Plumbers NZ is New Zealand's largest online plumbing, gas and drainage resource. Plumbing exam help, plumbing news, directory and free quotes.

Author Topic: Fellow Practitioner Issue 111 Dated 26 July 2012  (Read 2318 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Wal

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 572
  • Karma: +83/-0
Fellow Practitioner Issue 111 Dated 26 July 2012
« on: July 26, 2012, 02:02:57 PM »
The Board today took the unusual step of putting out a special edition of the “Info Brief”, having a gloat about the Regulations Review Committee (RRC) releasing two decisions relating to complaints laid regarding Continuing Professional Development and the Disciplinary Levy and Offences Fee.

Get a balanced view here

Nornal issue tomorrow morning

Linkback: https://www.plumbers.nz/fellow-practitioners-update/41/fellow-practitioner-issue-111-dated-26-july-2012/1184/

Offline Jaxcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1008
  • Karma: +40/-4
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 111 Dated 26 July 2012
« Reply #1 on: July 26, 2012, 02:37:06 PM »
It was quite surprising that the PGDB thought that this news was worthy of a special edition Info Brief.  It was also great to see, I think for the first time, that they actually acknowledge the PGDF by name instead of describing them as a "fes disgruntled plumbers".  It seems the Federation have finally arrived.  In a democracy you are always going to have to go a few rounds in the ring - and I think they may have counted chickens a bit prematurely. 

I would have preferred the Board highlight something such as the "Supervision" policy in a special info brief.  I would say after reading this that a huge per centage of businesses in NZ are not following Board Policy, or the 2006 Act.  Why not do a special info brief to highlight that?  Have you ever considered the risk your business and staff are at if you are the only certifier and you are too sick to be at work, or perhaps you go overseas on a holiday - then you are breaking the law if there is not a certifier supervising your staff.  I wouldn't say too many of us would have to look too far before we saw breaches - real breaches that could result in prosecutions.  What do the ITO do to protect trainees in these circumstances?  Are questions asked about this when you hire an apprentice?  No they are not.  It is the employer's responsibility - but as they are often the certifier they are unlikely to highlight this to staff or anyone else if they are booking tickets to Australia for three weeks. 

I enjoyed seeing the picture of the Deputy Chair - it's always good to see who the people on the PGDB are, and I was equally looking forward to seeing a picture of you Wal!  Or at least one of the pies we are forsaking to support the Federation. 

I was also interested in the way they described Mr Day (unlicensed plumber...).  They could have described him as a certifier (which is true), as retired (which is true), as registered (which is true), but they chose to say unlicensed - one can only imagine the reasons.   Or they could have said Mr Day (loyal, hardworking, pragmatic practitioner who cares about truth and his fellow practitioners).
Have you learned lessons only of those who admired you, and were tender with you, and stood aside for you?  Have you not learned great lessons from those who braced themselves against you, and disputed the passage with you?  (Walt Whitman 1819-1891)  American Poet

Offline robbo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1259
  • Karma: +83/-7
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 111 Dated 26 July 2012
« Reply #2 on: July 26, 2012, 03:59:03 PM »
hi guys/Jax, "It was quite surprising that the PGDB thought that this news was worthy of a special edition Info Brief" you said. Yes i think this was an:- up you FEDS statement, cheers
 

Offline robbo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1259
  • Karma: +83/-7
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 111 Dated 26 July 2012
« Reply #3 on: July 26, 2012, 04:22:24 PM »
hi guys, this note is part of a `review`of the Ch-Ch City Councill`s going on`s which i am sure that everyone has heard of.
I am sure that it could be applied equally to the P.G.D.B. cheers

When a council shuts the door on most of its stakeholders, doesn’t listen, doesn’t take advice, and doesn’t mingle with people in business or community-based representatives, it loses its grip on reality and can't be expected to know or understand what is going on in ‘the real world'  the review says."This leads to what stakeholders have described as naive decisions that are not connected or appreciated by the people it serves, which in turn leads to public criticism and political unrest, even dysfunction.',

Offline TS

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
  • Karma: +18/-99
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 111 Dated 26 July 2012
« Reply #4 on: July 27, 2012, 11:16:58 PM »
I have to admit it wreaked of gloating!

I also thought highlighting someone being unlicensed was not necessary. The guy is obviously qualified, just not currently paying to practice. He should of been referred to as a certifying plumber/drainlayer or whatever he is. You don't lose that qualification just because you haven't paid your fee.

Offline Rodza1

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
  • Karma: +20/-2
Re: Fellow Practitioner Issue 111 Dated 26 July 2012
« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2012, 03:04:37 PM »
You don't lose that qualification just because you haven't paid your fee.

Well apparently TS you do. Its not about qualifications for the PGDB when it comes to prosecuting, its like I keep saying, Its about money. Next time you catch up with those "Good Basterds" Allan and Max you should ask them why the PGDB make unlicensed yet qualified trades people look like totally un-qualified random yet dangerous scum. They will wow you with another speech which avoids the heart of the question just like a politician will. In 5years time it may well cost $500 per year, per license yet I doubt an employee or employer will see any change to their wage or salary in the next 5 years. What they are doing is financially un-sustainable. The desrtuction of our trade will be complete. The Board are so untouchable that they will try implement a fees review instead of learning how to be more efficient. I am deadset sure there are many processes that could be streamlined or economised at the boards offices saving tens of thousands but instead they will squeeze us for more fees as its easier and has proved achievable in the past. Im so happy they have stiff opposition from the PGDF on every matter now which may make them think twice. Im still reeling from the 100% price increase on exams in 2006-2007 $150-$300. 100% increase just like that.....unreal.

If you dont pay their fees they can paint you as a desperate unqualified criminal person/s whos putting the public in grave grave immediate danger blah blah blah,an accident resulting in death is imminent, luckily lives were not lost on this occasion etc etc etc. They just get pissed when they miss out on collecting their piece of the action and make everything they say sound worse than it is. The spin doctors have worked their magic.

If the public knew the guy was qualified and had been through and successfully completed an apprenticeship, passed all necessary examinations, paid his dues multiple times over, had an exceptional record, but just hadnt paid his license fee for the current year the public would liken it to getting a speed camera fine or a fine for your car rego being out by one week which everyone has had at some point. Hardly news......etc. Yet there spin on it leaves people thinking wow this is bad, this guy should be banned from plumbing for life etc.

Every person Ive ever discussed fees with who isnt a plumber, gasfitter or drainlayer  when they bring up how much money I must be making as a plumber etc and I describe all the costs associated with being a tradesman ive left them with there jaws hanging open. They simply cant believe how expensive it is. Ive done jobs for people before in the past who actually thought employers pay for everything,apprenticeships,exams, tools etc. I always put the record straight that its a tough expensive career to be involved with.

Im not at all advocating people to work un-licensed because I believe the trade must be protected and enforced etc. I just refuse to accept that it actually costs $366 to be a plumber in NZ per year + CPD (which is at an unforeseen price until the "Board finish re-inventing it). Its just ridiculous. I believe this expanding fees amount is largely to blame for tradesmen working unlicensed. With CPD imminent for plumbing and drainlaying with projected high course costs I can only see the prosecution of qualified but un-licensed trades people increasing. Especially for employees whos employer either cant or wont cover the costs of CPD. They are out there.

If the fees were set to a more appropriate level in NZ that largely co-incided with other regulatory boards such as the EWRB I think a lot more people would be happy, pay up and would agree that the trades must be licensed, people should be competent but it should be at a cost that isnt at the current high expense of thousands of hard working plumbers, gasfitters and drainlayers.

The Electrical Workers Registration Board (EWRB) is proposing fees of $120.00 for a two year license as an electrician. We earn roughly the same as an electrician so what is going on??   Daylight Raping, thats what...


Figures taken from the ''Fees Review" EWRB fees review discussion paper document from their website dated 1st march 2012. I have uploaded the document if you wish to give it a read and compare licensing costs in NZ with different practices such as nurses, teachers, builders, doctors and electricians against plumbers, gasfitters and drainlayers.

Any support on this would be well received, cheers everyone

The Plumbers Gasfitters And Drainlayers Board- "White Collar Mafia"


Share via digg Share via facebook Share via linkedin Share via twitter

Similar Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies / Views Last post
clip
Fellow Practitioner Issue 108 Dated 6 July 2012

Started by Wal

0 Replies
1135 Views
Last post July 06, 2012, 06:26:31 AM
by Wal
clip
Fellow Practitioner Issue 109 Dated 13 July 2012

Started by Wal

4 Replies
1774 Views
Last post July 16, 2012, 05:37:43 PM
by robbo
clip
Fellow Practitioner Issue 110 Dated 20 July 2012

Started by Wal

0 Replies
873 Views
Last post July 20, 2012, 05:57:32 AM
by Wal
clip
Fellow Practitioner Issue 161 Dated 4 July 2013

Started by Watchdog

3 Replies
1489 Views
Last post July 06, 2013, 10:50:05 AM
by Badger
 
Share this topic...
In a forum
(BBCode)
In a site/blog
(HTML)