.'
2. How do you manage the guy's CPD, given that ongoing training in the FRS is probably of lower quality and quantity than a reputable consulting practice would demand of the employees. And if you are giving him ongoing training and development, you are doing so for the FRS to benefit.
3. How do you keep him up to date with standards if he is only doing the odd job here and there, and how do you deal with the QA of his work.
4. Many of those who apply are not even well experienced fire safety officers ,but firefighters who have shown no interest/ aptitude for fire safety in the FRS, but suddenly show an interest if its worth a few bob in their spare time.
5. Ineveitably, there may be differences in approach of his ''home'' brigade and that of the consultancy. How does he cope with reconciliation of such difficulties.
None of this cannot be overcome to an extent. its just tardy and unprofessional, but that is often the World we live in.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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..........
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Exciting stuff. Not at all tardy
4 - 3 to Colin so far..........
(New balls please!)
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
as the ad says "those who can teach" well "those who can't consult"
-
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.
-
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)
-
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
-
OK point taken. Watching with a beady eye.
-
1. It is good practice to establish relations with clients. Many of our clients have the consultants' CVs. Many go to lunch with them. It would be necessary to bend over backwards to keep clients from knowing that the so-called consultant was an I/O (at best) making a bit on the side. If you feel that this smacks of a professional practice, then we need to agree to difffer. In the meantime, I have a few days off due, so could I come and do some I/O work for you. (We will not tell your punters that I am really a moonlighting consultant if you want.) Equally, all your posttings on this point seem to suggest that the fact the guy is really a fire officer making a bit on the side can easily be concealed. But if there is nothing wrong or unprofessionla about the prinicple, why conceal it. You have never addressed this question, which I put to you before. Thank you for your comments about being obnoxious. I think that's the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me. (Maybe we have different definitions of obnoxious of course.)
2. You appear to have answered a question with a question. CPD does not have a standard, a point that Mr Smith made and with which I agree.
3 Not applicable, but I include the reference for completness.
4. Neither, but you at least you have had it confirmed that your assumption was correct.
5. Yes, quite sure. 5A (I think). I have never emplyed useless staff; they all have many years of continuous service in fire safety, something that is very rare in FRSs as fire safety is seen as a career move (at best), or punishment (at worst). When we take them on, we do an analysis of their training needs and the work necessary to update them, and proceed accordingly. 5B (I think) Their pesnion is irrelevant to me and is not tkane into account in their salaries. I missed the relevance of the pension, (for which they have paid) point, so perhaps you could explain it. 5C (I think) I was not making an assumption, merely reflecting on 30 years experience of dealing with FRSs, and, as a result of many FRSs not taking fire safety seriously enough, not enough work is done to enable the officers to carry out CPD.
Mr Smith: Please see reference above to your posting.
Christopher: It is stale as last week's milk, but ever mindful of the need to help our friends and colleagues in the fire service, I will be pleased to continue with further advice for the gentleman as long as he seeks it.
Davey: Do we commies really like free speech? Is this a new policy on which I need to do some political CPD?
-
1. The reason I did not address the concealment issue? Who said anything about concealing it - that is apart from you? I made the point that the FSO would have made a secondary employment application, would be properly employed by the 'consulantcy' firm and would therefore have two jobs - no concealment. You brought up the subject of 'moonlighting' which suggests hiding from the taxman, I argued quite clearly against such an obvious attempt to smear anyone with more than one job as a 'tax evader'.
If you wiish to say 'I am sorry xxx is not in today they are working for xxx and will be back in on xxx' then fine - all the 'they are at their proper job' etc is where I feel you were being somehwat childish in attempting to make an anti-FRS personnle point. Not at all professional to use that sort of wording to a customer.
2. CPD doesn't have a standard but there are standards against which it can be measured, such as NOS etc..............
3. mm
4. mm again
5. Pension point is that they are already being paid by a FRS - yes they have made contributions, but then so have those still in service (through doing work) the difference is simply whether they still have a position within the FRS. As long as they meet your criteria and are open about the relationship with the second employer I fail to see the problem (PS I am not a FSO and do not want any extra work this is just my opinion). I doubt you need any extra money, but if you wanted to earn some more from a FRS offering part-time FSO work should you be excluded on the same basis? I don't believe you should. Would this be moonlighting? No. You would be a part-time employee paying tax and therefore legal> there is every reason to expcet that you would be able to apply, such posts are likley in the future, if not already. Some FRS already employ non-operational FSOs and part-time is an accepted work pattern.
Advice I need none, maybe it is quite the other way round.
PSmith - there is a world of difference bewtween gaining a NVQ, based on the NOS, through a one-off collection of evidence and maintaining the competence required of that NOS. Maintenance of competence plus some additional skill development as required by changes to the role/environment in which the role is carried out is CPD. Without a standard to which you work how do you assess whether what the individual is doing is actually CPD? Note that I never used the NVQ as I was careful not to confuse it with the NOS -as it appears you have done.
-
colin, what i actually said was -' 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 ..........'
if this equates to a proclaimation for the freedom of speech then im sure the revolution would be all the better for it - then again ..........
as for the cpd on 'commieism' - stick with it comrade - the longer you do it and the more people you do it with can only speed the day when the shackles can be cast from the workers weary limbs and the cry of the capitalist state will consist of one voice proclaiming 'we're all doomed, mr mannering, we're all doomed'!
dave bev
-
1. At their proper job was paraphrasing what one would need to say. If you cannot see how embarrassing and unprofessional it would be to say that xxxx only works for us on their days off, then it is because you have no concept of what a professional consulting practice is all about, which actually is the advice that you do seem to require and that, my patience is such, that I am delighted to be able to give you in the spirit of cooperation.
2. There is no occupational standard for consultancy.
3. I will not dignify with a response.
4. I will not dignify with a response.
5. I fail to see how availing themselves of a pension for which they have paid for 30 years has any analogy with being employed full time by a FRS/working part time on days off for a consultant. Sorry, needs further explanation. 5B Love the idea of working for a FRS on days off-would weekends be ok? Can you put in a good word with your HR people for me.
Not convinced that Mr Smith is confused, but no doubt he can speak for himself.
Davie; Can you recommend some reading material for my commie CPD record. Is there still such a thing as the Morning Star? Will The Rack be writing a little red book like Chairman Whatsisname did?
-
colin - the morning star does indeed still exist as does a number of other suitable materials for those who have wandered far from the path bestowed on them throught the lottery of birth!
may i suggest - janet and john go to the commune, the lion the witch and the 'peace'drobe, my life as a part of a collective, as starters? try to refrain from games such as monopoly and who wants to be a millionaire and you could be well on your way!
dave bev
ok you lot, on with your debate which i am enjoying from afar!
-
Thank you Colin,
Yes I will take up the point raised.
Fireftrm, it appears that I maybe confused, but only with were this is going. I fail to see how the NVQ process is CPD. As you say, ‘ maintenance of competence’ is surly maintaining the same standard that you were already assessed to be achieving. Not a wasted exercise in itself, as it ensures that an individual is continually at the minimum standard set out in the NVQ process, but again I can not see how this CPD. Quote ‘plus some additional skill development as required by changes to the role/environment in which the role is carried out is CPD’, please be more specific, as I can not see how the role or environment has changed or continues to change sufficiently to warrant calling skill development in this context CPD.
Misguided I may be, confused………only in that I fail to see how you can treat the standards set in the NVQ any differently than those they are taken from, namely NOS.
Paul
-
Where did NVQ process come in? You are qquite right that it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH CPD, but then again it was you who introduced that wholly inappropraite concept.........that is why I think you are confused.
The NVQ is a one-time qualification based on the assessment of evidence against a NOS, not necessarily all the NOS, or all the potential evidence either. It is a QUALIFICATION. No more. It requires no maintenance of competence , further personal development, or continual assessment thereof.
The NOS is a set of job descriptors for a role set by industry lead bodies nationally. a NOS is not prescriptive as to the evidence, the numberof times or the assessment requirements - the NVQ is. Working to a NOS means that you continue to do so and it will have terms covering such areas as relevant legislation. If you were doing an NVQ you would have to demonstrate knowledge/understanding of those areas at the time of assessment. If you are using the NOS as one basis for your CPD (Continuing personal/professional development) then you would have to CONTINUE to have the knwoldege and understanding, thus you would need to be reading professional jouranls, studying new legislation and practices - the lack of which Colin suggests is a trait of FRS FSOs, well they are not being assessed against an NOS then, which they now should be.
So, unless you wish to continue being confused and blinkered, note that there is a world of difference between working to a standard continuoulsy (CPD) and doing it enough times to get a vocational qualification (NVQ). Most reasoned professioanl trainers understand this regime, indeed for training an deductaion (as well as many other professions) it is their NOS that is used to determine the quality/sufficiency of their CPD. Are you arguing that the fire industry should ignore the real world, or that your idea of CPD (which I assume must be do what you decide is right yourself with no standard) is the best?
Misguided you almost certianly are.
Some thoughts from training and development professionals:
One defintion of CPD - The systematic maintenance, improvement and broadening of knowledge and skill and the development of personal qualities necessary for the execution of professional and technical duties throughout the practitioner's working life.
(Interestingly this is a defintion that is fully covered by working to any NOS. An NOS will include a unit on personal development to ensure that you broaden skills and knowledge constantly)
WHY CPD IS IMPORTANT
First, it should be emphasised that the concept of CPD is not new. Effective professionals in all fields have always realised the importance of new knowledge, improved skills and the development of personal qualities. In effect, CPD is simply part of good professional practice. What is new, however, is the greater importance and relevance of CPD to professional success. A study undertaken in the United Kingdom (Welsh and Woodward, 1989), identified the following reasons to account for the growing importance of CPD.
Competence: It has been estimated that the knowledge gained in some degree courses, particularly IT based, has an average useful lifespan of about four years. While this will vary according to the discipline, it does nevertheless highlight the increasing need to maintain an active interest in keeping up to date with changing technology, legislation and operational procedures. If at the same time, professionals have expectations of increased managerial responsibility, the need to acquire new skills and knowledge is even more acute.
(COMPETENCE - set standards for which are known as NOS!)
Consumerism: The development of a more affluent consumer society has also resulted in a better informed and more sophisticated public. One consequence of this trend is that they expect a higher duty of care and level of service from their professional advisors than in the past. Again the skills acquired during an initial training period or during higher or further education may not equip new staff for this role.
(Continued working to a NOS will ensure that you meet the latest customer requirements - this should be reasonably clear fromt he NOS)
Litigation: The professions are increasingly at much high risk from claims of negligence than in the past. Professional indemnity (PI) insurance premiums have risen considerably in recent years. CPD may not totally eliminate PI claims; however, if sceptics are worried by the cost of CPD, such claims may help emphasise the potential cost of ignorance! Some evidence is also emerging that insurance companies may be willing to slightly reduce PI premiums, if a structured CPD programme is available to staff.
(What better basis for a structure to demonstrate in litigation that that it is the NOS you were using?)
Standards : One of the primary roles of professional bodies is to safeguard standards of competence. CPD has a key role to play in the communication of agreed standards and in ensuring that members comply with specified procedures.
Quality Management System : The increasing emphasis on quality management systems and the ethos of continuous improvement has also increased the relevance of CPD. Training and education are key elements of quality assurance processes and of the ‘Investors in People’ (IIP) standard.
(Standards of competence = NOS where written!)
Competitiveness : The recent recession has re-emphasised the highly competitive nature of modern business. Whether in the private or increasingly, in the privatised public/state sector, the competitive market edge must be partly or totally focused on client care/service quality and technological innovation. Both demand a high investment in developing people skills, if they are to be effective
(Where do you get a nice set of standards against which to assess peoples skills - NOS)
For example the CPD for teachers is based on (guess what?) a Standards Framework of the role. Umm, now why does that sound familiar?
-
Not sure if you are ranting at poor old Mr Smith, who seems a sensible sort of chap, or me or both, but instead of all this philosophical waffle, let's get down to business. I note that you are not an FSO (if I understand your posting correctly) so here is a wee practical test for your FSO-ey type chappies. Ring one of your fire safety offices tomorrow and ask whichever I/o is present what the FRS has done in the light of BS 5266-8 and what they think the significant feature of that code is. No cheating now--I am putting you on trust! Let me know as soon as possible. Judging by the excellent speed of your responses, which, with the way things are going, is likely to be better than the FRS attendance times soon, I hope to see the I/O response by lunchtime, as it should only take a quick call. Clock is ticking.........
-
I had an immediate response to my request with a web link to their documentation relating to BS5266 and freely avaiable to both FSOs and the public - http://www.northumberland.gov.uk/drftp/3337.asp
This is presently being revised in light of the testing requirements of the new part 8 and they are being trained in the application of the code. With the RRO coming into force and present licencing work they have not had this as a main issue but are coming back with an answer within the next couple of hours. Being a very small department (of 6 - 4 flexi) there are only 3 in and all are out doing inspections this morning.
As you are obvioulsy aware the code is so new it is still unkown by virtually all the 'consultants' too! I checked this by ringing two local fire safety consultants, they thought it was some joke as BS5266 only goes up to part7 - they said. At least my FS dept knew that there was a part 8, albeit that they are still working at its implications. My FS dept also have full access to the technical indexes, though the passowrds lie with FSOs, thus the delay in response.
Out of interest how much do you think the advice from the FSO would cost a business and what relation this has to the same advice from you? This may have a bearing on the relevance of the time taken?
After thsi particulalry poor attempt at throwing in something so new please don't bother again until your private industry colleagues have caught up too. It doesn't do the industry any favours by trying to show people up by quoting things you know that most don't - yet. Indeed all you achieve is the belittling of most and by association the entire sector is damaged.
PS I was getting at Mr Smith who seems to be totally confused by the difference between a NOS and a NVQ.
-
Its ahorrible standard isnt it - I'll start a new thread - this one is going on a bit.
-
I must apologise for not replying to the previous thread, have been working away!!
I agree with WeeB, this is getting a littlke boring. Just to add, I do not have any problems with understanding the difference between NVQ and the NOS, can not understand why you think I do.
I simply said that I did not consider the NVQ assessment process to be a type of CPD. End of Storey.
Very kind of you to let me have the detail on the subject though.
I think the original argument, sorry discussion, refered to fire service employee's carrying out consultancy work on their days off. The question then refered to the question ' how do such employees carry out CDP'?
I think this is where Fireftrm, you gave justification from the NVQ level 4 standard, along with other factors. I then simply agreed with Colin that I did not consider the NVQ process to be a form of CPD.
Now correct me if I am wrong, and I'm sure you will, this is where you laboured the subject of NOS and NVQ, giving examples etc, passing comment on my inability to disinguish between the two.
I think if you played a little more attention to listening, instead of rambling on about the NOS's then you would see that we were basically saying the same thing.
With reference to the original comments, My company has in the past used serving fire officers to carry out consultancy work. I must say that on these occasions it has proved to be a very drawn out process, one for which I would not consider repeating. I have however had some very positive experiences with ex-fire officers, and I do agree that what better grounding to work in the consultancy industry than an individual who has had years of training and development thrown at them than that of an ex inspecting officer, although there are some exceptions to the rule.
Fireftrm, I see little point in continuing this debate, as clearly there is nothing to debate, although if you have any other information you would like to send me, please feel free, perhaps if you have a tendancy to be this helpful you could save me the £1400 for the annual BSI subscription and let me have your passwords
Paul
-
You are wrong. I never once referred to any NVQ. I did refer to a NOS, which has been designed to be at Level4. My point was simply that people do tend to get the two thing sconfused, as you have.
I quite agree that the assessment methods and evidence generation for an NVQ is not anything like CPD. But then again that is why I never brought that up, you did.
I did not give the justification of the NOS as a reaosn why FSOs could do the job, that was a response to Colin's childish remarks about FSOs doing no CPD. What I then did was to point out that there is now a NOS they (should) be working to. If you CONTINUE to work to a standard, all of which now contain a personal development unit, then you will be doing CPD.
If you do a NVQ you are not doing CPD, the CPD comes AFTER the qualification.
I still think that you have failed to understand the basic differences between a NOS and a NVQ. There is nothing in your latest post to make me think otherwise.
Back to Colin's attempt to belittle others - perhaps as a writer of the standard you can fully explain to those on this board its meanings, interpretations and points as after all this will provide them with meaningful CPD and I am sure you will agree that that would be very useful? It would laso save them loads of money attending seminars, paying for BS access etc, altogether a great move..............OVER TO YOU.
-
This IS presently being revised? They ARE being trained? The couple of hours has passed. Still no reply? Writer of the standard???? I had not the faintest thing to do with the standard. What an odd remark. The publication of it was as much a surprise to me as to anyone else. The difference is we have mechanisms in place to pick up its publication and disseminate relevant information to people.
And now to the crux of the matter, and since I agree this is soooooooo boring, that I hope it can be my last reflection on the subject. Listen carefully, because I will not repeat it.
BS 5266-8 CAME INTO FORCE ON 20 DECEMBER 2004. OVER 7 MONTHS LATER YOU TELL ME THE I/OS ARE STILL ASSIMILATING ITS CONTENT AND BEING TRAINED IN IT. LET ME AUDIT OUR CPD ON THIS FOR YOU. WE IDENTIFIED THAT IT HAD BEEN PUBLISHED, AROUND EARLY FEBRUARY 2005. WE THEN SPENT CONSIDERABLE TIME INVESTIGATING ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR CLIENTS. ON 24 MARCH, A BULLETIN WAS ISSUED TO ALL CONSULTANTS WITH THE INFO THEY REQUIRED. THE BULLETIN WAS ALSO ISSUED TO ALL SECRETARIAL/WP STAFF, SO AS WE SIT HERE, IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT OUR SECRETARIES ARE BETTER INFORMED AND ABLE TO ADVISE PEOPLE ON ITS CONTENTS THAN YOUR I/OS. TEMPLATES FOR REFERENCES TO THE STANDARD WERE CREATED BY WP AND ISSUED A FEW DAYS LATER. THE STANDARD WAS THEN PUT ON OUR CONTROLLED DOC LIST AND HAS BEEN CHECKED FOR AMENDMENTS EVERY MONTH SINCE.
THE POINT IS THIS. ALL THIS BELITTLING OF WHICH YOU ACCUSE IS RUBBISH. READ MY ORIGINAL POINT. I SAID IT WAS JUST MY OPINION BUT THAT IT WAS UNPROFESSINAL TO EMPLOY PEOPLE WHOSE CPD YOU CANNOT CONTROL AND WHOSE STANDARD OF CPD IS, AS YOU POINT OUT, OK FOR THOSE OFFERING FREE ADVICE AND ENFORCING LEGISLATION. IT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH IN MY OPINION FOR THOSE SELLING ADVICE. THERE IS NOT A LOT OF MARKET FOR ADVICE THAT IS 8 MONTHS OUT OF DATE I BELIEVE. SO ONE WOULD HAVE THE CHOICE , IF EMPLOYING FRS OFFICERS, OF HOPING THAT THE FRS HAS THEIR CPD UP TO DATE (WHICH YOU HAVE JUST DEMONSTRATED THAT IT IS NOT) OR PAYING OUT TO DO THE FRS CPD FOR THEM, WHICH AS A SCOTSMAN I WOULD GRUDGE.
HOPE YOU NOW UNDERSTAND AND THANK YOU FOR PROVING THE POINT FOR ME.
FORGET THE NEW BALLS MESSEY, ITS GAME SET AND MATCH.
HERE ENDETH THE DISCUSSION. (CHRISTOPHER, PLEASE NOTE AND FORGIVE THE DURATION OF THE THREAD, PLEASE)
-
see mr houston - i told you it was worth keeping open for a bit longer! and yes i have learnt something, though i have to admit that me learning something is nothing new (and long may it continue!)
dave bev
-
Davey, We commie activists are always happy to assist our brothers through the learning process. Bill on its way to The Rack.
-
Capital letters are an IT short hand for shouting, which is very ungentlemanly. Obvioulsy our esteemed users were unaware of this new fangled protocol.
Can we all, in future, please avoid SHOUTING at each other.
Dave, this must be the most boring thread yet! I wish I had autocraticaly closed it, you bastion of free speach.
Anyway, who would be up for a FireNet night out sometime? I'm gonna start a new thread.
-
Chris I think the nighht out is a great idea, but not London. Too far and too expensive. Maybe Manchester? See my other post.
PS Colin - it was another Fire Consultancy firm that said you were involved in the BS committee and attended a conference on it at Moreton, I apologise as this info was not accurate.
I only just now see what I/O means - I was thinking of In/Out as that is the acronym for that in most electronics and engineering terms, one of us must be doing the wrong CPD! - joke!
I got the full answers when the FSO came back in but couldn't be bothered to say anything about it, just so pointless as all you were after was picking something that no-one (other than the one I did find) in the emergency lighting/private fire safety business around here knows anything about either. After all we are updating all our notes as part of our website development so they will all be freely available before the end of this year. After that anyone wanting guidance please look at the site, free. In the meantime ask your local fire consultansts they will know, what with all their CPD, or will they............
-
Apology accepted. I never attend conferences at Moreton. I hate the place, and its bad enough that I have to spend so much time trying to overtake tractors to get to various IFE committee meetings there. (I chose BS 5266-8 at random, as it was the first recent (or not so recent standard that came into my head.) And dont forget, if the local fire consultant is any of the 10 in our practice, yes they will. Trust me. Next time try to remember to check the facts before claiming I wrote something that I had no knowledge of prior to its publication. Then you wont need to apologise.
-
all comrades now?
dave bev
-
Would not quite go that far. But come the Revolution, there are those on ''the list'' and those not, know wot I mean, Comrade.
-
I hope I am on the list for my "public service" FireNet moderator role. Putting myself in harms way and all.....
-
No no no that's not what the list is for. Its for those who need to be ''adjusted''. Davey understands.
-
comrade houston, im not so sure you would want to be on one of the lists, however as comrade toddski suggests, there are some who could be reindoctrinated with the sort of ideals acceptable in the new world, which is to come!
-
Should not be too much of a problem. 8760 hours of white noise followed by 8760 hours exposure to recordings of speeches of THe Rack, and they will be fine.
-
Dear Mr Todd
Despite the fact that i am not a FSO, I intend to enthusiastically launch myself into the fire risk assessment buisness.
all the info I need is on the net, and I've got stacks of Fire Service experience.
What could possibly go wrong?
-
Lee
You will have to bait the trap better and much more subtle than that.
Perhaps you can outline your stacks of fire service experience that would make you competent to do a FRA. I am sure there will be a queue of people to answer your question.
-
good luck lee999!!
-
Dear Mr Todd,
Further to our previous (one way) discussion on my plans to join you in your buisness community.
I have to admit to being surprised and disappointed, that you could not find the time to offer me some of your fatherly advice on the matter. Having had the pleasure of reading some of your previous posts I felt sure you would have plenty to say. After all, you normally do. I hope you are not sulking, we don't intend to operate on your 'station ground' so you need not feel vulnerable.
Some of the credit for my up and coming empire must go to yourself Mr Todd, when you said to one of our colleagues recently, "leave fire safety to the experts" I knew, although you didn't mention me by name, that you were referring to me and those like me. I knew that you were of the opinion that somebody with a wide range of local authority fire service experience must be considered "the expert".
So, here we go, this time next year rodney!
Just a couple of things before I sign off, It goes with out saying that i will be operating on a 'moonlight' basis, which i know will concern you. But worry not Mr Todd, I can FRA to my hearts content on my rota days, then I could cram a few RA's in between nights, then when I'm on days i'll get one of the blokes (experts) from another Watch to look after any appointments. I intend to keep it professional, so I think I'll give the phone to my girlfreind when I'm at work, no messy fireground phone calls. I don't want this to interfere with my proper job.
I will endevour to keep you informed of my progress, if i'm not to busy. Like I said earlier "what could possibly go wrong" It aint rocket science, is it?
I won't hold my breath this time for your words of wisdom, I imagine that you are probably busy risk assessing a news agents or something.
Kind regards
Lee
-
See advice from Brian. He will keep you right. And keep working on the spelling, as correct spelling always enhances a report, even an FRA.
-
no messy fireground phone calls.
Lee
Don't bring me into this argument!!
-
I was talking recently to a manager of a mid-sized manufacturing company in the NW of England.
He told me that the FRS was called to his factory after the alarm system was actuated due to a faulty system. This was the first time that the company had ever called out the FRS.
Upon arrival the O I/C was not happy about being called out to a false alarm, and wanted to see all documentation relating to fire safety, including FRA, Log Book and Training Records.
He informed the manager that he was not happy with what was produced so he would be visited in the near future by the Fire Safety Department. The next day (how quick is that) he was visited by a member of the Fire Safety Department who informed him of the actions he should take to get his house in order. I told him that I was impressed by the speedy response, which he agreed with, but he said that he wasn’t so impressed by what happened next.
He said that the Fire Inspector then produced a business card for a local Fire Safety company which could help him in sorting out his Fire Safety Management. He was a bit sceptical about this so he did some investigating into the company and found that it was run by serving fire-fighters.
I also know that this practice is going on in the NE of England.
Some of you may be appalled by this; others may think that it is good business. I personally think that what they are doing is unethical; but when have fire-fighters let the odd ethic get in the way of earning a few bob on the side?
-
Its definately unethical and possibly illegal - the officers concerend should be sacked in my view.
-
Marknine: this is possibly 'Gross Misconduct' and therefore instant dismissal (I make this observation as a recently retired 'investigating officer'). A similar case ocurred a few years ago in the midlands and the officers were sacked. I advise that the brigade be written to and informed of the circumstances. If senior managers do not know about this it can only continue.
-
hmnnnnnn, im certainly not condoning such behaviour, but making an observation or two.
ian, are you aware of the current discipline procedures in the fire service? i also didnt read anyone asking for your advice? its pleasing to note though that the old methods of dismissing without carrying out any sort of investigation and just listening to one side of the 'case' still lives on. you would also have to remind me if the investigating officer could actually sack anyone or if someone else got the pleasure and thrills from having so much power invested in them?
wee b, you have an opinion, which you have given us, and are entitled to do so. i note you dont suggest getting them sacked, just that in your opinion they should be. i would ask though that perhaps you would have considered if there was any information not given that you may have asked for before forming that opinion?
i would always say there are two sides to any story and there may be some inaccuracies in terms of the facts as they were reported. then again it may be entirely truthful?
i would ask at least one (or loads of) question(s) though - were they employed under njc conditions of service, or were they 'non uniformed fire officers', would the manager of the premise actually know there was any difference. what was the question that he asked of the 'inspecting officer' - did he ask for any recomendations? was he given more than one business card? there are many other questions - anyone else care to add any questions they might have considered asking before forming an opinion?
if the true facts do eventually prove to be the facts as reported then i may have an opinion, until then its a good story to get people all worked up over ........ - (i also love to look at the urban myth websites) - but then again i know urban myths are definitely not true!
dave bev
-
Dave Bev - who is jumping to conclusions? Read the the word "possibly". And my encouragement to write to the CFO - and therefore have the matter investigated. And doesn't 'Gross Misconduct' come with 'instant dismissal' any more? Indeed, that is the same for any employee/employer whether in the fire service or not!
Also, whilst I agree (like any posting here) it may be a false story, I am aware that activities such as that described can and has happened - as I alluded to with one real example in mind. When they do, it gives the entire service a bad name. I would have thought, it is in your interests too to avoid this.
Just to finish off here - you may notice that I've already written some other observations on this matter, supporting the right of people to work outside of their fire service contract. I know there are many differeing opinions to that. However, I (as a senior officer) actually supported a junior member of staff to do something quite lawful in his spare time - and for which he was/is eminently qualified to do - and in circumstances where there could be no 'conflict of interest' I hasten to add. I wasn't very popular with my Chief for doing so. Of course the FBU refused to support this individual to exercise his 'human rights' in this instance, as it didn't match their particular list of rights/freedoms to be fought for.
-
ian, i did read the word 'possibly', but it wasnt that they should possibly write to the cfo, you advised them to do so. it always surprises me when people think a manager of a factory isnt aware of how they should make an official complaint and the circumstances for doing so, im sure theyre not managers because they dont know 'stuff'? it surprises me that the manager in this case, having carried out some sort of 'research' then decided not to follow up his research, just seems strange that someone should go to all that trouble then having got just the information they were looking for did nothing about it?
i referred to the changes in the discipline procedures because of your reference to 'has been' an investigating officer.
what does give the service or any other occupation a bad name can only be determined by those who make that 'judgement' in any given set of circumstances. i very much doubt if the 'entire service' get a bad name for one event. i can think of plenty of 'brigades' with a bad name in all sorts of areas, as i can for individuals. quite often they dont do anything to change that because they think they are right and dont give a damn about what others think. however, as a principle i would support your contention that its not in actually in anyones interests to have/earn/be given a 'bad name'.
on to finishing off - being in the fbu is not an insurance policy nor is it an automatic right for representation on a whole host of issues. on the basis of innocent until proving guilty would you honestly still believe that the fbu should represent anyone on any issue? ok, i know that isnt what you said but i wanted to get some principles established before continuing.
ok, the specific issue. the individual would be entitled to advice but not for legal reperesentation. if it was 'local' representation and not legal representation, the issue is the same. anyu support would have meant resources of one way or another being used at a cost (whether in terms of money or time) to all fbu members on an issue OUTSIDE of their employment under njc conditions of service. as i said advice IS available (and should have been, even if only to state it was an issue the fbu would not support). a list of rights and freedoms to fight for would be useful even for officials, though i doubt it does or even did exist - though i suspect that you used that statement to support your argument
and now just for me to finish off. the fbu is not perfect. its officials make mistakes, however i would like to think they do so unintentionally.i would also make the point that any union needs its members to support its officials and if officials get something wrong they need to be told by those members. the fbu has a process for doing this. membership is not just about paying union dues, its about taking part in the process
-
The manager to which I was referring was attending a Fire Risk Assessors course. When I asked him why he was on the course he told me about the incident and how the directors had decided to train up one of their own staff to do the job. He also said that he wished that he had not looked into the running of the fire safety company, as he was not happy about having to carry out this task without any prior knowledge of fire safety.
To be honest I didn’t really think much of it at the time, I was more concerned that his company had decided to get him to carry out FRA’s without any prior knowledge.
I was talking to a colleague later about it and he informed me that he knows it also happens in the NE. I must stress that I have no direct knowledge of these practices being carried out, but I have no reason to doubt the word of the persons who informed me.
-
Dave
When I suggested they should be sacked this was on the assumption that the allegation was found to be true. My politics may be a little to the right of yours but Im not completely off my head.
If it was found to be true would you support this kind of behaviour?
-
One of the pleasures of the last twelve months has been NOT having to reply to FBU officials and thereby wasting my time.
-
mark, again i make the point that i would assume (obviously wrongly) that anyone in management or even directors, when they reveal such information they would act on it - i have no reasons to doubt you forwarded the information (if it is information) as was reported. i wont go into the discussion of whether they should be on the course or not
wee b, point taken - and if it was true then i would NOT support this kind of behaviour, i would go further and say that i am surprised it wasnt reported fully and an investigation allowed to take place therefore providing individuals with the oportunity to demonstrate their innocence if that was the case or provide the service with an opportunity to resolove the issue and take appropriate action (yes even the ultimate sanction if that WAS appropriate)
ian, hope your enjoying your retirement. im sorry you see my responses as wasting your time and offer my apologies in advance of you reading this one. i suppose thats the dangers of making statements/replies into the public domain . there is always the danger of someone disagreeing with you and saying so. and as a matter of fact, i made the initial response as dave beverley, not on behalf of the fbu, wh were never mentioned. i made the second statement in support of the fbu after you mentioned it, again NOT as an official of the fbu.
dave bev
-
Ian,
Whilst I have had a few concerns over the way my union, the FBU, has conducted events over the past couple of years...they are infinitely preferable to poorly organised or non-unionised workplaces.
One only has to look at the BA debacle, where american venture capitalists, having deliberately provoked a fight with poorly paid workers, then sacked them when they had the bottle to stand up and say that they wouldn't accept a worsening of their conditions. Now they are trying to play chicken with BA...a case of 'who blinks first' whilst people's lives are turned upside down. (BA are hardly innocent in this as well).
Sorry, if true, the relevant officers from the NW do require to be investigated, but do not say unions have nothing to say that you want to listen to. Go back to shoving children down mines, oh, I forgot, another establishment demon, Scargill, he was lying to when he said the government wanted to shut thirty mines...actually it was all of them! Still gas will give us cheap energy won't it? We just need a three thousand mile pipeline across some rather politically unstable areas.
Give me bolshy unions any day.
-
I seem to have started a very interesting post (been away on hols)
Please imagine this - you are pulled by the police for a defect on your car, following this the police officer gives you a business card of a mate of his that has a good garage to repair the car (as he received cash this) not very professional is it!
This (in my opinion), is the same scenario; as the officer is employed to enforce the law (same as the FPO) not receive extra cash on the back of his duties.
Also, what was the member of the fire service doing carrying business cards from a consultancy?
Also on the side of the premises manager, if a uniformed member of the fire service says that a fra is required then gives the man / woman a card, then if they use another company they may fear that the fra by another (non-sponsored) company may be refused by the fb and he/she will have to pay again - as a lot of managers in the country know very little of fire safety matters
-
Absolutely, you make some good points. That is why it would be taken so seriously by F & R S management. Never mind the 'hand wringers'!
-
Sorry, but I just cant resist this anecdote, about which there is no doubt. About 8 years ago an officer of a certain large met brigade descended on a large London hotel that was already certificated under the FP Act and told them that under licensing they had inadequate exit capacity. Now please, please no one respond on the FP ACt vs licensing issues as that is not the point of the anecdote. The point is that the manager of the hotel spoke by telephone to the I/Os boss, who told him he needed a fire consultant. And guess what, yeperoonie, it so happened that the very man he was talking to was indeed a fire consultant in his spare time!!!!! The hotel then came to us maoning about the ethics of this not to mention there problem about exit capacity. Ex fire service colleagues in the practice were quite enraged and wanted this reported as their opinion was the man would be sacked. After long hard thought and discussion we chose to do nothing other then tell the I/O to take a hike, which as I recall he duly did (though to be honest I cannot remember the exact details of the negotiations with the I/o). The point is that lack of ethics sometimes occurs in all professions, including the fire service, and is not new or brought about by fire risk assessment. FRAs have merely become a pot of gold at the end of a mythical rainbow for the greedy.
-
toddy, welcome back. good holidays? i owe you a document still! i havent forgot!
dave bev
-
Davey, Many thanks! Great hols apart from the Egytian tummy with which I have, like all visitors to Egypt (apart from my youngest who has the lack of decorum to stuff her face with all sorts of rubbish while all around her are being sick and worse) returned. I was disappointed of course not to have my own copy of Ruthies Fables on my return but the 49585948594 emails were some compensation. No hurry to send the good lady's thoughts as I still have to deal with 858530 of the emails, but just when you can will be fine.
-
Colin
I wonder to myself, why on earth would anybody place the above post onto this forum. If sombody wants to communicate with one of their 'muckers', then normally they would email them directly, or perhaps ring them?
If you did, then the rest of us would not have to trawl through the seemingley endless, meaningless rubbish.
Or maybe you think your life is so interesting, that we all need to know about it. Wrong
I sphinx you might agree, you cant say pharaoh than that!
-
It was a response to a question from that awfully nice Davey from the FBU, whose salary you no doubt contribute to and who therefore you would not wish to see slighted by the ignorance of a lack of response, particularly on a thread that is dead anyway. So you need wonder to yourself no more.
-
Was that a bite? YIPEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
-
Nope it was simply an answer, but I am glad you are so easily pleased.
-
oooo, temper temper!
-
my point exactly - see posting in operations