Forum Replies Created
12th Jan 2022 at 10:10 am #83973
I specialise in TETA accreditation, mostly for lifting machine operators which are subject to Regulatory requirements that make their applications and operations somewhat dissimilar to standard accreditation. It is a specialised area in which unfortunately standard accreditation processes are not applicable and I have, over the last few years, had a number of occasions to bail out providers whose accreditation applications have misfired due to consultants not being experienced in this field. I also have TETA approved learning materials for the LMO providers, and am a registered moderator.
If you have any demand for this or could use my services in this regard, you can contact me at email@example.com Jan 2022 at 9:34 am #83969
Indeed Des, and the very same for you.
We’ve kept the faith for so long, now is not the time to capitulate!12th Jan 2022 at 9:30 am #83968
I am a TETA registered moderator as well as a CETA registered moderator. I supplied you recently with the dangerous goods material. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org Dec 2021 at 8:33 am #83524
Posted on request:
I am still unable to login to Skills Universe, thus would you be so kind to post the following on my behalf?
I would also like to voice my concerns and frustrations on experiences with TETA and QCTO and also do not care to stay anonymous. Through the years and still today I am struggling with TETA, their lack of understanding basic concepts and blatant ignorance to the people and instances they serve.
I have literally kept every single fax, email and communication since I started dealing with TETA from the beginning. I must have known that there is no such thing as a good government department, and they truly proved me right.
I have proof of applications for monitoring visits, that never got actioned, confirmed dates that was never respected, applications for external moderations that has never happened. This level of service delivery is forced upon us as taxpayers by people who control when, where and what kind of services we are able to deliver. And if they don’t feel like servicing us, they keep our source of income away from us.
But, oh boy, behold when we so much as miss a deadline, neglect to apply or fail to action certain requirements, we are quickly deregistered or de-accredited by these incompetent people in power of our businesses. I think all of us has roughly the same stories to tell when it comes to this. And even if we have all requirements met, they still deliberately stall for certificates to expire so that they can nail you in the end.
The perfect pattern; Apply – visit – action non conformances – get accreditation / external moderation / renewal
TETA’s pattern; SDP Applies – visit(maybe) – action non conformances – no reply – no reply – assessor cert expire – accreditation expires – and TETA goes….you are expired, we cant give you accreditation because your assessors are expired!!!
In my eyes the QCTO is every bit as incompetent, otherwise TETA would have been better by now. We need a total revamp of this whole system. I hate every bit of paperwork because I know it will be for nothing. No wonder here in the Free State there are rumors that TETA wants to have all small service providers closed. Their incompetent actions speaks volumes to this.
I have been getting things in order after my last fall-out with TETA, and are going to the media and hopefully Carte Blanche with this, anyone who cares to join me please mail me at email@example.com
FTM Consultants PTY Ltd
Cell:+2782 885 6395
Fax2e-mail: 086 2066 448
Po Box 39075
firstname.lastname@example.org Dec 2021 at 9:13 am #83406
At this stage they are set to fall away in 2023 but at present there is nothing available from QCTO to replace these, particularly the regulated fields of lifting machinery, dangerous goods and First Aid. The legacy qualifications are still very much alive and continuing, most probably because of the OHS Act/Road Traffic Regulations compliance requirements.
The lifting machinery group has been in development and review for many years now and only a couple of months ago there was a meeting of “stakeholders” to review and approve new LMO programmes under a new name involving the minimum 8 credits. The person presenting the planned programmes was under the impression that what was being presented was a fait accompli and the session was merely to receive approval.
That was a mistake, as for a change, the “stakeholders” for this meeting was comprised of SDP’s who work with LMO training. The development of these qualifications had effectively been based on input by employers and professional bodies whose involvement in LMO training is minimal or even questionable. The “stakeholders” with the most valuable and pertinent input into such issues, SDP’s, whether by intent or otherwise, had been left out.
While there is lots of talk about consultation and participation, these are of no value if only selected participants attend and whether those participants input carries any weight with respect to the topic of the consultation/participation. On paper, consultation may look impressive with long name lists of participants that is easy to present as having fulfilled the criteria for consultation. But what if those participants are all soccer players making decisions about rugby?
I have encountered a number of these fake consultations lately, where selected interest groups can hijack an entire sector. The new “capture” activity.
If we are going to move forward, then consultation/participation needs to be justified in terms of appropriate input value. In this way we can maybe address the issues of legacy programmes migrating to QCTO aligned programmes. But as long as input is limited to select or inappropriate groups we will never find a suitable solution to your question.