- This topic has 8 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Some time ago, after a BBC News article I decided to investigate what the above is. I appreciate that some may well not even be away of its existance, I know that the perception from those that are aware of it is that it has something to do with the building trade. But do you recognise the logo?
It may surprise you, but apparently one ion seven adults in the UK do recognise the logo, so irrepctive of what you think it’s already an established brand. Oh and you can click the image to have a look at the Trustmark website.
So what has this got to do with UK Whitegoods? What has this to do with you?
WE introduced this at the recent UKW meeting but I know that many didn’t make it, or simply didn’t bother with it, so here’s the scoop.
Well, this is an initiative cooked up by the DTI and they’re pretty keen to see some sort of standards applied across a wide range of industries. Shock, we happen to be one of them.
The surprising part of it is that Trustmark see UKW as being the vehicle to become the scheme operator for our sector. And here was I thinking that we were regarded as trade terrorists, we probably still are in some quarters when in fact nothing could actually be further from the truth, we just don’t fit with some people’s agendas that’s all and they don’t like their dirty laundry being given an airing.
But nonetheless, here’s a chance for loads of us to just get together and further capitalise on an established brand with massive support from industry and government.
Right, I better explain this support from industry bit. Here’s how it goes chaps, this is self funding, the government like that sort of thing as the current administration isn’t exactly falling over itself to endorse anything that is centrally funded. Something about the press and stealth taxation, went right over my head… honest. 😉
But the inference from the DTI is that, much like the gas regulation stuff my head is now sadly full of, that if industries don’t do it voluntarily in a “reasonable” time, then they’ll make sure we do whether we like it or not. Probably with substantially more cost, rules, legistlation and red tape.
Sorry folks but we live in a nanny state these days it would seem. However it is hard to argue that the industry self-regulates when there’s no regulation whatsoever.
Anyway, the lowdown is that the industry has to fund this on it’s own and, to be fair, it’s really not that expensive really in the grand scheme of things.
Ready for it yet?
But…
We have to find a means of funding it
Now there’s several ways in which to do this, every one of them is bound to hack somebody off. Sorry, that’s the way the chips fall.
Initially we need a couple (or the more the lighter the burden) of sponsors to get UKW registered and this is not a quick process, it’s government, they’re not the fastest. Then we have to meet certain conditions, which is easy so long as we can fund it, like attaining ISO9001 or whatever it is these days.
The kicker, well the kicker is that if industry doesn’t fund it and we do it then we need to figure the ROI and charge accordingly. Personally I far prefer option A.
So we’re currently open to offers and support for an industry standard.
Standards
Other than those imposed to get contract work of any type, whcih are loose at best for the most part. Other than DASA’s and ours… well… there aren’t any.
So, we’re in a freefall. Total cowboy territory.
I’ve been reading this book recently, quite incitefull (spelling, it’s late, vodka tonight :?) really called Freakonomics and at the core of it is causality and effect, the simple drive of incentive. It’s a bestseller and, it’s a bestseller because whether you like it on not it cuts close to the bone and it’s easy to relate to. Without incentive there’s no cause, without cause there’s no effect. Simple, get it?
So, tell me, what incentive is there in this industry (leaving CORGI as a side issue for a moment) to work to any standard?
Answers are few in number. The only one that we could possibly dream up is that we have to work to a reasonable standard in order to retain the custom of our patrons, contract work included.
Well here’s a unique opportunity for us all and, I do mean us all, in the industry to formulate our own standard. Yeah I know it’s a whacky idea, I know it’ll take a bit of work. But if we don’t try what’s the effect that that will have?
There’s always cause and there’s always effect. The trick is to control cause, the effect comes as a matter of course.
So here we can have our own standard. We can actually formulate the framework within which this industry could work to for the next decade, or more.
Fancy a crack at it?
My fear is that if we don’t do it, some politician will do it for us.
UKW is in a unique position as we’re pretty much neutral territory. I don’t much care who I talk to, nor do any of the other directors or employees of UKW. We don’t have to care. There’s only one goal for us, the betterment of the industry, raise it’s profile and it’s image within th etrade and to the public. Pretty simple really and, whilst we are independent biased to some degree, we don’t exclude anyone.
So we can cross many a gulf without batting an eyelid.
Yes, we have commercial interests but heh, everyone has to make a buck and the industry as it stands is not funding UKW, not the manufacturers, repairers, retailers, insurers or anyone else directly involved in the repair business. We have to fund UKW from somewhere, our commercial interests, in part, do this.
So there you have it, the bare bones of it.
Do I think that Trustmark will solve the industries issues, no I don’t. There’s simply not a magic cure for all that ails us sadly, but this is a damned big band-aid which adds a lot of credence to the repairers. It’s government backed and endorsed and it will most likely prove to be very cost-effective.
Most of all… it’s a start.
So here’s all I’m asking, if your’e interested in taking part, funding the initiative or being a member of the Trustmark scheme then please let me know so that I can gauge whether to pursue it or not. That’s it, all I want is to knwo if you’re interested, I don’t want anything else for now.
K.
Re: Trustmark
kwatt wrote:My fear is that if we don’t do it, some politician will do it for us.
Indeed! 😕
How about a condensed version of the UKW repairs@ charter?
Re: Trustmark
Essentially that’s what we’re aiming for Paul. It needs work and it needs input from others, but that’s the basic premise.
K.
Re: Trustmark
It’s something I would welcome, to try and get rid of the cowboys. ATM in our area the cowboys are taking work away from us, and doing work to a sub-standard quality; giving the whole industry and bad reputation 🙁
If it becomes a manditory thing in the (pretty distant) future, then I see the positives far out-weighting the negatives.
Re: Trustmark
kwatt wrote:all I want is to know if you’re interested
Is the lack of input to Kens question a sign of complacency I wonder?
Do I take it we are all happy with the current situation then?
“I’m alright Jack, pull up the ladder”…is it? 😕
Re: Trustmark
definitely interested :)we should be registered ,if only to keep the cowboys out 😈 but i suppose it will allways be the cost 😯 that decides whether we do or not. in the building trade thre is a similar scheme,called “the federation of master builders” maybe ,the more we have,the cheaper it will cost ❓
Re: Trustmark
Sooner or later, they’ll start looking at us – ostensibly for safety reasons, accountability reasons, any reason you like. Electricity is dangerous after all; electricity and water spectacularly so.
Now, we can let the government get on with it, in which case we’ll be compelled to become part of COWRI (Council of Registered Washer Installers) (Don’t panic, I made that bit up 😀 – but you’ll appreciate the implication…..) – or, we get in NOW and take charge of the process ourselves. It’s going to cost a few bob – if we do it, it’ll be small change. If the Goverment does it, you’ll be paying a tenner to send in a form to say that you’ve changed a pair of Hotpoint brushes.
Wake up guys, it’s coming – unless we deal with it now.
Chris.
Re: Trustmark
Every day I come onto UKW and think that, one day, I’ll have good news. There are the days that that happens, but sadly for me (it does take its toll) it rarely happens.
The cost, I have no idea as yet. All I know is that the more that are onboard with it, from manufacturer to little one-man repairer, the cheaper it gets. Can’t be fairer than that.
Fact is we will be looked at. Whether that’s now or three, five, or even ten years down the road it will happen. We’re already in the sights, trust me, I do know this to be a fact.
Is it any wonder? Not really when you think about it.
We’re in people’s homes, we have access to machine that can kill (just see Toni’s recent thread about a shock) and we have a duty to “make safe”. We have a duty to the customer to know what we’re about adn to also be proffesional in out approach.
We’ve been off the radar for a long time, there was no call to be on it TBH. In many ways there’s still not too much reason to be on it, but we are. And there you have it.
What frightens me in large part is not the onset of some sort ot code, or legislation at all, that doesn’t bother me really as it’s just the things go really. No, what bothers me is the total apathy about it all, not just from repairers as they don’t drive legislation, but from manufacturers etc. who, according to my email, couldn’t give a toss about this. Even less so as they are asked to stick thier hands in their collective pockets.
Ostriches. Not a tactic that generally yeilds a result. Forward thinking, progrssive… make your own mind up.
Just shows you where their values lie IMO and what value that they place upon as well as regard they actually hold for the independents.
K.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.