Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Re: EEE safe email.
Hi Ken,
I can commiserate with your ‘living in a gold fish bowl’ analogy and for one always appreciate the open dialogue and gems of unique inspiration and terminology we have always had and long may it continue.
For my part I am not normally a forums person and prefer the more personal email approach but thought for once I would respond openly to the original posting and I think all in all it has resulted in some interesting dialogue.
With regard to the Gas Safe analogy that’s all it was just an analogy which can be used both as an example of what can be done and how it shouldn’t too.
Picking out the best parts and whenever possibly learning from the mistakes made by others is always the best mode of learning.However, I guess there are just some things that have to be learned the hard way and I don’t expect EEESafe to avoid those types of lessons completely.
I think the message from all what has been said in the various postings is that – “Nothing ventured, nothing gained” another may be “watch this space”.
Even if it fails someone else may learn a lesson from it and use it to improve their own ideas.
Regards
Graham
Re: EEE safe email.
Cheers Lawrence,
I like the idea of Robert having a presence on the forum as I am sure it would be of benefit to all concerned.
It will also allow Robert to put his take on things as opposed to mine which inevitably revolves around technical issue as opposed to the ‘politically correct speak’ that I am really not fond of.
Mentioning your name only came about because as you say we have met at events like DEFRA and WRAP and more often than not find ourselves supporting one another’s points of view. It is always best to demonstrate a united front at meetings such as the ones mentioned even if we may not do so on other occasions.
I am not sure if you will agree but I think it was a real pity about the whole DASA debacle and I still hope that the initiatives Dave Coombes worked so hard to achieve continue.
I believe that Dave had (and still has) ‘cross party support’ and like me probably think that working together in the common good is the best and may ultimately be the only way to make real progress. So I sincerely hope that dialogue between the two groups will continue.
I know a lot may not like such comments for a wide variety of reasons but the experience and standing of guys like Dave should not be lost as I am sure it will be needed in the future.
With regard to a place on the steering committee that door will always be open.
Regards
Graham
Re: EEE safe email.
Thanks for the detailed posting Ken and no I don’t take exception to the way you voice your opinion as it’s the only way to get things out in the open.
As result I have tried to respond to the various issues and questions you raised without too wordy a response so I hope that you also don’t take issue with the detail and phrasing.
You wrote-
I’m just looking at this from the outside in if you like and, please don’t take this the wrong way but there’s some fundamental questions that I think need answered. I have to say that Robert didn’t really address these when he was at the WTA meeting in September last year.
Response – I think Robert would agree that he didn’t present himself all that well on the day and tried to explain everything in almost one breath, but put that down to experience and I don’t want to make the mistake again here. As a result I will try to keep things as brief as possible knowing once we establish confidentiality between the two organisations a lot more detail can be provided.
The reason that we use open forums and, the guys like them, is that many can read it and it doesn’t look as if its a bunch of good old boys shuffling into darkened room to draw up plans of domination. We’ve had that or, at least the notion of it in the past so, it’s best avoided IMO.
Response – I think the interesting phrase in your comment is “doesn’t look as if” as I sure that some in UKW and other such forums do have vested interest agendas which is a fact we all should acknowledge. Of course the guys like the UKW forum, because they feel/ believe they are in a friendly environment, when in reality they may not be.
Also best avoided is not answering the questions as that only leads to more speculation and suspicion over what this is or is about. I get where you’re coming from on it even if I don’t quite understand the mechanics or entirely share the methodology but, others may well not get it.
Response – Fully agree with this statement hence my trying to put forward honest down to earth answers.
Keep in mind that, if you have kept up with the forums of late, the past year there have been a plethora of get-rich-quick merchants trying to flog membership to this, that and everything in between so, presently, the guys are on high alert for anything that even sniffs a bit off.
Response – I’m not aware, but not surprised either, however, the guys should also understand that not everything new is bad –it’s that negative attitude thing again.
Whilst I applaud the notion of thousands of people wanting to change the world and the throw-away culture that we find ourselves in I have to tell you that, as I have lectured to students, what people say and importantly, what people do and how that they behave in respect to “green” issues are very often worlds apart. The ideology may well be sound and the feedback may say that people will follow the lead but it falls flat upon execution due to this gulf between ideal and action.
Response – You know my negative stance on the EU in general I make no bones about it but even I realise that something needs to be done to elicit change which results in sometimes having swallowing your pride for the common good. That is why EEESafe engages with European Reuse Sectors and is deeply aware of European Policy as well as those of the various UK Government Depts. Words also come easy when posting on forums but I don’t think Robert sees UKW’s engagement and evidence, much in the same way as UKW doesn’t see EEESafe’s. I think you and others will find that there are instances on the forums of mis-information based on supposition.
I gotta tell you, I’m way ahead of you there as it sounds you’re where I was five or more years ago and I think that you may well be barking up the wrong tree there.
Response – I can’t agree with you on this one, although I accept that you have experience of your sector. This however, as you regularly state is a relatively small element of a dwindling Sector, which you even cited in the OFT Report some years ago. Robert has and continues to attempt to engage UKW/WTA but to date such advances have been relatively ignored when in reality it is clear that there is a much bigger picture to be taken into account.
Putting old disputes to one side may be it is time to ask why there are two Trade Associations with different structures, one which has ‘shareholders’ and one that doesn’t. Would that be a topic for forums? With questions like “Who are the Advisory Council” – “Do the members have any conflicts of interest etc.”
The questions that probably answered, although not an exhaustive list, are:
Q. Does EEESafe have a mandate from government or any official body and if so who, where can that information be found by us and the public?
Answer – Just as UKW and the WTA did not have or require a government mandate or support from an official body to set themselves up neither did EEESafe. However, there are now government and official bodies willing to fund trials in Training, Running Centres and are applauding the efforts to regulate the sector.
I believe Robert has this as factual evidence in writing, but I’m not currently able to provide further details until they come to the table and agree to discuss in confidence and sign Non-Disclosure Agreements. However, here are already NDA’s with some sizeable organisations including funders and commercial organisations.Q. What is EEESafe officially, is it a charity, an not-for-profit or an actual business venture? From the website it’s very confusing and not clear on what the organisation actually is in a legal sense.
Answer – It’s not a Charity, it’s a Social Enterprise. I am sure that you, Ian and Lawrence already know that the Government has officially stated they are not funding the sector. So the only real options were to stand back and watch it die, or take action. This led to the idea of EEESafe which is very much how Gas Safe started. EEESafe doesn’t sell Spares or are held by Manufacturer Agreements. The concept is to be free from such restraints. By avoiding these potential pitfalls EEESafe does not need to “follow the money” as you put it as it does not have to satisfy shareholders.
Q. Who owns this organisation and the rights to the EESafe logos, standards etc?
Answer – EEESafe does and is committed to its outputs and outcomes on Social and Environmental grounds and if EEESafe (with no shareholders and only a Steering Group and eventually a Board, which you are welcome to join in and influence (but not to simply benefit your ISE Organisation or UKW’s Shareholders)
Q. How much will EEESafe cost? I can see that it’s been mooted at £300 a year for a DAR but I cannot find any other costings.
Answer – A DAR is £45 annually. A Centre is £300 annually (which must have a DAR) but for that a centre also gets their own Website, a commercial shop, contributes to evidence of Waste Prevention, has access to the back end evidence system, is able to earn revenue working with Retail Partners, has an annual audit, maintains and grows an online customer database and as a result can get more repair business.
Q. What are the requirements to be an EESafe DAT or DAR? Do the requirements lead to further costs?
Answer – A list of criteria set by the Steering Group (currently – Dixon Training, DASA & EEESafe – a place is still open to the WTA see below). Initially passing an assessment of Ohms Law and commitment to retention of repairable appliances in the local community by donating old appliances to the local centre. There are no further costs currently but if the Steering Group agree there needs to be, then that will come from them, and those employed in the sector whom they represent. WTA has a place waiting for them if they agree to NDA’s and work with the decisions of the Steering Group.
Q. What benefit does EEESafe deliver to an appliance repairer?
Answer – More business and become part of a standard we hope to convince government to adopt. Remember Gas Safe and where it came from. Consumer confidence and accountability to a standards organisation that they can promote to customers.
Q. How and where is EEESafe promoted?
Answer – Due to limited resources through our Website, EEESafe Centres and Shops, Emailings, Social Media, attending conferences, meeting Local Authorities, communications to Housing, BIS, DEFRA, WRAP, Reuse Organisations, Housing Associations, Charities and shortly to consumer networks when our Pilots begin in England and Wales. We intend to create demand for EEESafe Registered Repairers.
G
Re: EEE safe email.
Great response Martin and full of the very real facts that need to be tackled and far more constructive than the usual pointless one line negatives.
You are right there are a multitude of issues that affect the service and re-use sectors and that is why a more coordinated approach. The ‘us versus them attitude’ simply hasn’t worked and if this David wants beat goliath then he needs more than a simple sling shot, faith and a lucky hit.
Joining forces and proving that the sectors have ‘real credibility, knowledge and skills’ backed by a recognised Competent Person scheme or qualification (or whatever you want to call it) will first help ‘level the playing field’ between manufacturers and ourselves. The lack of any such recognition has been exploited for way too long. It’s one of excuses used to restrict technical information for one.
One point you made that needs clarification is that DASA did not start the process it joined it as many others are beginning to do.
If people really want to know more about EEESafe the best thing to do is visit the site. Yes there is lot on the site but the gist of it is mobilising those in the service and re-use/recycling sectors and their customers to fight the very points you make in you posting.
The concept is one of ‘pick and mix’ whereby those that join are free to decide which aspects they want and those they don’t. As you say you concentrate on repairs and do not venture into reconditioning but others may choose to otherwise – it’s all about free choice.
We can all moan as much as we like but let’s face who cares about individual businesses.
However, join together and add to that number the voices of all their customers (the social aspect) and you have voice that is very hard to ignore.
Essentially those with the real ability for change listen to those who have the most people behind them – it’s a numbers game to them so let’s give them numbers.
The social aspect is probably the strongest part of the EEESafe concept for although the way machines are manufactured adversely affects the service sector the impact on customers and the planet is far more contentious.
When the cheap unrepairable types of product are dispensed with the inability for them to be used in re-use/recycling system hits those on low income even harder. There are far more income restricted individuals than you think who cannot easily afford even a dirt cheap unrepairable import unless they enter into high interest credit agreement which effectively keeps them in the poverty trap.
Add to this the negative impact on green issues and you have a very powerful tool for change with hundreds of thousands of people supporting it.
I also think that additional leverage can be put forward in the form of not just pointing out the above issues but linking them to the balance of trade figures. Let’s face it just about every single appliance is an import which with the volume imported leads to a very negative figure indeed. At all parties realise that anything that adversely affects these figures is well worth a look.
With regard to the use of appliance failure/recall figures no one was implying or otherwise that the lack of a qualification or one individual was to blame. As I say it is numbers and the way they are used that others take notice of and for the first time the service sector need to use them to our advantage.
It’s the bigger picture that some of us realise is the best opportunity we have ever had to effect positive change.
The alternative is to keep moaning hoping someone in authority will listen and act (which they won’t) and hope that you can scratch a living before it inevitably goes ***’s up as the doom and gloom guy think it will.
Personally I don’t like giving up without a fight.
GRe: EEE safe email.
I am sorry that this is a long post but I hope that you will spare the time to read it all as I hope it will provide a better understanding of EEESafe and its aims.
Those that know me also know that I have been involved in the whitegoods sector for the best part of 40 years.
In that time there has been quite a lot of change but one thing that appears not to have changed is the general feeling of the grass roots guys feeling they have always got a raw deal and expect it to get worse and I am not just talking about WTA members it’s far more wide spread and entrenched than that.
There is and always has been a lot of doom and gloom when engineers meet up and in forum postings but little if any constructive ideas about how to change things. It’s almost as if there is perverse pleasure in feeling they are an underdog.
The comments like ‘has someone hacked the WTA data base for instance – NO they haven’t such information is ‘legally’ widely available on the internet as most people know – when you’re in business you don’t hide your contact details you display them wherever you can.
I know many won’t like to hear these sort of comment but sometimes the truth hurts.
For those viewing the sector from the outside I am sure it would appear that those in the sector prefer to see at best that their glass is half empty as opposed to half full. In some respects it may appear to be so but following the same old process of constant criticism, negativity and feeling that the world is against you doesn’t improve matters one jot. Looking back over the past 4 decades and beyond will show you that.
Following the same old route and expecting to arrive at another destination – simply doesn’t work. It doesn’t when you are trying to find a fault and it doesn’t when you are trying to change what will happen in the future.If we go back to the glass half full or half empty scenario a good engineer mind would come up with – ‘let’s just re-engineer the glass to result in a more positive outcome’.
Essentially that is what EEESafe is trying to do rather than follow the same old, same old it’s trying to design a system that brings together all of the various people now involved in appliance repair and re-use to design a strategy that is beneficial to everyone.With the above in mind I hope that the following will help put some more factual information to you that may assist WTA Members understand what is really being done.
For my part I’ve been working with Robert on developing a ‘competent person scheme’ for those already in the repair and re-use sectors with the aim of also developing a Training Centre Network for those who wish to enter into it.
It is not an easy task but we are making progress and engaging not only the Government but other organisations interested in running a Training Programme partnership. I can’t share specific details with you yet, just as WTA wouldn’t wish to make public information until projects are confirmed.
However, I can tell you that DEFRA and WRAP are engaged with EEESafe, so it’s not something that has ever been dismissed as suggested on this topic. DASA, myself and Robert have discussed Sector Specific matters and we are doing so to help establish a Competent Persons Scheme and a network of Centres of Reuse, working to Sector agreed standards, as well as developing a Qualification that will be specific to the Sector.
A Training Pilot is almost signed and ready to roll, and will include a Customer Service Module which should please WTA members as this was promoted at last years conference.
Our aim has always been to engage with everyone in the sector and have had stands and spoken openly at several WTA and DASA meeting over the years. We have also met up with and supported WTA members at several DEFRA and WRAP meetings.
However, it appears that it is DASA that has decided to actively contribute to developing the standards. The door has always been and still is open for others (especially the WTA) to get involved.
With regard to some thinking it is the ‘BIG Dixons group’ behind EEESafe the answer is that it most certainly is NOT and when the network grows, you may well find that it’s local to you. Ultimately it all depends on who registers, is compliant to deliver training and meets the EEESafe Criteria which will be illustrated after the Pilot project ends.
Robert has been involved on 3 recent Government consultations and WRAP are preparing to meet him and DASA soon to consult on the data he has supplied, some of which he has worked with at DASA meetings. WTA would have been more than welcome but as mentioned previously currently appear to have chosen not to partake.
The Statistics referred to in the emails he sends out are not made up they are gleaned from Govt Stats, Fire Services and The Electrical Safety Council, with whom he is also engaged and is seeking a common objective of understanding the difference between an Electrician and an Appliance Repairer.
The Ellen MaCarthur Foundation is indeed real and the report is online, publicly available and I understand he is involved in a current Tender, to help trial the model. WRAP has also encouraged him to get involved in the bid. He keeps me up to date as we both work hard to get the Sector recognised and develop the Training Network. He also has a Local Authority and Housing Associations engaged and very interested, and is setting up a Community Trust Fund that will build from shared revenues with EEESafe Centres to fund local projects, and perhaps offer bursaries to any Repairer who wants to get involved setting up Centres later on.
Robert has also engaged the Environment Agency and is able to direct/advise what options there are to the T11 requirements to anyone serious about running a Centre. The Centre and earning from new Appliances are entirely optional, and does not affect the Competent Persons Registration, EEESafe DAT (Domestic Appliance Technician).
With regard to the invitation to engage on your forums, he has an open door policy to work with the WTA and would welcome this as I believe Ken and other leading figures already know, but would prefer face to face meetings with those in charge of WTA.
It would make sense to find areas of common ground and work together, to get the recognition the Sector deserves and not air differences in a forum that would probably only set tongues wagging off line as well.
I hope that helps answer some of the questions and if anyone is genuinely interested, why not contact him directly contact details are on the EEESafe web site – http://www.eeesafe.com
GRe: whitegoods fault code guide app
I’m on your side with this one ken but don’t let it get you down – as if it would 🙂
There has always been an element of all take and very little give which I had always hoped would change when great ideas like the fault code app came along.
Sadly there are just too few who will invest less than quid a week to essentially help themselves. I really don’t know of any other sector being that tight.
I know times are hard but our sector really doesn’t need charity just yet but carry on like this and it may not be long before it does. 😥
Martin wrote:
Techi wrote:
I await the wrath from many – 😉I’m certain no “wrath” will come from your post Graham, not at all. You’ve just reiterated what I and others have stated earlier regarding rules & regs and what little applies to our trade. Without regs in any specific trade you do tend to get a load of “incompetents” but fortunately due to the many variants our trade demands of the individual they are very quickly ‘weedled out’. And not by others in the trade but by their own customers.
Over the last decade or so the trade has settled down and for the most part in that time only the good have survived. Having said that and in the wake of the recent ‘recession’ those that have found themselves out of a job and yet have successfully fixed their wives or neighbours washing machine suddenly figure they can possibly make a living by going self-employed fixing washing machines?
As no regs apply the potential for an explosion of “incompetents” is all the more likely but again they succeed or fail in fairly short order by their own customers bidding.
Interestingly in an ideal world if our trade were subjected to greater scrutiny and that each and every one of us had to ‘pass the competency test’ much like a driving test in order to start up in business. Then likely as not we would be burdened with more rules & regs, heaps of paperwork, regular inspections, report forms and of course an annual refresher course, to name but a few things, in order to lift a screwdriver and dare to use it.
Not to mention of course the massive costs involved in applying all that. So our hourly rates would be on par with solicitors fees or estate agents commission. Our ideal, everyone is competent, utopian world would die on the vine in its first season. Unless the basic cost of buying a washing machine overnight rocketed to over £1000 maybe then we could all feel it worthwhile trying to fix them for a living? Meanwhile some prat in the regs department raises the bar yet again………and so on. 😉
Long may our trade survive without regs, we’ve done OK so far anyway. I personally don’t hold with it needing to knock on the door at H.S.E or even with getting true NVQ status as that will only bring on some form of restrictive legislation. Rather we as individuals better ourselves in the greater understanding of the ‘basic requirements’ this trade needs and for starters I would suggest we ALL arm ourselves with an Insulation Tester (generic – ‘Megger’) for starters, learn how to use it and then apply that on each and every repair job/call. 😀
Cheers Martin ‘the super poster’ – thought I would choose this one as my ‘first’ real post. I am sure there will be more to folow.
I am still not too sure about how many posses or know how to use a ‘Megger’ but keeping the issue going may help.Re: meggers
Just a point to note:-
This ‘industry’ of ours has little in the way of specific rules and regulations but common sense, ‘your duty of care’ (which can be applied in a Court of Law) and being professional in an industry sadly still full of ‘cowboys’ should not equate to ignoring those that do exist.
Firstly the ‘Electricity at Work Regulations’ – and before you ask they do not provide any detail of each and every type of electrical work but they are ‘Regulations’ that will be applied in Court of Law should anything go wrong.
No mention of a ‘Megger’ which is merely a generic term for ‘an insulation tester’ similar to Hoover now being a generic term for a vacuum cleaner.
What all in the industry and especially those who think being professional is simply getting things working by swapping enough parts for the fault to disappear on its own should consider is that the Electricity at Work Regulations requires those involved in any type of electrical work to be ‘COMPETENT’ interestingly it does not state qualified.
It is easy to judge when someone is incompetent but ‘competency’ is a little more difficult and would be judged on one’s technical abilities, understanding and use of TEST EQUIPMENT which in essence allows an engineer to see the useable.
Secondly the two tests each and every engineer (sic) should carry out on each and every appliance they attend is A – earth continuity and B – insulation (500v D.C test applied for minimum of 5 seconds).
In addition to this a ‘Competent’ (professional) engineer will also carry out an earth-loop test of the supply. Check out Regulation 8 of Electricity at Work Regulation to see why ‘Competent’ engineers will always carry this one out.
Other doubter should look up the HSE guidance Engineering sheet No 35 which although merely ‘guidance’ only a fool would choose to ignore.
Sorry about the lecture but the lack of technical depth that often appears on the forum really scares the crap out of those that have even the merest understanding of the dangers for both engineers (for want of a better word) and customers they attend let alone the impact ignorance has on fault finding.
Here endeth the first lesson – 👿
I await the wrath from many – 😉
and look forward to comments from the competent – 😆
