Posted on: June 8, 2010 Posted by: Diane Swarts Comments: 0

Some professional registration schemes are mere collectors of fees, adding little value to training, standards, status, or service in their sectors, says an opponent of the construction safety registration plan.

Construction official Emile Tredoux commented on the Construction Regulations amendment draft; “I mainly operate oversees, and I have no idea who Ray Strydom is. I wanted to join IoSM, but decided against it because I realised it was another paper scheme to ‘accredit’ what I had already studied and paid for to be accredited.

”Consider the private security industry registration body, or tourism body, or construction managers and supervisors registrar; they supposedly regulate, but actually only collect fees, without improving training or the sector or individual competency”, said Tredoux.

“I already have ‘papers’ for what I do. IoSM does not have experience and knowledge to judge my competency, due to the range of construction activities. It is near impossible to judge competency by a single system of evaluation, as a colleague wrote on SHEQafrica.com

”Consider the private security industry registration body, or tourism body, or construction managers and supervisors registrar; they supposedly regulate, but actually only collect fees, without improving training or the sector or individual competency”, said Tredoux.

”The Department of Labour is a quiet rubber stamp to the registration initiative, since they suffer a lack of competency. It seems it was easy for a few individuals to ‘bull’ them and the advisory council into a scheme or a scam.

”Who would be competent to evaluate, assess and judge our experience? Certainly not a DOL inspector or some IoSM board.

”The Construction Regulations amendment for construction safety practitioner registration is definitely unwanted at this time, there is no need for this in the format as proposed”, commented Tredoux.

”We must appoint several safety officials according to the OHS Act, but certain grades of ‘safety officer’ or ‘safety official’ or ‘safety professional’ are not legally required. Most companies do not employ a safety professional, and they are in very short supply, so why require registration of safety professionals?

“Seta registers should be the database of the profession, with all the benefits of a central register. This is all we need, no additional regulation.

“We oppose the Construction Regulations amendment draft, since it would benefit only certain persons, and not the profession or the sector”, said Tredoux.

Uncategorized

Leave a Comment