Posted on: June 23, 2010 Posted by: Diane Swarts Comments: 32

What is OHSAP?

OHSAP is the acronym for Registration for Occupational Hygiene, Safety and Associated Professions.

Why should you care?

In the draft Construction Regulations there is under definitions, an entry that reads as follows:

occupational safety practitioner‘ would mean “a person competent in occupational safety, AND certified as such by an institution accredited by the South African National Accreditation System (SANAS), having the knowledge, training, experience and qualifications specific to occupational safety aspects of work or task being performed, provided that where appropriate qualifications and training are registered in terms of the South African Qualifications Authority Act, 58 of 1995, those qualifications and training shall be must be regarded the required qualifications and training.”

So if you think you are an occupational safety practitioner then you should be concerned because in the new Construction Regulations there might be a definition that can be used to regulate a whole profession. Not only Safety practitioners in the Construction industry, but every-one.

Now the first mystery is that the draft has a definition of an “occupational safety practitioner” but you will not find a reference to an occupational safety practitioner anywhere else in the regulations!

One can only conclude that this definition was planted there by someone that wants OHSAP to be written into legislation. Now who would want to do something like that?

Why should you care about OHSAP?

According to an article on www.engineeringnews.co.za published in 2003, OHSAP was formed by The Institutes of Occupational Safety and Hygiene, together with the Mine Ventilation Society to deal with the process of Health and Safety practitioner registration.

Now I do not know who the Institute of Occupational Safety and Hygiene is, I must presume that they are actually referring here to the Institute of Safety Management (IoSM).

Ray Strydom infers in that article that the purpose of OHSAP is to establish standards for “OH&S practitioners” through a registration process.

Now that article was written seven years ago when the first Construction Regulations was first promulgated. Fast forward to today and lo-and-behold, the new Construction Regulations contains a definition envisioning the establishment of just such an organisation as OHSAP!

What is more, OHSAP has started with accreditation through SANAS (South African National Accreditation System) long before the draft new Construction Regulations came out for comment. Now how did the OHSAP people (read Ray Strydom) know about that requirement?

Coincidence – I don’t think so.

Very convenient you would think, having a registration authority ready and waiting for the new Construction Regulations to become law. Very much so – especially if you are the man in control of that registration organisation. Like someone else said, it is like being awarded a tender before the tender documents have been completed.

How to write your business into law

What is nice about having a business that has been written into law, like in the case with OHSAP, is that it is like owning shares in the South African Bank Notes Company. In the morning you go to work, press the button and then you print money.

No wait, here is a better example; it is like owning the South African Revenue Service. The cherry on the top is that you do not have to care about customer service or the need to add value.

I take it you are referring to the registration with an institution which are accredited with SANAS as stipulated in the definitions of the Draft Regulations? It is not going to be a question of what benifits we as practitioner will be getting from it rather than the fact that practitioners that want to practice in this field will have to do as it will be law once the Regulations are promulgated.”

So said Neels Nortje of Master Builders Kwa-Zulu Natal who serves on the Minister of Labour’s Advisory Council for Occupational Health and Safety (ACOHS), representing Business Unity (BUSA) in reply to a query about the benefits of registration.

Now Neels stands by Ray Strydom and serves on ACOHS, the same body that was involved with drafting the new Regulations. Neels clearly does not think that the ability to provide benefits to the people that pay their registration fees should confuse the matter.

What is of concern to me is that this same line of “marketing” has been used by other OHSAP-groupies to promote the current premature registration drive. Over 300 people fell for it.

Friends with benefits

I have a lot of time for Neels Nortje but I think that in this case he is wrong. It is all about creating benefits. Benefits for Safety practitioners, their employers and the improvement of standards.

You see, Ray Strydom will be running OHSAP but he does not completely understand the process of adding value (creating benefits). Just look at his track record. It is my opinion that the reason why the Institute of Safety Management has been bleeding membership registrations the last ten years has pretty much to do with his management style.

Does he understand how to make money? Yes he does. Just see how the price for registration at SARS, oh… I mean OHSAP went up this year!

“SAIOHS has no explanation as to why OHSAP issued IoSM invoices for the registration fees nor why the fees changed from R200 to R550 to R750 in the same financial year. SAIOHS will keep members informed as and when they receive more information on the registration process.” – From the SAIOHS website

So what is the price now? Is it R750, maybe it is R1150. Where will the price be in 3 month’s time?

The man who Phillip Fourie (IoSM president) wants to run OHSAP is issuing IoSM invoices for fees that should go to OHSAP! He can also not decide what the fees should be. Was the 7 year head-start he had not enough time to get his ducks in a row?

What is going on here? Maybe administration is not Ray’s strong point.

In the May 2010 issue of the Occupational Risk Magazine I saw an advert placed by Edwilo Consultants. It is for a 2 day “Professional Registration Preparatory Training Course”. Wilna Louw (Edwilo) who knows Ray Strydom very well, has been authorized to “prepare” candidates for registration.

I understand that Ray Strydom also has some literature you can purchase to ease the way towards registration.

Ca-ching! See where this is going?

And rumours are that other “service providers” are preparing to assist with the “upliftment” of the poor standards of Safety professionals around the country. No doubt these service providers will turn out to be very good friends of Ray Strydom as well.

Hallelujah my brothers and sisters, salvation is at hand, put your hands in the air and give me all your money!

Members without benefits

My very ruff calculation of how big the market could be for Ray Strydom’s new business looks like this:

If you take the criteria you will find on the IoSM-website for the ROSCords, ROSPracs and ROSProfs then my guestimate would be that we are looking at around 10 000 to 20 000 potential members. You could do the sums yourself – calculate the costs of:

  • the registration fees,
  • the courses you will have to attend in order to be rubber stamped,
  • the time it will take you to get some service,
  • all the other seminars and courses you will need to attend to help you stay “up to date.”

Now calculate what this might cost you and your employer every year.

You know what the best part is – there is no proof or a guarantee that OHSAP will have any impact on the quality or status of Safety professionals, or have a tangible impact on the levels of occupational safety in this country.

We should actually not refer to membership or registration fees, let us rather call this the strydom-tax.

Ke Nako – It is time

Remember that this silly definition in the draft Construction Regulations can be used to organize not only the Safety practitioners in the Construction sector, but practitioners everywhere.

Also note that if Safety practitioners do not grow some serious backbone pretty quickly, this new tax will become law as Neels Nortje said. Speak-up now or pay the price for the rest of your working life.

I say Safety practitioners should start a fund and everyone donates R2000.00. (Because this is what I think this new Safety practitioner tax can cost you a year) If 10 000 practitioners donate money to the fund we can present Ray Strydom with a golden handshake and ask him to retire. We can even ask him nicely.

Now that would have immediate benefits!

Uncategorized

32 People reacted on this

  1. Straight to the point. We need to stand together and opose this. I am not against registration of OHS Professionals but believe as per your writing this is a self enrichment process.

  2. I’m also not against OHS Professional registration per se, but if we leave this definition in the Construction Regulations there will be no way to oppose OHSAP.

  3. Hi Ben, You have “hit the nail on the head” !!
    After my “skirmish” with the gentleman in question regarding registration at IoSM, I decided that I would forgo registration of this body. On a point of principle….If enforced, I will rather get out of the industry than register with a person / organization like this !!!!

  4. I agree that anything that you do pay for, you want at least something in return. If i do not get anything in return then there is no point in paying for it.

  5. A well written article, unfortunately not the most unbiased one though… Some of your information is a little incorrect or to be more diplomatic, one-sided. I myself was incredibly skeptical of this process and was also wary of certain persons once involved in IoSM, but since giving it a try have had only positive experiences, and although the cost incurred could be debated, the ‘upliftment’ and ‘benefit’ I received has far outweighed any price tag. Unfortunately no amount of public comment or debate will change the proposed amendments, as we were told by the MBSA the draft is for comment, not for implementation. It either gets completely scrapped or promulgated. But besides all this, IoSM are not the only people offering registration (a little info you missed in your article) and the others charge far worse prices – oh and I didn’t attend one single course or workshop to get registered, it was quick, easy and simple and other than parting with cash, rather painless. That’s the other side of the story…

  6. Construction Regulations Amendment comment will be considered

    From Master Builders Association Gauteng, Doug Michell; I spoke with MBSA, the statement quoted by Kristina Miller has not come from MBSA.

    Standard procedure is for legislation to be published for stakeholders to comment, upon which the legislator will react if the comments are constructive and add value to the legislation.

    We live in a democratic society and follow a proper process for legislation.

  7. Democratic? Yes, Perfect? No. We were told on 2 separate occasions at MBA workshops that in reality the draft as it stood would be implemented and that comments were welcome, but to accommodate a barrage of feedback would be impossible for the powers that be, to consider. The same has happened for other drafts submitted for comment. The public comment process is seen very much by the legal fraternity as a ‘going through the motions’ exercise. They are required by law to consult the public and receive comments, but in no way are they expected to incorporate those comments and so for the most part legislation is promulgated in very much the same way it was drafted. Process followed: 1. Actual impact of public comment on draft legislation: Still to be seen…

  8. Let me put all my cards on the table. Firstly, let me state that I am a SHE Manager for a Civil Engineering company that specialises in roads and earthworks. Secondly, I am a ROSPrac and an Associate Member of IoSM. Thirdly, I am a member simply because no-one else marketed themselves effectively, to be honest, I was not aware that other organisations existed and presumed that IoSM was the only authority. Fourthly, I joined as I wanted to further my career, and lastly, I have met Ray Strydom and Wilma Louw, but do not know them on a personal basis and have no interest in them except on a professional basis.
    The primary problem here is that after the DoL stopped subsidising NOSA no other single recognised organisation/authority was established in it’s place. Since then a whole lot of businesses (read consultants) have sprung up, each competeing with each other as to whom is the real authority.
    I don’t know if Ray Strydom is going to pocket all the monies received for Registration, but I have my doubts, and, if he is, then good luck to him for being proactive and quick off the mark. Ben, please do everyone a favour and do some research into company registration, shareholding and directorship of OHSAP, at least then we can make informed decisions and make relevant comments.
    I detect some sour-grapes here, due to finacial desires and jealousy, perhaps? I must say that I have never come across any bunch of people that are as presumptious and competitive as those in the SHE profession.
    All that matters to me is that I am Registered with a recognised body and that the Registration is of consequence, and I believe it is because, man, that test was difficult. (I have sent one of my staff for Registration and he has failed twice, even after doing a three week SHE Management course and other relevant courses.) I will be bold enough to state that those who are against Registration are those that fear they are not up to scratch.
    Personally I believe strongly in Registration simply because, and let’s be honest about it, there are too many people walking around calling themselves “Safety Officers” who don’t have a clue as to legislation and/or implementation, my guy is a case in point. My second concern is that so many of those that have training and practical experience are presumtious, self-congratulatory policemen (read consultants.) These persons have no idea of how to implement SHE procedures in a practical, cost effective manner that would be beneficial to both employees and employers. It must be remembered that our employers need to stay in business for us to be employed. If it was left up to them there would be no mining, military, police and any other occupations that carry inherent dangers. (I’m amazed that they even venture out onto our roads, what with the extremely high death rate.) They seem not to understand the phrase “reasonably practicable”. I could lay out many, many examples but that would fill volumes and volumes of books.
    As for the training offered by Edwilo or the literature from Ray Strydom, once again, good luck to them for being business minded. As far as I know the training is NOT a rubber-stamp, Edwilo states this unequivocally. I’m sure any training provider can develop a course, if they so wished. Once again, I detect jealousy.
    What is needed is one single recognised body that is the sole authority and sets standards for the profession in respect of those that practice SHE, the grading of businesses’ as to their SHE standards, minimum standards of training, etc.
    As for me, my four “Safety Officers” have been instructed that they will achieve Registration within a reasonable period of time, failing which, they will not be employable in my department. I have purchased the literature offered and will be sending them on the relevant training offered in an attempt to assist them towards Registration. (Here’s an opportunity for training providers – contact me if you have anything to offer.) In the future, if and when positions become available, I will only interview applicants that are registered as this will save me time and my employer money. I also demand that my sites be audited only by persons holding a ROSPrac as a minimum, a technicon diploma or university degree will not suffice if there has not been at least 3 years of practical on site experience. In this respect I demand to see CV’s, just as they do. I must admit that this attitude has caused much consternation amongst the Consulting Engineers we work with, but so be it. I have proven to them on numerous occasions that the auditor they have sent lacks knowledge and is impractical.
    Please note that this long-winded comment is not in defense of any persons or organisation but in the encouragement and need for there to be one single, non-profit authority that will regulate the profession. Lawyers have it, accountants have it, doctors have it, so why not Occupational Health & Safety?

  9. The Draft Amended Construction Regulations refers to “an institution accredited by SANAS” to do the construction health and safety practitioner’s registration.

    There are a number of related bodies and institutions that are currently at work gearing themselves up to meet the requirements of the draft regulations, it is not not just OHSAP e.g. Association of Construction Health and Safety Management (ACHASM)and South African Council for the Project and Construction Management Professions (SACPCMP)which is a statutory body.

    There are other member representative construction bodies that are also working towards the registration for construction OHS practitioners in South Africa e.g. Master Builders South Africa (MBSA)and The South African Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors (SAFCEC)

    Then there are the OHS institutions in the country that on behalf of their construction related members either give input and/or lend support to one or more of the bodies mentioned above they are: The South African Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (SAIOSH)and Institute of Safety Management (IoSM).

  10. Thanks Ken and Kristina for taking the time to comment.

    Yes, this article is one-sided, I wanted to state my opinion, just like you had the opportunity, here on my blog.

    With reference to Ken’s comments about sour-grapes, there is no basis for that.

    What is true however is that I’ve seen over the last 10 years how organisations under Ray Strydom goes nowhere. I’m scared that he will do it again in the case of OHSAP.

    I want to state here that I’m not against registration – I’m against giving it to Ray Strydom to manage.

    What I want to make people aware of is his track record, the discrepancies surounding the whole OHSAP formation and functioning.

    I’m concerned that it is business as usual for Ray and that it would ultimately lead to the state IoSM is in today.

    I think it unfortunate that in the case of Kristina’s comments, she seems to equate registration to going to the dentist – “It was quick, easy and simple and other than parting with cash, rather painless.” I think our profession deserves more than that.

    And although I have no problem with a lot of the things Ken said, it is as if he wants to say – it does not matter what happened in the past, I passed the test so it must be good and I will force this on everyone.

    I can give you a hard test as well.

    My opinion is that with OHSAP, we’re trying to build a house on sand.

    Look higher up in the comments column, you will find a comment there by Steven Jansen van Vuuren. Now as far as I know he is a member of the OHSAP Board. A Board that no-one knows how the directors were elected. Do we know who sits on that Board? What was the criteria they used when they decided who can stand for election. Now look at this director’s comment.

    You know Ken, a donkey can pretend to be a race horse for just so long. If you want your registration to be worth anything 5 years from now, you will join me in demanding transparent management of OHSAP from day one.

    It is your right.

  11. Ben , I completely agree with almost everything you said now. Sorry if I made the process seem trivial, I am about to ‘confirm’ my assessment with the exam and after Ken’s comments am a little worried about how hard it is going to be and perhaps I will retract my statement following that exam. I wholeheartedly back a transparent organisation approach and hope that all this amounts to a result that satisfies everyone. That is it from me now, thank you for providing a platform for people to voice their concerns. Over and out.

  12. In a nutshell, what I would like to see is reverting back to the OLD kind of NOSA. A single body of authority to regulate the profession, period!

  13. Hi, Ben,
    What are we trying to achieve by registration as Safety Practitioners?
    Are we planning to uplift our profession or is this a money scam?
    Any organisation, such as OHSAP should be transparent! Ben, you have my support. Regards, Geoff.

  14. I have read this article and felt compelled to reply to this letter, as the information in this letter is so skewed, the tone of this letter so negative and sarcastic, it is laughable!

    The utmost negative tone this article has on the professional registration process is no surprise, as this is not the first time the process has been attacked. Attacking the process is fair and well, but what the real reason behind this is still beyond me. Derailing the process may mean self-preservation to some, but will be detrimental to the safety industry in the long run.

    I cannot, to my best ability, see how any individual or company, functioning within the safety industry, can be so dead against working on improving the level of competency within the industry and implementing a system whereby this competency can be confirmed and maintained!

    The fact that individuals, by name, are attacked in this process is also not a first, but this is now really getting out of hand and is close to defamation of character. To me it seems that, when one has nothing further that can be used to achieve your objective, you resort to attacking the person instead addressing the issue in an adult and professional manner. This can really not be tolerated any further!

    I need to clarify a number of incorrect statements made in this article. I do not know where some of the information in this article was obtained from, but it surely was not obtained from the persons in the know!

    Firstly, OHSAP and IoSM are 2 totally separate and independent entities and function as such. The Occupational Safety Professionals Council under OHSAP was initiated by IoSM, with the purpose to address the need in terms of assessing competency and confirming such through professional registration. This fact, I note, is not remotely mentioned in the article. It seems as if, as far as the article goes, competency and professionalism is of no importance to the South African safety industry or industry at large.

    Yes, it is correct that a number of people are involved in both IoSM as well as OHSAP. There is a clear answer for this. There are only a number of people in the industry who are in the position and are prepared to put a lot of effort into a project, over an extended period of time, without being remunerated for it. Thus, the people involved in IoSM as well as in OHSAP are a small group of individuals who are prepared to drive this process because they believe in the process. Any person who would want to get involved in this process is absolutely welcome. This process is not, as is implied, driven by a selected clique where others are shunned. Also, nobody is enriching themselves through this.

    Having said the above, I immediately have to clarify the training offered by Edwilo Occupational Health and Safety. There is no exclusivity to this training. Any service provider is free to offer the training. There is also no requirement that the training should be done in order to pass the registration assessments either. The training does however, support the individual on knowledge regarding basic safety principles and system implementation. The registration process is totally separate from the training. The individual has to make own arrangements for registration assessment and, as it is clearly indicated during the course, there is no guarantee that an individual who have done the training will pass the registration assessment. The course can only assist with knowledge and the individual has to integrate knowledge obtained during the course with existing knowledge and transfer this knowledge successfully during the assessment process.

    The article focus strongly on a sinister money making scheme. Firstly, may I mention that OHSAP is a non-profit organisation and financial matters are strictly managed, with financial documents transparent. Now, the so-called inexplicable mystery regarding the fees is actually easy to explain! As indicated on the website, the application fee is R450. This covers costs regarding admin and logistics in terms of assessments. The registration fee is R750. This fee includes membership of IoSM, should the individual so wish. Income generated through registration fee is used to cover SANAS application and registration fees as well staff and administration costs.

    I note that the author has a huge issue with the fact that professional registration is written into the Construction Regulation, and one person is blamed for this! If the author was closer to the process it would be understood that one individual cannot influence the process to such extend. The truth is that the legislator has seen the need for drastic action in terms of the conduct within the safety industry, resulting in this requirement. The alternative is, and I am sure the author overlooked this, will be to allow workers to die in the process of performing tasks and putting food on their family tables!

    I am very happy to see the questimate in the article regarding the number of individuals interested in the registration process. The industry thus, according to these figures, see the registration process as necessary and as adding value to the individual as well as the industry.

    We can ultimately continue to write articles like these for a long time to come, but in the process we will be losing focus as well as the understanding of what this process is actually all about. We all recognise the fact that all individuals practicing in the safety field do not have equal experience, training and thus competency. It is also a known fact that no person is eager to agree to not having sufficient knowledge levels on specific issues. The only manner in which this status can be addressed is through assessment and confirmation of competency level, which should be maintained through compliance with further development requirements. All individuals and parties in the safety industry should support this and work together to make this happen.

    On behalf of OHSAP, I again extend invitation to all individuals and companies with interest in safety in Southern Africa to involve themselves with OHSAP and the OSPC. Get involved and make your contribution towards the process, change the aspects of the process you do not like, rather than sitting on the sideline and only criticise the process. We all know it is much easier to sit on the sideline that to be involved with the job to be done. We cannot afford to have this process interrupted or postponed. The safety industry has a responsibility towards themselves and ultimately towards the worker in South Africa, to make this process effective and successful.

  15. Geoff, have you actually done some research yourself? Be honest now.
    I was at a SAFCEC workshop on the proposed new Cons Regs on Tuesday and I was amazed at how many people spent precious time discussing their different views, even on such a simple subject as the Sect 16:1 appointee (which has nothing to do with what the workshop was about) and once again I realised the need for some form of self-regulation as to competency. The so-called expert auditors are always asking for CoC’s for my operators, so why not our profession, or do we all think we are to important or knowledgeable.
    The one important fact that stands out, and starkly at that, is that not one person offering comments has even commented on the need, or not, for a single self-regulating body for the profession. Food for thought, I would say!!!

  16. Hi, Ken,
    Thanks for your input. I think that it is healthy to have different opinions on SHEQ and professional registration BUT if we stick together, we can achieve so much more.To argue amongst ourselves will lead to the profession being fragmented. Perhaps we can meet and put heads together and come up with solutions.
    Best regards,Geoff.

  17. Hi Geoff,
    Yes, now we are talking my language!
    The profession is already fragmented and we need somebody to rescue this situstion.
    Once again, one body with one set of standards regulating the profession with one common goal.
    This nonsense of allowing ones dislike of another and therefore the dislike (or non-acceptance) of the organization they are involved in or what that organization does (or tries to do) is silly and immature.
    It is time that all representative bodies got together and start planning how they will become ONE.
    In anticipation, I thank all those that are going to strive to achieve this goal. this includes the IoSMs, SAOHSIs, ACHASMs, SHEQAfricas, and the countless others that I don’t even know of.
    Come on people, let’s not allow our egos to affect our thinking and please bear in mind that their are others that will follow once we are gone!!!

  18. Hallo Ken & Geoff

    I am so happy to hear your opinions. We should all be working together to make this work for us, the safety industry!!!

    The industry has got the OHSAP system in place now. The system is actually well in line with international standard and with the SANAS certification imminent and thus, instead of reinventing the wheel, all parties involved in safety should get together, support the process, have input into the process, influence change where necessary and make it work for us, the industry at large.

    I would like to invite you, as well as any other person sharing our view to further discussion, should you be interested

    Regards

    Wilna

    WIlna

  19. Hi, Wilna, Thanks for all your comments.
    I would like to meet to discuss these points. We, if we stick together, can achieve so much more in the interests of professionalism.
    Contact Ben, who has my number and let’s meet.
    Best regards, Geoff.

  20. The South African Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (SAIOSH)wrote to OHSAP and request to have a seat on the OHSAP board in order to be part of the registration process. Ray Strydom replied and said that the request will be tabled at the next OHSAP Board meeting. Let’s see what happen.

  21. Good one, now we are going somewhere! Perhaps a look at it’s Constitution and how the current board was constituted would be interesting and informative.

  22. I am compelled to mention the fact that my previous questions pertaining to allegations that RS pockets all the monies or WL’s course is a rubber stamp for registration have not been answered. Any comments as to why?

  23. Ken, Let’s hope SAIOSH get the nod to participate. Once we have representation on the board hopefully all these questions will no longer be a “mystery”. We will alsi then decide to support or not support the OHSAP registration. It goes without say that should SAIOSH not be granted OHSAP board representation it will not support the OHSAP registration process and then go to plan “B” which is to either look at lending support to another body that has also started the process or ultimately call the safety fraternity together and establish an industry supported national tri-partheid registration system. As you say Ken we cannot sit back and complain we must do something about our profession.

  24. Neels, your last suggestion is what is preferable to me. If you go that way, I’m with you. One standard, one body, one registration!

  25. I have found it very strang that IoSM has placed strict rules in place concerning the “test” stage, when I applied at IoSM for registering as a ROSCord, They send me documents to study before writing the test, I after writing the test I met with another friend, He is a Civil Engineer, he never studied for the test, nor did he recieve any documents, I asked him about the test he said he don it virbaly while I had to write the test, anything can sound right via voice and via pen you need to explain “perfect” for someone to understand. I also heard of people that recieved there registrations without undergoing any tests, another problem is that I pay my yearly fee with IoSM before every december which means it gives them 1 month to send me my certificates, I only recieve them 4-6 months later . . . . How does this work? PAY for 1 year and then when you recieve your certificate only 6 months is left of the year!!!

    1. OHSAP Safety practitioner registration is not legislated in any sector, disputed by many SHEQ practitioners, and not recognised by many employers.

      Only IoSM aligned individuals accept the unilateral OHSAP drive to ‘professionalise’ Safety practice. Their circulars about the Construction Regulations Amendment, and their assessment by SANAS, are designed to create the appearance of legal sanction, as I have had to inform several Safety practitioners who were ‘spooked’ by IoSM and OHSAP circulars and rumours.

      The draft policy on professional bodies, under authority of SAQA, not SANAS, prohibits registrars, or in this case a self-appointed registrar, from rendering training services.

      IoSM is supposedly divorced from OHSAP, and suffers from conflict of interest for rendering training services.

      I’m now saving all the emails I receive from people complaining about the bad service and irregularities relating to OHSAP operations.

      I would advise that it is probably better at this stage to spend your time and money on career planning, risk skills, and accredited training.

  26. As a student, to become a professional in this industry, I am confused on what is going on in this profession, and sometimes feel that I should never have started studying, it seems as if everebody just wants to make money and bugger the rest.
    How long will it take to gain direction, it’s like the school is changing cirricullum and the poor learners have no idea, I have no idea what to think anymore.

Leave a Comment