I was assigned to guide the external auditors for a reassesment. When I picked them up at the airport, their only concern was the location of the local football hall of fame and the shopping mall. For 3 days I was their taxi driver. At no time did these two gentelmen get within 7 miles of the plant. I could not believe that 5 weeks later, the Certificate of Compliance was delivered. Is this a common practice or a little heard of black hole? What can be done to stop this sort practice?

------------------

That is disgusting!! I would call your Registrar and make a complaint. I would also seek a refund from them turn the Certificate bac over to them and use another Registrar. I might even go as far as calling the Registration Accrediation Board and report the auditors to them. Not that it matters but who is your Registrar so that I can be sure to stay away from them.

If you would like you can e-mail me and I would be more than happy to give you some names of reputiable registrars.

Doug,

I have to second the ISOGUY's sentiments. This group should be reported. Whether it is a case of two auditors commiting fraud or the registrar as a whole committing fraud, the RAB needs to be involved. However, the first step involves your management representative and your senior management. Are they aware and what is their position and response?

When this matter was brought up at a management meeting, I got a cork stuck in my blow hole. I was told by upper management (to include the company President) that I was to speak when spoken to otherwise I had nothing to say that would be of interest to them. My only reply to that statement was "Take this job and shove it". I quit on the spot. The Company that I am now working for (happily) is regestered through TUV Management Services. As for the last company, I was wondering if the company itself could be held accountable for accepting the Cert? (a little revenge on my part perhaps?) I have a feeling that it was a simple cash under the table deal because I know that this company could not pass an audit even if it were conducted by my 9 year old grandson.

Why, after the first day, did you continue to be a taxi cab for them?

Edit: OOps quick posts coming in. I think I get the picture. Absolutely report them.

[This message has been edited by Laura M (edited 01 February 2001).]

Well to be honest with you I think you did the right thing by parting company with them. If what you say is true I have a feeling that a little "cash under the table" deal may have teken place. I know you say a little revenge would be nice but I feel that you have a duty to report the auditors and the Registrar. I would be more than happy to provide you with the RAB's phone number. It is safe to say if they did it for your former employer they have done it before and will do it again.

Originally posted by Laura M:
Why, after the first day, did you continue to be a taxi cab for them?More importantly, did they tip well????

They did not tip me a single dime, but I have got a pocket full of change if ISO Guy wants to send me that number!
Thanks for the humor Marc, thats the first time I smiled about this since it happened. Keep up the good work.

Will you tell us who the Registrar was? Maybe e-mail me?

That's totally disgusting..........

I've spent a ton of money and expended a whole lot of effort to get myself trained and certified as a Lead Auditor and Bozo's like those 2 can get away with crap like that.

I don't know about other folks, but I take things like ethics very serious....maybe that's why I haven't been able to land any work with a Registrar (everybody knows that EMS Lead Auditors are falling out of trees all over the place). I let people know up front that I can't be bought, and will break it off in someones 5th point of contact if they try to buy me.

I learned alot about guerilla warfare in the Marines....these guys and the Registrar (if they are aware of this issue) need to be ambushed. They are probably using the same trail and tactics all the time.

Scumbags.................

Randy,

Outstanding!!!!!!

ASD...

------------------
Al Dyer
Mngt. Rep.
ullysses3@excite.com

Doug,

Just a final note. As is obvious from the posts, the RAB needs to be aware of this. Whether you consider it revenge, or look at it from the point of trying to improve the integrity of the system is not important, get the RAB involved. Quality 'guys' have been taking heat for years and this type of behavior does not help our credibility.

Hope the new job is working out well!

Thanks for the phone number Aaron, I will make the call and let everyone know the outcome.

I just came accross this topic and I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I have never heard of such gross negligence. I have been at this quality thing long enough to see all sorts of incompetance but I can't recall anything that even approaches what Doug describes.

Doug, I can't give you any better advice than what has already been offered, except to say that you should let the RAB know as well as the registrar. I am curious as to who the registrar was at your old company. If you do not wish to publically post it could you email me? BTW---I would also like to know what products your old company made so I can stay as far away from them as I can. If they are willing to comprimise their integrity, letting unfit product out the door couldn't be far behind. I am glad to hear things are working out at your new job.

Jim

Absolutely disgusting......... I have heard many horror stories, but that was the worst on the ethics issue....short days, skipped one ...BUT 3x2?

RAB or IATCIA or UCAS or whoever needs to know...there are too many honest, hard working auditors getting a bad rap when things like this happen.

[This message has been edited by barb butrym (edited 17 February 2001).]

I gotta good one.....It appears there is at least one Registrar who does ISO 14000 that prefers its Auditors to have a degree in Engineering in lieu of a solid background in environmental management and compliance. If you don't have an engineering background it doesn't matter how solid your environmental one is.

I thought ISO 14000 referenced environmental stuff somewhere.

Maybe I wasn't paying attention.

It kinda makes me wonder.

[This message has been edited by Randy (edited 19 February 2001).]

The lack of integrity by the auditors threatens to undermine all 3rd party auditing. Every client has the right to ask for an auditor's bio and could challenge the auditor at the first meeting to produce credentials. Even with this screening, any lack of professionalism should be reported as an official complaint to the registrar (RAB and RvA holds registrars to have a complaint system). Anything less than 6 hours per audit day ISO and 8 hours per audit day for QS on site should give you the right to withhold payment. Gross misrepresentation of the audit hours is akin to lawyers charging for hours not worked and should be reported to the accreditation body certifying the auditors and the registrar's accreditation body.

BTW, Randy, no offense to your education and skills and congrats on your new audit job, but the accreditation bodies got picky with education requirements recently. The RAB actually forced the registrar I work for to double the audit requirements for someone we hired without a technical college background. If things don't work out for you, email me. :)

Outoftown,

I have a BS degree in Occupational Health & Safety (summa cum laud) and am finishing up my MBA. I am also multi-credentialed in environmental and safety management ( one credential is from the California EPA). I would kind of figure that as an EMS auditor that I may possess some small skill somewhat close to that of being that of an electrical engineer when it comes to performing environmental auditing. But I guess UL and some others don't look upon it that way. A professional environmental background, coupled with EMS-LA credentials apparentley is not sufficient enough for them.

->The lack of integrity by the auditors threatens to
->undermine all 3rd party auditing.

Integrity, stupidity, lack of experience in a specific industry - all are significant problems with the current situation. ISO 9K and QS9K have both moved to the edge of the envelope of whether or not registration makes sense at all. The need for auditors has sky rocketed - there aren't all that many truely qualified auditors. With the need for qualified auditors increasing this aspect of the problem is only going to get worse.

Hi
I have worked for a certification body for 11 years and have completed about 1000 audit days. I have never heard of such a disgaceful
performance. CB's such as the one these guys work for give the industry a bad name, I wish the accreditation bodies had more teeth!

I have a 3rd party auditor horror story as well. We had the same male auditor for about 4 years. He bored us with personal problems, requested freebies, and hit on the female guide (me) and another single female in the office. He left the company after four years and I was so sick of him that I was glad to see him go.

Upper management refused to complain about him because they opined that he did a good job for them and they didn't want anyone new!

When we had the same auditor that Marilyn mentioned, our sales manager kept him busy for all but about 2 hours/day at a local strip club and he continually hit on a couple of our female employees as well, married and single.

Marilyn, I experienced the same upper management resistance to my "concerns" regarding the auditor you mentioned here at our division. This auditor has returned to the registrar and now operates in California btw.

Fortunately, we now have who I consider an excellent auditor from our registrar (Thanks Marilyn for recommending Fred).

Regards,
Steve

Well while I'm here I guess I'll join in again. Registrars need to do a better job of policing themsevles it sounds like. The Registrar I am becoming associated with (######) just asked me to serve on their Advisory Board. As such I will be a voting member on how the auditing business is to be conducted by the company and other things. I hope my input can prevent some of what you guys are discussing.

GREAT NEWS!!! I am the one who started this topic. I am VERY pleased to inform all of you that helped by giving me the tools and direction needed to chase this rat back into its hole that this is a success story. I have found out that the two auditors are no longer working in the quality field and that the organization they represented (from england) went out of business in 95 or 96. The best news of all?? The MAN IN CHARGE of the company I worked for has until the end of August this year to clean out his desk. I guess that the parent company takes this stuff a bit more seriously than he did. I have also started a new carrer. I am starting a small metals fabricating shop that is due to open in July. Thank you again for all your help and good luck in the future.
P.S. This is one of the best sites on the web and I am quick to tell anyone that will listen to check it out.

If anyone out there knows of any certification bodies which is reputable and popular in Australia?

I can highly recommend Det Norske Vertis (DNV), but they currently have no location in Australia, the closest is in Indonesia - see site at www.dnvda.com (http://www.dnvda.com)

Good Luck :agree1:

Does DNV certified systems to medical device co.?How well do you know about NCSI, DLIQ, IQS, TQCSI etc? Are these few certification bodies reputable and popular? Appreciate your reply. Many Thanks!!!

A small personal comment on this Registrar line.

I'm going to audit a Registrar next week, that's gonna be a 1st for me. We shall see what we shall see.

Originally posted by LL:
Does DNV certified systems to medical device co.?How well do you know about NCSI, DLIQ, IQS, TQCSI etc? Are these few certification bodies reputable and popular? Appreciate your reply. Many Thanks!!!
I recommend you go to the DNV web site for answers about what systems they audit.
DNV has been around a very long time, and is highly respected among their piers.
As a customer, I can tell you they do a thorough job, and view themselves as a 'partner'. They make themselves available for technical questions (not just making available your auditor - but others too), and send out informational bulletins to help companies at all stages of their registration.

I am confused? Who then provided the evidence needed to back up the findings for re-certification?

E WALL quoted

I can highly recommend Det Norske Vertis (DNV),
.........................................
I happen to know of one company where my brother works that has them as a registrar. This place is in no way a truely certified company. However, they keep their certification and have surviellance audits using the same auditor every time, who talks to the same people every time. Doesn't check their documentation, etc., etc.,etc. My brother is a very concientious worker and this really bothers him. But his boss is the QC manager, who is also the ISO MR. So I guess things are different everywhere. Just beware of a registrar who makes it too easy!

As we are beginning our Registrar search, I read through all the posts, here and the other one on selecting a Registrar. I will play the devil's advocate, because that's what I do. I do it for a good reason. When the majority consensus goes one way, I look at what the other alternative is.

Here goes:
What exactly are you looking for the Registrar to do? Pat you on the backs and say what a good job? Do you need them to "police" your processes? Isn't that what you are there for? Do you need their "authority" to get things done in your company? All this whining about what "bad Boys" some auditors are. Report them or not report them. Does their performance have any effect on you and the way you do business? It reminds me of the people who say "Boy, if I was a cop, I would give that guy a ticket". You don't and it's none of you business. Keep your Registration intact, your business operating efficiently and successfully and don't question external forces other than the Customer. If my future Registrar elects to perform a cursory Audit and call it a day because we have evening plans, so be it. Am I going to jump up and down, stamp my feet and cry "foul"? I'm convinced that he/she has seen the system and agrees with what they see or have already seen. We don't need a Registrar to "Bless us" in what we do. "Thanks for dropping in Randy. See you in 6 months" Now let's get back to work. O.K. Now let me have some realism, not lofty goals or dream works!:smokin:

I think there are things we all need to remember.

1. Registrars are a necessary evil. They provide the 3rd party verification that is necessary to many others.

2. Registrars are a "BUSINESS". Business is in business to make money...not get warm fuzzies and try to make others feel good too.

3. I think by and large they are basically equal. They utilize auditors from the same talent pool. They perform the same services (some have more ruffles and bows than others I guess). They are the same guidance documents. They are for the most part..busy.

4. The smaller, younger, newer, more hungry Registrars may be able to provide better personalized, & timely service.

5. They're still people

Randy,

5. They're still people

You would be in California:biglaugh: :smokin:

The right registrar can also bring with them a broad experience in different systems and different ideas on solving problems, sometimes from areas you might not have thought off.

Remember that it is up to you if you want to use their advise, just don't take everything they say as gospel. It is meant to be a partnership, not a dictatorship.

Well here's where I knock over a Hornets nest & and let loose the Hounds-of-Hell I guess:eek:

"Experience with systems" to me infers that in order to be able to audit a widjet company one must have experience with widgets or gizmos or some other stuff, crap and wizbang dohickey's.

IMMHO it doesn't make a squat of difference what somebody makes or produces. It is the system of management that is being addressed not the fruits of the labor.

Does the "system" conform to the requirements of the standard? Yes No

Is the organization conforming to their procedures, instructions, etc? Yes No

Are corrective and preventive actions taken in an appropriate and timely manner? Yes No

Is there management review? Yes No

Does all the other stuff happen that is supposed to happen in accordance to the requirements set forth by the standard in question and the organizations internal documents, procedures, etc, etc? Yes No

Who gives a Rats A-- what comes out of the end of the overall processs?

Excuse me while I put my body armor on.....I just can't see where having a background in whatever is made, produced, generated, developed or whatever really applies. Maybe I'm swifter (I'm in MENSA remember) than most others and can pick up on what goes on quicker.

What do you do? Do you do it the way you say you will do it? Is the way you say you will do it in accordance with all the gibberish that is required? If so, continue to march. If not, fix it.

Nuff said.:bigwave:

Randy,

I'd have to say I pretty much agree with you. I think that the auditors should be familiar with the industry to some extent, but that is just to understand that we don't need clean room practices in a steel mill. (I know that is kind of an exageration of opposites) That's what I ask from my registrar. Audit us within the scope of operations...don't audit us as though we manufacture medical devices. I've seen auditor from aerospace, computer technoligy sector, etc., etc. They come in and audit our system. Period. If they don't, they won't be back. I will not allow an auditor to tell us that we have to do things "his/her" way. If we don't meet the intent of the standard, fine. It's an improvement opportunity.

Do I expect someone to walk in here and know how to manufacture our product....NO. We've seen some pretty strong comments about following the standard to the gnat's ass, (oops, is that allowable language?) in recent posts, but I still firmly believe that there is a lot of room for interpretation and it needs to be applied on a case by case basis, not as a cookie cutter assessment. If my registrar is completely inflexible, he's gonna hit the road, and it better be running.

My advice to everyone: If anybody tells you there is only one way to satisfy the requirements of the standard RLH (run like hell). Randy probably recognizes this acronym from his old days?:biglaugh:

Inflexibility is the consequence of a closed mind.

I used to take a strong stand on auditors having had working experience in the field they are auditing, but it has become a moot point typically because of the influx of auditors and their mobility between companies. Not to mention the nuner of companies rgistering. Back before 1997 I even required copies of resumes of the auditors and wanted to see experience in the field.

I have found that, on the consulting end, I have never failed to be able to discern equivalancies and relevancies. I worked with an insurance company not long ago. It was audited by a registrar who had no insurance experience AND it was witnessed by an RAB 'witness' who admitted he had no experience in, not so much as through another audit, in an insurance company.

I will give the auditor a chance. I agree with SteelMaiden. :thedeal:

:truce: :truce: :truce: (waving the white flag high and hard considering Randy's background)

Absolutely Randy, that was my point, sorry it was misinterpreted.

What I meant was that a Registrar should have, IMHO, a broad range of experience in the different ways that organisations create management systems to meet the standards or even ways of doing things, and this is a valuable asset.
Often one company, or industry will tend to have one way of dealing with something, that might be useful in a completely different area. For example, the application of queuing theory as applied in banks being used in JIT manufacturing. (Of course in Australia banks solve the problem of queues by closing branches :mad: ) Not trade secrets or anything, just bringing with them ideas that might be useful. I guess I'm moving towards a benchmarking type of idea.

As SteelMaiden said there are many ways to meet the standard, and I think a good Registrar is in the best position to see these different ways and provide advise. If a registrar is trying to force you "their" way of doing things (yes there are many of these), I feel they are just being lazy, or incompetent, and I would dump them for someone more helpful to you and your future (many of these type as well).

I think I'm rambling a bit, so I'll finish by saying that your Registrar should be a partner in all this and should bring with them valuable assets, if not, screw-em and find someone who can.

Originally posted by LL
If anyone out there knows of any certification bodies which is reputable and popular in Australia?

There are about 17 certifiaction bodies in Australia. The largest (60% share ) is QAS, a subsidiary of Standards Australia. The 2nd largest is NCSI (20% share), a subsidiary of NATA. Then you have the international bodies (Lloyds, SGS, DNV, ect) and the small locals.

I should declare that I work for NCSI. But suggest you contact QAS, NCSI, and maybe one other to get a feel for the alternative approaches and costings.

The cert. bodies based in Sydney & Melbourne are all reputable. JAS-ANZ is the local accreditation body. Their database is freely available on www.standards.com.au

It used to be important to have had experience so that you could make judgements based on relevance. Notice i said USED TO BE...

I now think the broader the experience the better...they have seen soup to nuts, and know how to tell if it works or not... A tight A**ed claud from the same industry could be much worse than someone with little to no industry experience

I vote for an interview....a bit of chemistry...can you spend a few stress fulled days with this person, and respect them in the end...talk a bit of philosophy....how do they tell you that you are dead wrong? can you take that type/brand of criticism? its like choosing a mate..........you will have to live with them a while....so its best to be on the same page

someone said they all use the same pool of talent....that is so true. The auditor and the receptionist make a registrar.....think about it.

This idea that all Registrars draws from the same pool is simply WRONG. Some registrars use a lot of free-lancing people to do their audits, which typically leads to dramatic inconsistency issues. Other Registrars use a very stable audit staff, with little turnover.

I find amusing that some organizations chosing a registrar, make a decision on price only, sometimes "saving" US$ 500.00 or less over the 3 year period. What they don't realize until is very late, is the fact that some Registrars do subcontract with cheap imbecile/morons that will do a very louzy job of assessing any quality management system. Sometimes it can be very embarrassing to let this people roam around your facility asking the most stupid questions.

Just because someone has a certificate as a lead auditor it does not make s/he a GOOD auditor, just like having a drivers license does not represent proof that you are a good driver.

The truth is that Registrars are service providers and the level, quality and caliber of services, provided by Registrars varies TREMENDOUSLY.

Ohhhh yeeeaaahhhh. I agree fully. Fulltime assessors, and good service with no hidden prices.

But it is true that the registrars pull from the same talent pool.

Sometimes using the same assessors even. There are registrars who will use subbies who also sub out to other registrars...! Kind of like using the local hired gun.

And assessors jump ship from time to time like we all do - seeking a better job, better pay, better conditions, etc. Sometimes the client base will switch registrars too to stay with the same assessor.

I know assessors we wouldn't hire, or who were 'let go' were often picked up by other registrars. So what does that say?

All registrars will review essentially the same applications. How the actual division of talent occurs is what separates one registrar from another.

And the brilliant smiling talented quick service from the office of course! (got to get my plug in !:vfunny: )

I don't see where you get off by saying Registrars don't get their folks from the same talent pool. The talent pool available is the sum total of all the people that are qualified, able and willing to perform the work. If it is a requirement by your organization that every auditor you use be certified as a Lead Auditor do you think there is an infinite number to choose from? Not hardly!!

Lets take into consideration EMS auditing (which I hold dear to my heart). If in order to perform EMS audits for your company If you require a person to be an EMS-LA (like me) there are only slightly over 200 people in the USA that meet that requirement (RAB certified anyway, I don't know about IRCA or other agencies). Now of that 200+ at least 25% are not available for hire for one reason or another. That leaves 150+. Where is the limitless talent pool here? Where are all these other people at that you seem to think exist?

What they don't realize until is very late, is the fact that some Registrars do subcontract with cheap imbecile/morons that will do a very louzy job of assessing any quality management system.

Thanks alot for the thought there Sid. I have an MBA, I belong to MENSA (which means I'm not a moron) I am credentialed by the Cal EPA as an environmental professional and I am a RAB certified EMS-LA. I didn't get that stuff by meeting the specifications of your quote. When I do an environmental audit I can guarantee that environmental management is happening because I am not some quality dude (no slur intended towards my friends here whom I truly respect) that took a little course, learned some buzz words, and glossied over some audit time while in the employ of a Registrar to get credentials.

Engage the grey matter there Sid, you are normally pretty sharp.

Originally posted by Sidney Vianna

I find amusing that some organizations chosing a registrar, make a decision on price only, sometimes "saving" US$ 500.00 or less over the 3 year period. What they don't realize until is very late, is the fact that some Registrars do subcontract with cheap imbecile/morons that will do a very louzy job of assessing any quality management system. Sometimes it can be very embarrassing to let this people roam around your facility asking the most stupid questions.


How about saving 14K a year or 42K over a three year period. I m happy with the as you say "Morons" our registrar sends and guess what they are subcontracted, where I have the problem is with the Morons in the Office of our Registrar that are unwilling to help when I have a question. 20K a year may not sound like a lot of money but when you have another registrar quite you 6K a year for the same service makes you wonder. An no the registrar that is quoting us 6K a year does not have hidden fees, they are not a small unknown registrar (not that there is anything wrong with small registrars), and the customer service is 100% better.

And Sidney maybe I am taking it the wrong way, but I am also a subcontracted auditor ( I also have a full time QA managers job), does that make me a moron??? (If so can I at least be a high grade moron and not a low grade moron :vfunny: )

Settle down boys.:D No one has made a personal comment about your skills or knowledge. Sidney simply pointed out that there are some registrars who use unqualified assessors who couldn't audit their way out of an unlabeled improperly stored leaky waste container. He didn't say that ALL subs are unqualified - I know lots of great subs who work fulltime for registrars (on exclusive contract) who just wanted the freedom to refuse work when they wanted to!

But as for the cheaper registrars: it is entirely possible that they use poor assessors to keep their costs low. As is much in life, the best tends to cost more. Heck, would you fellas work for minimum wage to do what you do? Or do you consider yourselves fairly professional and knowledgeable and you would not sell yourself so cheaply?

In my experience, the "best" always demanded more salary and perks than the "run of the mill", and the cheapest were the ones who couldn't get work any other way - or for some reason simply accepted less than they could have gotten.

When you get bids to put a roof on your house and there are three companies who charge about the same, and one that is just so low you've got to be suspicious.....what goes through your mind???

And ISO Guy, there is no excuse for getting poor service out of the office staff . Unfortunately, that is where registrars cut their corners. The assessors are considered to be the resource that is most important and the salaries go there.

Once again. You get what you pay for. If even the "big name" registrars can't even pay a decent salary to attract competent office staff, then how is a little cheaper one supposed to do it?

Thank you, Lucinda

How could I pass judgement on anybody's competence if I have never seen them in action?:confused:

Like you stated. I never said that all subcontracted auditors are IQ-challenged. Actually, as a point of clarification, the Registrar that I work for also subcontracts auditors. I just think that some of us do a better job of screening auditors than others.

Some Registrars will use anybody that has the credentials to populate their audits. And when auditor supply exceeds demands, the Registrars (that are not concerned with high standards) shop for the cheapest willing auditor to represent them. I know that some registrars out there don't even pay for the travel expenses of their auditors.

The sad part is that many companies have NEVER experienced a competent, knowledgeable, value-added-mentality auditor. They settle for the morons because they are a known quantity. Typically these companies belittle ISO 9000 because they associate audits with a waste of time and effort. Other organizations that have experienced high level auditing, normally develop, over time a very healthy relationship with the registrar and their auditors. Unfortunately, the latter is a small minority.

Just to show how useless, ignorant and gutless some auditors are, I mention an experience that I had sometime ago, during an ISO Users Group panel discussion. This individual, who represented a well known Registrar in the US had the audacity of stating that his Registrar's policy was NOT to write non-conformances, in order to keep the customers happy. After all, he proceeded, we are suppliers to the organizations we certify and we must strive to keep our clients happy . . . frust: mad: eek:

This Industry needs some serious sweeping and cleaning. We are getting to a point where not only fraudulent practices are placing the whole concept of third-party certification at risk. Incompetence and ignorance are adding to the problem, too.

There are many drivers forcing the cost down in the Registration Business. Cheap, ignorant, incompetent auditors is the way that SOME registrars are addressing competitiveness. But it makes you wonder how long this process will exist if the VAST majority of audits are done with no real value? How much longer will the ISO 9000 Certification process exist? Is this a sustainable process? Long debate ensues . . . .::::

wow...that was a heated discussion!!! my first gut reaction was to join in...but I thought better of it...I am biased. Sidney, you seem so angry toward the sub auditor population...you must have seen some beauts......so the good thing is you don't have to call them again...when you have a moron in house....you need to really deal with it.

the morons we all meet come from all walks of audit....my most obnoxious and ill informed were full time auditors...which I must say are paid considerably less than contract ones and stressed to the max.......except for US owned registrars who sometimes pay benefits....foreign owned don't pay health insurance etc...living out of a suitcase 2 weeks at a time for that pay is crazy. Subs are less stressed typically doing fill in stuff.

All our experiences are the same but different....as with selecting an HMO or Doctor.....or even a resturant or automobile...we each have different criteria and assessment methods...i say tOmato you say tomAto...and so on

As to the common pool.....I still believe it is common.....maybe not the same select 100 people type of pool...but common.....most were downsized QA guys from maga defense firms....who took the QSLA...many know one another, and many do sub for more than 1 registrar...not to mention the buy outs that have been plagueing the industry...registras swallowed up whole, then the principals starting again. I know one company that has had 3 new certs in 2 years......due to registra name changes/sales.

Originally posted by Lucinda
And ISO Guy, there is no excuse for getting poor service out of the office staff . Unfortunately, that is where registrars cut their corners. The assessors are considered to be the resource that is most important and the salaries go there.

Once again. You get what you pay for. If even the "big name" registrars can't even pay a decent salary to attract competent office staff, then how is a little cheaper one supposed to do it?

Smaller Registrars IMHO are much better at providing customer service to thier clients. Why because they actually care, they don't have so many clients that they can't handle them or not care if they lose a small company like the one I work for. When I tell our registrar that we are leaving because of thier customer service do you think they will care, probablly not becuase we are just a blip on their screen. The registrar that we are going to switch to is not small I would say they are probablly one of the larger US registrars, they charge 1/3 of what we are getting nalied for now. We are currently getting charged $2300 for a certificate now come on what the hell is that all about, they nickle and dime us 1500 for this report , 600 for reviewing previous findings give me a break. As I mentioned before I sub-contract with a registrar I see what they charge and what we are being charged it is a joke. Why are we being charged this much because they can they have a big name. If anyone would like to know who they are e-mail me and I will let you know, I don't want to put their name here. So yes smaller registrars can have competent auditors (their top auditor has over 30 years in Quality), provide excellent customer service and for a fraction of the cost of what the larger registrars are charging.

Originally posted by Lucinda
Settle down boys.:D No one has made a personal comment about your skills or knowledge.

I didn't take it personally, but if I am a moron I want to be a high grade moron (the best moron) rather than a low grade moron (now thats a moron) :vfunny: .

I apologize if I seemed to be a little tense yesterday with my posts, but I work with Morons! LOL :vfunny:

Just caught on to this one.

Couldnt believe Randy's comment that he couldnt give a rats-A about what comes out of the process !

To my mind this is a big failure of systems auditors in that they dont appreciate that the system and the product are intertwined and cannot be seperated. One must consider the other in determining the overall effectiveness of the QMS.

My old QM once quoted that the 'system' was looking good, but the 'product' was crap.

How can the system be good if it turns out crap product ?

What makes an auditor a moron in someone's opinion? One who doesn't nitpick you to death over insignificant matters? Or is it one who does? Is it an Auditor that doesn't "detect" those things that you know should be detected? That's your problem. Is it an auditor who doesn't share your view that something needs to be addressed? That's also your problem. When we finally choose a registrar, I want an auditor to point out weaknesses in the system. If he doesn't, we will continue to strengthen the system anyway. Would I consider him/her a moron? No. Am I looking for an auditor to use him/her as a consultant? No. Lots of people have axes to grind and hope that an auditor will lend credence to their claim. To call any one a moron because you don't agree with them is, well, Moronic. :rolleyes: :ko: :smokin:

well said energy!!!!

When you are on the other side of the clip board....things look different...and what might be very clear for the auditee, could could be blind to the auditor who doesn't live there...thats why internal audits drive the system!!!!! Also personalities play a large part in judgements....


Speaking of that....my idea of a moron auditor is the one that sits in the conference room all day, scruitinizes the internal audit details and writes them up for those findings instead of actually doing a real audit......saw that wih a full time auditor...same auditor on more than one ocassion so it wasn't just a bad day, it was an MO.....he was Mr. over 20 years of experience in the audit business and sub auditors are less than adequate and i have a RAB card and I am the LEAD auditor here...etc kinda guy......BTW my comments about auditors/morons came from working with them, not being audited by them...so it is behind the scene stuff...even had one that was all smiles and "GOTCHA" comments, another full time auditor....he said he prides himself on how many NCs he writes....WHEN I COMPLAINED TO THE AUDIT COORDINATOR FOR THE REGISTRAR, HE TOLD ME THAT xxxxx WAS HIS BEST AUDITOR AND BASICALLY TO GET LOST......so i did. (both auditors same registrar, but in their defense one was aquired in a buy out)


So anyway thats a bit of inside info for you and my take on morons. My guess is the registrar management never sees/hears this stuff when they are large.

Couldnt believe Randy's comment that he couldnt give a rats-A about what comes out of the process !

That's right, I don't care what comes out!! I don't care if the auditee makes toothpicks, tetraethylmethyldeath, tires, TV's or rocket engines or satellites. No matter what is made I will audit the same (I do EMS not quality remember).

Do they have a policy that specifies complying with the law, preventing pollution, and continual improvement? Yes No

Do they control their documents? Yes No

Are the personnel trained and competent in their duties as they are related to the EMS? Yes No

Have they ID'd their Aspects? Yes No

And do they do all the other crap required and the stuff they say they will do? Yes No

What's the big deal about what comes out of the process? That's someones elses problem, not mine. I'm being paid to audit and evaluate the environmental performance of the organization, not the product. What's wrong with giving somebody what they pay for and staying on track while doing so? If the scope and audit criteria require me to worry about what comes out of the process (product) then I will do that also, but not until then.

We provided questionnaires to each client at every surveillance visit - hand delivered by the auditor. It could be returned to the office by mail, or sealed and returned with the auditors paperwork. The questionnaire included questions about customer service. We also mailed out an annual survey from corporate.

The comments were taken seriously and were logged in. The registrar hired a six sigma guy last year to work with all the departments to improve things (true!).

No nickle-dime charges. Only manday rate plus actual travel expenses (no add-on for the administrative handling of the expenses). Free certs for all sites on a multi-site approval plus 2 for HQ, up to 17 for free (and I've known that limit to be waived also). Changed for free for company name changes, or additions/ deletions of sites to the approval - as many times as it happened.
A single point of contact was assigned for all scheduling, change to approval, amendment of contract or renewal of contract, billing problems, more certs, general questions and assistance. And the list goes on.

Every account was important! The numbers game is fierce! Problems with an account were never buried! You drug in everybody you could to resolve issues, because if you lost your client everybody would know about it and that is not a pleasant thing.

This is (or at least was when I was there), the world's leader in EMS approvals, and the world's first accredited registrar for QMS certfication. Not a small-timer.

Assumptions shouldn't be made that big registrars care less or cost more than small ones. The only assumption that can be made is that overhead is higher when you use quality ingredients to produce quality product and if something costs less down the street then they are saving money somewhere.

Originally posted by barb butrym
well said energy!!!!
When you are on the other side of the clip board....things look different...and what might be very clear for the auditee, could could be blind to the auditor who doesn't live there...thats why internal audits drive the system!!!!! Also personalities play a large part in judgements....
Speaking of that....my idea of a moron auditor is the one that sits in the conference room all day, scruitinizes the internal audit details and writes them up for those findings instead of actually doing a real audit

Barb,

Actually. I'm guilty of referring to certain types of auditors as Monkeys rather than morons. This is a good thread to read. I still believe in "low hanging fruit".:vfunny: http://16949.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4049&perpage=10&highlight=Monkey&pagenumber=1



:ko: :smokin:

I don't know of any subcontractors in our office making more than the full-time employees.

To start with, the work is assigned to the fulltimers first, so it is hit and miss if a sub gets work at all.

Travel time was not paid (because we rarely charged our clients for travel time), so a sub may invest 2 days for only one day of work - whereas a fulltimer would be given a calendar day for the travel time so he's paid for each day. The fulltimer will probably work no more than 3 days out of the week. Not bad. Lots of them will take off on Sunday nite and be home Wednesday evening by using Mon and Tues evening for travel (which they would never be required to do since they will have been "booked" for two days of travel during the week.) Now the rest of the week is their to goof off at home.

And the sub's daily rate is not so great-especially when you figure in that they get no paid vacation, no paid holidays, no 401K or pension plan, no medical and dental insurance, no life insurance, are not provided with a company laptop-printer-supplies, and have to pay their own Soc. Security. They had no company AMEX so had to float their own expenses, had to pay their own telephone bills, and fax, etc.

From my experience, it was the route that an assessor would take when they started thinking about retirement, or when they were first starting out and wanted to get their foot in the door with a registrar and hope that it would turn into fulltime offer.

I've met other subs who were primarily consultants and subbed with us to keep their skills fresh and to "learn" the registration business and ensure that their interpretations were the same ones that a registrar would apply when it was time for certification.

Then why is P.J. so expensive???

Oh, I know the answer!:ca:

Originally posted by Randy

Lets take into consideration EMS auditing (which I hold dear to my heart). If in order to perform EMS audits for your company If you require a person to be an EMS-LA (like me) there are only slightly over 200 people in the USA that meet that requirement (RAB certified anyway, I don't know about IRCA or other agencies). Now of that 200+ at least 25% are not available for hire for one reason or another. That leaves 150+. Where is the limitless talent pool here? Where are all these other people at that you seem to think exist?
Thanks alot for the thought there Sid. I have an MBA, I belong to MENSA (which means I'm not a moron) I am credentialed by the Cal EPA as an environmental professional and I am a RAB certified EMS-LA.

Randy,

You're so modest. I'm honored to quote you! Poor Sid. Poor me!

:biglaugh: :ko: :smokin:

Originally posted by Lucinda

Assumptions shouldn't be made that big registrars care less or cost more than small ones. The only assumption that can be made is that overhead is higher when you use quality ingredients to produce quality product and if something costs less down the street then they are saving money somewhere.

Lucinda, I apologize if I offended you that was not my intent. As far as making assumptions that big registrars care less, I am only going by what I have seen and experienced with 3 Big Registrars 1 German, and 2 British. I know what they are charging and I know what type of CS we have received. It is a fact our registrar couldn't give a rats a$$ if we left that is a fact, if they cared they would do something about it. As I said before we are a blip pn their screen to them 20k a year is nothing to a small company like ours 20k a year is a lot. On the other hand I have had fantastic experiences with smaller registrars, they can offer you a more personal service due to the fact they do not have as many clients more one on one relationship.

As I said before these are the experiences I have had and are JMHO.

:truce:

Energy,

I was your valdimictorien at your GED graduation and you were quite happy, what gives? I may not have geven the bestest speach but the party later was grate.

Who new yu liked beer wit vodker shooters!:biglaugh:

Al D,

I should have said "One thing nice about egotists: they don't talk about other people". Let me ask you, "If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?" Vodka Shooters? More like, one Tequila, two Tequila, three Tequila floor! Ease up on that stuff. It's not even 1:00 Pm, yet!
:bonk: :ko: :smokin:

Originally posted by ISO GUY
Lucinda, I apologize if I offended you that was not my intent. ...On the other hand I have had fantastic experiences with smaller registrars, they can offer you a more personal service due to the fact they do not have as many clients more one on one relationship.
:truce:

No, I'm not offended. I've just "been there, done that" and I know that some registrars are really trying. It all comes down to the individual person(s) who you come in contact with (someone mentioned this earlier in the thread) and that is who you think your "registrar" is. But behind the person is the corporate structure that either supports what they are trying to do or not. A good Account Executive can only do so much; a lazy AE will make even the best registrar look bad.

Small or big, an account executive has the same workload. Same as with any other business. More clients, more employees to handle them. I don't think it's a matter of big vs. small registrar. In fact, one AE we hired came from a small registrar where she had to take care of ALL of their clients plus order office supplies,etc.! Talk about overload! She had a poor attitude which hasn't changed much over the years, but that's another story....

Sorry your experience was poor with your previous registrars, and I'm glad that you are happy with your current one. Your $20K is valued no matter where you take it - no company is too small for a registrar to care- you are still a number!! Get it? "Who has the most approvals" is a big game and it can get ugly when registrars list individual sites as an "approval" when they are actually part of a multi-site single approval, etc. But that's another story too...!:vfunny:

I probably sound cranky and I don't mean to, but the people I work with sheeeesh!

The one registrar I was refering to, it was everyone at the office we talked to that was unwilling to help and just passed you off to someone else, wasn't just the AE. I know I shouldn't making sweeping statements because I know there are large registrars out there that are very good and small ones that stink.


Now consultants don't get me started on that, we had one come in with their client..... ahhh never mind I am just glad it is Friday my wine night!

Energy,

It just looked like ol' Sid was judging by the group and not the person. I learned a long time ago not to do that, just like I learned a long time ago that having a college degree doesn't necessarily mean that one is intelligent or that being well off means the person is well mannered. Until proven or indicated otherwise I tend to give folks the benefit of the doubt, which means they are just as good, intelligent and as capable as me.

Randy,

Spoken like a gentleman. I will also use this post to address the other thread where you were called for not caring about product while doing an Environmental Audit. I couldn't agree with you more. If it were me and I noticed rejections tags all over the place, that's not my business. It don't mean that you don't care. It's just beyond the scope of your audit. During our Audit training, the first thing we were told was to remain within the scope that was established during the opening meeting. :agree: :ko: :smokin:

Originally posted by Lucinda

No, I'm not offended. I've just "been there, done that" and I know that some registrars are really trying. It all comes down to the individual person(s) who you come in contact with (someone mentioned this earlier in the thread) and that is who you think your "registrar" is


Having completed two registrar interviews with companies from both ends of the spectrum, large and small, I offer this:
Both company representatives were likable and seemingly competent individuals. The major difference between the two was appro. 15K. That's substantial for a small business. Even though I'm not actually paying the bill, well, we all do because less money in the well to reward employees affects us, I will take the best economic choice. There was virtually no difference in their answers to our questions. Plus, personally, I lean towards smaller service oriented companies. I also feel I have closer contact than offered in larger companies. JMHO.:ko: :smokin:

So very true and thanks. I would however get a little curious and maybe ask about what I have seen in a diplomatic way.

Diplomatic? Why would that be required? If you are seeing rejection tags all over the place then that is objective evidence that sumtin ain't right! What better audit trail to sniff down?

Besides,it isn't just meeting the letter requirements of the standard that is being audited, it is the effectiveness of their implementation that is being audited as well.
It certainly is your place to ask outright what the heck is going on with all those tags.

As long as the rejection tags have nothing to do with the EMS I am auditing and they are not within the scope or the criteria, what have I to sniff at?:confused:

Originally posted by Lucinda
Diplomatic? Why would that be required? If you are seeing rejection tags all over the place then that is objective evidence that sumtin ain't right! What better audit trail to sniff down?
Besides,it isn't just meeting the letter requirements of the standard that is being audited, it is the effectiveness of their implementation that is being audited as well.
It certainly is your place to ask outright what the heck is going on with all those tags.

He's doing an Environmental Audit. What has that to do with Product? Geez!:bonk: :ko: :smokin:

Yep, forgot that Randy is EMS.

Ok, must :ca: ...engaging brain matter...:bonk: ..thinking, thinking, stre..tch...ing.......Ok, got it

So how come you want to separate process and product from your audit Randy? :vfunny:

Are you telling me you can conduct a creditable audit if you don't know the process? That you can tell if the company has appropriately, correctly, and adequately identified its aspects? That when you are walking around the site and come across a guy washing out a container, you can ask your guide "hey, has this guy been trained on how to properly handle and dispose of that waste water?" and the guide says "why?" and you say "because that stuff comes from such and such and contains yada yada and that is hazardous and he needs to be trained on such things". Are you saying that with less knowledge about the process than the people you are auditing that you would be able to perform a credible audit?

I laugh at the idea.:vfunny: bwa-ha-ha.

And you are going to know that they are supposed to be reporting such and such to whomever because their process produces in excess of this and that??

What you have said is that you need no knowledge of the process because all you are going to look at is what the company puts in front of you - because it is EMS and not QMS.

This is not a contentious post sweetpea, so please take it in good banter spirit. Although I do firmly believe that an EMS assessor should have thorough industry knowledge or a process expert accompanying him for audits.

Well when it comes to environmental stuff I am not the normal EMS-LA.

I am certified by the Cal/EPA as a Registered Environmental Assessor specializing in OSHA & EPA compliance, pollution prevention and hazardous waste management (if I mess up I get to go to jail free of charge). I am certified by the National Registry of Environmental Professionals as a Registered Environmental Professional. About 25% of my BS degree program involved environmental management. I have somewhere in the neighborhood of 500+ hours of formal environmental / safety management training at specialized courses/seminars. I have been managing environmental programs in probably the toughest state in the nation (California) for 12 years with no citations or negative actions after about 30 or so compliance inspections. I won't even spend time mentioning all of the DOT Hazmat stuff, DOE/NRC radiation training, the process safety management, Clean Air Act, EPCRA, VOC emissions, ODS, RCRA and those other acronyms that I am experienced with.

Am I the smartest and most knowledgeable person around? Nope, not even close. But trust me when I say that it would be fairly hard for someone to try and blow smoke up my butt.:eek:

hey...what effect is all that scrap/rework having on the enviornment? isn't that part of the impact analysis?

Whew, what spirited conversation. Have we agreed to disagree? About normal for this bunch.

For me I have to weigh in as leaning toward the small registrar.

Small means that the owner, the guy with the most to lose, is closer to the troops. Clients are more important because there are fewer of them. When a client is unhappy, they can call the big cheese, they don't have to "go through channels" It is the same reason I like working for a small company.

The larger a company becomes, the more at risk it is to falling victim to the "corporate mentality". It becomes more and more difficult for the owner (most likely a LA him/herself) to handle all the administrative tasks. So professional administrators come in to help out. These pro's are trained to look at profit, ROI shareholder value etc. , not at satisfaction surveys, and other measures that were inportant during the "early years" of the company. Over time, if the company is not veerrry careful, the focus begins to shift away from the things that made it great.

We have had several excellant threads lately discussing these types of issues, so I won't expound any further except to repost a story that I posted in the "common freakin' sense" thread:

:vfunny: :vfunny: :vfunny: :vfunny: :vfunny:
Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. Congress said:
"someone might steal from it at night"; so they
created a night watchman, GS-4 position, and hired a person for the job. Then Congress said, "How
does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning division and hired two
(2) people, one person to write the instructions (GS-12) and one person to do time studies (GS-11).
Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they
created a quality control (QC) division and hired two (2) people, one (GS-9) to do the studies and one
(GS-11) to write the reports. Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So they
created a payroll division with a time keeper (GS-9) and a payroll officer (GS-11), and hired two (2)
people. Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an
administrative division and hired three (3) people: an Admin Officer (GM-13), Assistant Admin Officer
(GS-13), and a Legal Secretary (GS-8). Then, one year later, Congress reviewed the operation of the
desert scrap yard and said, "We have had this command in operation for one year and we are $18,000
over budget. We must cut back overall costs!"
So, they eliminated the night watchman.

Srap & rework? Yep they can have an effect on the environment, but I am not allowed to tell an auditee how to run the business, I can only determine if conformance to the standard within the system designed by the auditee is in fact happening.

If the system documents specify a recycling plan, or lean manufacturing and all that other stuff and it is not happening then we have a problem. But if scrap and things like that are not considered as "Significant Aspects" at the most I think that writing a strong observation is as much as I could do. It is all fully dependant upon the conditions present though and a finding may be warranted. There is no absolute right or wrong.

Originally posted by Lucinda

... Although I do firmly believe that an EMS assessor should have thorough industry knowledge or a process expert accompanying him for audits.I used to believe this, particularly with QS and ISO 9K. But the reality is that years ago industry experience was expected (not experience auditing a specific industry, but work experience in the industry being audited) of an ISO 9K auditor. Now days you're lucky if you can get someone experienced in auditing in a specific industry, much less with actual working experince in the industry. It's nice to be able to prefer, but the reality is one often gets an auditor who has NO actual work experience in the industry they are auditing. I've seen college professors who dropped out to become auditors (more money I guess) who had absolutely NO manufacturing experience as QS-9000 lead auditors in manufacturing audits. When I worked with an insurance company in an ISO 9001:2000 implementation we couldn't find a registrar with experience in insurance registrations. Even the RAB could not come up with someone for the witness audit (it was this registrar's yearly witness audit) with experience in the insurance industry. The RAB couldn't even come up with someone who had ever been involved in any way with auditing an insurance company.

I state this because I suspect it's the same with EMS folks. There is the 'ideal' and then there is the reality.

While aimed at ISO 9K consultants, http://16949.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3994 looks at this issue.

At the registrar where I worked, industry experience was required whether it was EMS or QMS in order to be coded to assess it. To get additional coding to assess an area where they did not have direct industry experience, they had to do XX number of hours as a trainee - meaning they were participants on the audit but not a counted member of the audit team - a costly undertaking for the registrar, but do-able.

I will always believe that no matter how many regulations you know for EMS,unless you know the particulars of the process you will be at a disadvantage in assessing the accuracy and effectiveness of the EMS program you are auditing. And for certification, we are talking above and beyond compliance with internal procedures, which is what internal audit is.

Certification for EMS is about accuracy. Not missing anything. Making the right calls. Taking the right actions. The program itself is what is being assessed, not just compliance with the program that was developed.

Randy

I think that you are blindly auditing for compliance.

What if you were auditing a company that was pumping poisonous chemicals into a river. If the company had not considered this a 'significant aspect' would you merely raise at most an observation ?

Personally I would remove their EMS certification !!

Poo-poo on you.

Ever hear of discharge permits? Any company can get a permit to dump most anything into any inland waterway with the proper permit.

If you will look back through the threads (all of them) you will find that my main focus is confromance to the standard. You folks are like others. You get wrapped around the axle too easy with emotionalism when the word "Environmental" is used.

Read the standard...compliance is only 1 of 17 or so required elements. It is a large part of the policy, but it is no more or no less important than any other requirement. The term ISO comes from the Greek root word "isos" which means equal. When I look at a system I look at all things equally.

As for removing things...I still have a little schrapnel in my thighs and left leg, & some buckshot in my back and under a kneecap that tend to bother me...you can start there.:biglaugh:

Silly me.

There I was thinking that an EMS had something to do with minimising and reducing the environmental impact of an organisation. But instead it just about getting all your beurocracy to line up.

Hmmm reminds me of the QMS's of old :vfunny:

We should all be professional and leave the 'emotions out'.

We all need to remember that the EMS is audited by ISO standard not as an extension of the EPA, but to ensure the system is in place and followed.

The significant aspects are as auditable for EMS as inclusion of processes for QMS.

You're pretty much right.

If you look at the priority of benefits of an EMS on the ISO homepage, on most any of the consulting sites, or in the standard itself you'll find the majority of them pertain to money. After money benefits come having a nice warm fuzzy and looking good and finally improvement of environmental performance and all that neat liberal feel good crap.

My approach is to assess the overall system, verifying conformance (of which compliance is only a part of the whole), and saying yea or ney. Remember within the standard there are more "should's, may's, consider's" and all those other neat words than there are "shall's, must's, are/is required".

From what I have been told the revised standard that TC207 is working on will place a larger emphasis on legal/regulatory compliance and a stronger emphasis on managing those good ol' Aspects. I am in agreement.

Originally posted by Randy
You're pretty much right.
If you look at the priority of benefits of an EMS on the ISO homepage, on most any of the consulting sites, or in the standard itself you'll find the majority of them pertain to money. After money benefits come having a nice warm fuzzy and looking good and finally improvement of environmental performance and all that neat liberal feel good crap.


Randy,

Absolutely correct. It's about money. That's what it's "ALL" about. The ideals, notions, lectures, etc., usually follow after somebody else has paid the bill! Pay the registrar, get registered and keep paying. $$$$$ We pay the state for our two discharge permits, engineering studies, etc. to protect the waters of the state. First and foremost is send the check for the forms, the permit, then send us your plan. Now send us the check for "Granting" of your plan. In 5 years, we will need more cash. Oh yes, in the meantime, help keep our waters clean. I've been sittting back and watching this thread and it reminds me of some posts of old. And at the risk of getting edited, there are those who preach and those that see that compliance is adhered to. Real compliance. Not concocted illusions of what it should be. I've pretty much gotten over my fear of the Boogey Man. :vfunny: :ko: :smokin:

and why is it all about money ?

Becasue the governments of the world place a lot of emphasis on all those warm fuzzy liberal things you guys mention, and as such place large tariffs, fines, etc on those who damage the environment.

ta da

yea, what he said!:biglaugh: :ko: :smokin:

Governments of the world?

do some research and find out how most world governments truly feel about environmental protection. Start with the rain forest of Brazil, then go to slash and burn Malaysia and Indonesia, check out the nasty air and water in good old commie China, also throw in those fantastically conscious nations on the African continent and also our dear frinds in the Southwest Asia area. The only fines that are exacted in those places is to the folks that are not paying the bribes....just go along our own Southern border down the Rio Grande. The totality of environmental destruction is staggering as well as birth defects, cancer and those other little niceties provided by a modern governments oversite and caring. The crap that comes across the border makes me stay clear of it.

Originally posted by M Greenaway

and why is it all about money ?

Becasue the governments of the world place a lot of emphasis on all those warm fuzzy liberal things you guys mention, and as such place large tariffs, fines, etc on those who damage the environment.

ta daAh! Were that it was all that simple. I might add that when one says the government, one might want to consider that the government does restrict and tax many things but it is generally (at least supposedly - Enron has revealed many truths about capitalism) a response to protect the people. I personally prefer that governments limit pollution and such. If you leave it up to business we'll all be dead in 50 years because business thinks only of here and now and profits. Whether they pollute all the potable water in a 100 mile radius doesn't bother them unless there is something to force them to.

Why is it all about money? Because most people only care about money and the here and now - not next year or 50 years from now.

I do agree with Randy. "It" is about compliance to the requirement - which with respect to ISO 14001 the government did not write - the ISO folks did.

> And at the risk of getting edited,

Energy, you know better than to say that here.

> At the registrar where I worked, industry experience was
> required whether it was EMS or QMS in order to be coded to
> assess it. To get additional coding to assess an area
> where they did not have direct industry experience, they
> had to do XX number of hours as a trainee - meaning they
> were participants on the audit but not a counted member of
> the audit team - a costly undertaking for the registrar,
> but do-able.

This is the exception rather than the rule.

Just a few thoughts...

Originally posted by Marc
And at the risk of getting edited,
Energy, you know better than to say that here.


I was just reacting to a potential admonishment because I already saw one and didn't want to fan the fire. But, sometimes I just can't help myself. Sometimes I just get steamed. Sometimes I get really pis-sed when I see crap designed to ignite controversy. Sometimes, sometimes, :frust:
I know you wouldn't edit me unless I was really a bad, bad boy!

:ko: :smokin:

Originally posted by Randy
Governments of the world?

do some research and find out how most world governments truly feel about environmental protection. Start with the rain forest of Brazil, then go to slash and burn Malaysia and Indonesia, check out the nasty air and water in good old commie China, also throw in those fantastically conscious nations on the African continent and also our dear frinds in the Southwest Asia area. The only fines that are exacted in those places is to the folks that are not paying the bribes....just go along our own Southern border down the Rio Grande. The totality of environmental destruction is staggering as well as birth defects, cancer and those other little niceties provided by a modern governments oversite and caring. The crap that comes across the border makes me stay clear of it.

I would but I'm myopic!:biglaugh: :ko: :smokin:

Originally posted by Randy

Governments of the world?

do some research and find out how most world governments truly feel about environmental protection. Start with the rain forest of Brazil, then go to slash and burn Malaysia and Indonesia, check out the nasty air and water in good old commie China, also throw in those fantastically conscious nations on the African continent and also our dear frinds in the Southwest Asia area. The only fines that are exacted in those places is to the folks that are not paying the bribes....just go along our own Southern border down the Rio Grande. The totality of environmental destruction is staggering as well as birth defects, cancer and those other little niceties provided by a modern governments oversite and caring. The crap that comes across the border makes me stay clear of it.Unfortunately this is true and oh so sad. As an older person I'm happy I have lived in the era I have lived in. 100 years from now - well, I can't imagine. Big business runs most governments and most governments don't give a damn about the 'common' people. Again, just look at Enron and their sway over governments all over the world usine the US government to help them steamroll over any and all obsticles - rules, peoples objections, you name it.

Randy points out the more recent, but you can go back to the 1700's and 1800's and earlier. Look back to the days when London was so polluted from coal fumes that people were dieing left and right. The parlement knew the cause but hid it because business would have been 'hurt'.

We liberals will not win - it will be a case of we told you so after the destruction is far beyond the point of no return. Enron had already gotten water privatized in part in Britain. Water. When business controls everything you take for granted today the California power crisis will seem like a wimper. Only the rich will be able to afford water, electric power and many other things. See http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12447 for some interesting thoughts... :thedeal:

This weekend there was story about a company that spent a couple of Million on a trash to energy plant to comply with do-gooders there and their idealistic views of creating energy. It was great until they didn't have enough energy. Now, the company can't sell any of that energy because the Governor bought the power from coal burning states because it was cheaper and more readily available. It all boils down to "The environment must be preserved for our children, providing I don't have to do anything about it".

Randy,

Yes, commitment to comply with legal and regulatory requirements may be a "small" component. (although very important. When you check to see that they have identified the ones that they must comply with, are you sure that they have listed them all and what the exact requirements are? Our auditors found many instances where companies were seemingly oblivious to certain reporting requirements...)

My question to you went beyond knowing the legal and regulatory requirements. If you didn't know the process, are you confident that you can adequately assess whether the company has accurately and appropriately identified its aspects? Or appropriately applied the significance test? Without proper identification of aspects, the rest of the "system" falls on its face. And how can you be sure that appropriate training is being provided to various employees if you don't understand the ramifications of the part of the process they support? Etc. etc.

So the way I see it, knowing the process is extremely important in EMS.

Certification doesn't just mean that the "shall"s are covered. The system has to be "right", it has to work, it has to be effective. At least, that's what certification is supposed to be. It has lost "value" as it becomes more and more a simple verification that all the "shall"s are covered and nothing more is required.

And I'm not trying to pick a fight or start a controversy. :truce:

OK sorry for igniting a political debate.

The statement that an EMS is all about money can also be said of a QMS. We dont produce a quality product for any good feeling of moral values that we have made someone happy. Quality is perceived (by some) as of value to a business, i.e. it increases profits.

Also the governments of the third world nations quoted cannot do a lot to decrease their effect on the environment because they are in such debt to countries in the industrialised western world.

Oops - ive kicked it off again :bonk:

Hey Lucinda I understand where you're coming from and that goes to Martin too.

Tell me this....do you presently have on board someone with the expertise and the process experience necessary to audit (by your definition) a US Army installation for conformance to 14K? I seriously doubt that there are very many auditors that possess 1st hand experience in all or most of the processes that take place at one of those.

Randy, as a matter of fact, I think they do. At least when i was there we did. (note, I've been gone from the registrar for more than a year). We did have certifications for companies who managed the US military bases.

The location of a process makes no difference. So the fact that it is an Army installation is irrelevant. To determine competency, it is necessary to establish what activities are taking place and then matching with relevent experience. There will be the generic activities ( cafeteria, transport bays, ..) and there may be specialized activities (weaponry, explosives...).