TAC, 5th March 2008. Initial report.

For farriers to raise concerns with elected Farriers Registration Council representative Peter Baker. Anonymous postings will be deleted.
PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

TAC, 5th March 2008. Initial report.

Postby PNB » Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:14 am

All,

Interesting previously unaware matters regarding this committee, the way it conducts itself and what there transpired.

It seems the FTAMB can make and instigate training critical decisions which cannot be reversed by/at FRC, although FRC can refer these decision back, "[Chairman FTAMB]".

An observation, The TAC seemingly do no take resolutions or vote on anything, but rely on healthy debate being recorded in order for FTA to set a guided strategy. The chairman of TAC commented on several occasions "Again no decision has been MADE". Surely that is not the normal democratic process, and it is his duty as chairman to call for concrete proposals, then require a formal vote from the full membership of TAC.

Member Baker had written an open letter to FRC/FTA questioned by chairman of FTAMB, [" Do you stand behind your comments"],[recorded above], regarding health and safety and the unpleasant attitude of FTA's output which is directed towards the ATFs [subject of direct complaint by 32 farrier workers approaching him those working within 10 miles of his home, and a further10 he had contacted]. Member Baker stated to committee "The feel good factor towards FTA has gone". However fellow craft elected member BARNES who resides 20 miles further away, said this was not the case and he had a strong feel good factor towards FTA.

As your elected member on the TAC I would like to know if my opinion is correct that the craft does not like FTA, the nature of its outputs and the training module and the complex NVQs currently in place, is my thinking correct or do I have to modify my thinking in view of your elected member Barnes's comment??

An agreement was reached after much pushing, I feel the only agreement actually made at the meeting, that member Baker would form a small group of working craftsmen to establish what is the requirements that farriers should observe to optimise a safe environment when working on, around and under horses. P D Oldman and PNB have volunteered to form the foundation of this group, the construction process will posted at farriertalk@yahoogroups.com
all welcomed to join this group. Any out come will be formed into an agreed document, published and presented to TAC for implimentation consideration. This idea was mooted in view of Chris's serious head injury on a UK racecourse.

PNB.

Will tidy up latter, sorry.
Last edited by PNB on Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:09 am, edited 2 times in total.

csc
Posts: 950
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:40 am
Location: berks

Postby csc » Fri Mar 07, 2008 6:57 am

a report was published FTA SATISFACTION SURVEY FOR APPROVED FARRIERS AND APPRENTICES i presume that is the feel good factor peter mentions this is a 50 plus page document analizing a questionaire sent to atfs and apprentices we could not be told of the cost of this exersise and the comments actualy made by atfs and aprentices were negative also we were told on one hand that the learning skills council said it was a requirement and then told it wasnt i belive this to be a waste of money

THE FINANCES ARE OF CONCERN AS WE ARE TOLD IT IS NOT OUR BUISNESS AND SEEM UNACESABLE any questions in this direction are left unanswered
to clear peters point the fta make recomendations to the frc
i felt on the whole that positive progress is and has been made and the colleges seem happy with the situation

we must all bear in mind wheather you love or hate the system it does work and our training is by farr the best in the world
i am not clear in my own mind weather or not atfs are happy with the large movement of aprentices from master to master and look forward to your comment on this matter

cliff barnes
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:24 pm

Postby cliff barnes » Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:00 am

Dear Peter

It seems you heard differnetly to me regarding your push to form a group for this paper, my personal view and the views I heard around the table were if YOU wish to write a report then the TAC would read through it when you submit YOUR paper.

Every thing else seemed to be resolved one way or another. Some things had the concensous and some things didnt so were not implimented.

Cliff

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:03 am

Cliff,

"Presented to TAC for implimentation consideration"[PNB], Does that not mean, "to write a report then the TAC would read through it when you submit YOUR paper"[CB].

Do you feel then that one man working alone inside of Sefton house or out in the street can form an efficient overview of anything without referance to others?? If you recall elected member Symonds [Hereford College] was invited [declined], to be included onto this Health and Safety strategy group regarding working with, around and under horses during the process of shoeing.

Its quite funny how two people sitting next to each other hear the same thing, one of them even questions the suggestion made by member Baker, but still doesn't understand what member Baker has requested and what the Chair has agreed to!! Whatever, It is now in writing,[here].

ALL, If you feel you would like to become involved in the formation processes you are welcome, or you can follow the progress on farriertalk@yahoogroups.com , if you are not signed up to this group send an email, many worldwide now are!! or even if you do not see a need for such an in involvement, wait and read it in the international farrier/equine press, or even when it is formally presented to TAC!!

For the future, maybe a formal proposition, by either of the parties at TAC should be encouraged!! On a technical point, CONSENSIOUS is considerably different from a proposal, vote and formal democratic approval!! The Chair TAC highlighted this, seemingly then; debate yet without formal agreement was/is the norm at TAC , he in fact made this observation several times during the meeting.

PNB.

Stuart, The system does work whether the Satisfaction survey analyses be correct or other wise.

A cynic, could argue that if 251 questionnaires are sent out, to which 23[approx] farriers of the 251 polled completely agreed with the FTA statements which were phrased as questions, that the survey analyses should demonstrate that of the persons polled only a little over nine percent [9+%] demonstrated satisfaction with FTA!!

Even a non cynic must have reservations about the surveys outcome!! and the statement/implication made in the formal report that 79% of ATFs were satisfied with FTA!!

PNB.
Last edited by PNB on Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:11 am, edited 4 times in total.

csc
Posts: 950
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:40 am
Location: berks

Postby csc » Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:19 am

i must back chris with the point he made peter at the discusion i personaly felt that all points were covered satisfactory regarding h&s

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

William Wilberforce rules!!

Postby PNB » Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:48 pm

Stuart,

Your quote,"i am not clear in my own mind weather or not ATFs are happy with the large movement of apprentices from master to master and look forward to your comment on this matter",

I don't know either, if it hadn't been for the £3000 bonded labour payment made to FTA, I don't think looking at the big picture it matters a lot. There is plenty of new blood disparate for apprenticeships, and then if lads wish to move on the employee loss is equalled by the chance for another ATF to employ them. That is without looking outside of the UK for seasonal part trained workers.

Apprentices are in fact employees, and the £3000 bond paid to an outside agency [FTA] in order to employ an apprentice, surely shouldn't enslave them to one master. Employees have the right to relocate their employment at will as do those that employ them, subject of course to meeting current employment regulations.

Is the £3000 bond transferable with the APPRENTICE?? is the problem not yet met.

PNB.
Last edited by PNB on Sun Mar 09, 2008 7:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

csc
Posts: 950
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:40 am
Location: berks

Postby csc » Sun Mar 09, 2008 7:12 am

its starting to get complicated isnt it peter
as a atf paying £3000 i would not be happy if my aprentice was poached

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Sun Mar 09, 2008 7:16 am

All,

I need a bit of feed back [TAC] regarding the achademic entry requirement of lads coming into the apprenticship system. It seems the bar is again going to be raised to a REQUIREMENT of 5 A-C grades at GCSE level.

Do you feel the current level is set to high already?? It seems on the surface the problem of previous academic achievement is mainly concern of the EDUCATION Systems, The Farrier Schools, in so much that they find difficulty in teaching the more practical less academic students. Educating them takes "More time and costs more".

I don't know but my present feeling is HORSE SHOEING is a practical job done by practical men/women. The push by government is to reintroduce an apprenticeship culture in an effort to get the non academic youth pool away from the current "Yob Street Culture" by giving them formal employment. Surely alienating those kids that fought the school system and failed to achieve their GCSE's, the very ones that drift into a street culture, even though they have enough nous to go out and find an employer, who is willing to train them for 4 years must be counter productive to the government's youth employment strategy.

Elected member Baker did ask the colleges at TAC "Are you saying you are unable to train the apprentices that ATFs send you", the response was that it was more difficult and cost more!! To which member Baker replied, "If you don't get enough money ask for more!!"", the response being where is it going to come from?? my response being,"That is not the college's problem!!".

This debate was quite interesting under the overview that currently of the last students taking their Dip WCF 84 only 4 [5%] failed to reach the Dip WCF standard!! Then?? is a higher academic student actually required??

PNB.

cliff barnes
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:24 pm

Postby cliff barnes » Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

Peter
I understand completly what you asked for and what the chair agreed to. The Chair agreed to you personally writing a paper that could be put forward to the comittee. At no point apart from your own mouth did the chair agree that you could form a group to write the paper.
Cliff

Craig
I have had several apprentices come to me with transfering ATFs on thier mind. Not once have I gone looking for these apprentices. You would need to look at each case and try and see where the breakdown between master and apprentice has come from.
I'm not sure that poached would be a term I would use for those apprentices wanting to move, or having to move. It seems veru provacative in what I have found to be a delicate situation.
Cliff

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Watching our Own Backsides!!

Postby PNB » Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:10 pm

Cliff,

I was elected to the FRC and TAC by my peers, I will construct a report irrespective of TAC as no report currently exists, there is no written unit for NVQ purposes relevant to working under horses, or any valid teaching aid for ATFs or the FTA Healh and Safety Officers.

With the litigation culture presently developing with regards to personal injury claims there is no guide line as to what is satisfactory practice when working in, around and under horses. The Training Director FTA has declined to consider a review of this until 2011, 3 + years after he retires!!, which in view of the 3 significent apprentice head injuries during the last year I doubt meets satisfactory H&S protocol. A "Risk Assessment" [TAC] essential, being the pass word.

If we ignore this now, something that has been bought to the fore by the maiming injury to the highly experienced Head Lad CHRIS with his life long experience in, around and under horses and the suggested £3million claim for a third party kick in the HEAD , it will be the COURTS that set the respective Farriery related STANDARDS and not our own craft!!.

I therefore feel it is necessary for my craft to undertake a research project irrespective of any formal TAC go ahead, whether fact or implied it matters not the civil courts will take note of this. Please remember it will be the ATFs who elected you and I on the TAC who will face the courts in the event of a life influencing apprentice injury !! I would like some support from my peers and not necessarily just UKHSU members to assist in the construction of such a thesis, which you are quite right I WILL PRESENT TO TAC!! either as a personal or group product!!

PNB.

csc
Posts: 950
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:40 am
Location: berks

Postby csc » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:14 am

peter i was happy with the explanations given and belive that the collages cover H@S and so do the frc you seem the only one hell bent on pushing this forward i have heard you views both at ukhsu meetings and fta meeting s
go ahead and write your report
but you are pissing in the wind pal

csc
Posts: 950
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:40 am
Location: berks

Postby csc » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:21 am

chris it is enevatable that some apprentices will want to move and do so with the blessing of atfs but i have heard that some are actualy poaching apprentices picking the ones concidered the best in ther 2 /3 years this maybe or maybee not the case if no one informs us then we can only asume that all atfs and aprentices are happy and that it is only a rumour that needs to be put to bed

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Boycott of horse shoe suppliers.

Postby PNB » Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:17 am

Stuart,


Before consideration could be given to such an action all working farriers who elect to become involved would need a legal indemnity cover, the consequences for the prosecuting agents then would be dire and it would be extremely expensive for them to prosecute. I would need legal advice before embarking on such an action.

Alternatively, do you feel our energies would be better spent setting up a parallel non FRC based register!! maybe an initially free registration. outside of the control given to WCF under section one of the Registration Acts.!! Nearly every body I speak with feels strongly about a route like this!! Again legal advice would be necessary.

Fighting, debating and suggesting to the existing administration that something is amiss is like bang ones head against a wall. The recent FTA satisfaction survey and the 25th NOVEMBER 2005 ATF, CONFERANCE DEMONSTRATED THIS ONLY TO WELL!!


PNB.

cliff barnes
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:24 pm

Postby cliff barnes » Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:34 pm

Stuart

I haven't heard of any one poaching an apprentice just because they are a good 2/3year.
I would like to think that my own apprentices would discuss this with me if it were to happen, and frankly I would scream and shout about such an injustice if it were to take place. The culprits would be annouced in the forge magazine and the FTA would be sick of my calls to prevent it.

I will quiz my apprentices in the morning to see if they have heard of any such behaviour.

CLIFF not chris :-)

csc
Posts: 950
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:40 am
Location: berks

Postby csc » Tue Mar 11, 2008 6:30 am

peter if you want to take it further then it needs to be put forward at our next meeting and voted on i would not acept any organisation that a member could take action and spend that organisations funds without the majoritys vote

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Tue Mar 11, 2008 6:02 pm

Stuart,

I completely agree, but take what forwards??

PNB.

csc
Posts: 950
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:40 am
Location: berks

Postby csc » Wed Mar 12, 2008 6:23 am

alternative registration


Return to “farriers - contact your FRC rep”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest