ISA Code of Ethics

[ QUOTE ]


You missed the whole point of the post certed boy. It is brought to attention that the ISA is only a voluntary, should we say tree huggers club. So what gives an employer the right to lay cliam that one needs this crap paper cert to gain employment. Just so you understand, in some states Mass. NJ. MD. and such, your ISA Cert means nothing compared to the offical state one. I hope this explains better what I was saying. No I'm not ISA certed, cuase why would I waste my money and time on a paper I know holds very little value in my state. About the only thing that it's good for in NJ, is so the big companies can say that the idjit salesmen/women they have passed some test. Plus I'd not really go around bragging I had a paper I only needed to know 60% of the info to pass.

[/ QUOTE ]

You write like a person with a grudge. It's obvious by how you can't find a good use for each tool in the trade.

"treehuggers club" ??

Several CAs I know are not tree huggers. They manage tree canopy. Prune, remove or fix - whatever the need is.

All those other states certifications have little use out this way. Possibly as credentials.

I see you flaunting that 60% number. Wouldn't know. My scores were in the upper percentages. Actually, I don't know any 60%-ers myself.

You tend to talk about the low numbers, hacks and problems. Maybe that's why you wouldn't talk about that certificate. You don't know how to sell it, promote it, or use it.

Since I had high scores, I find it very useful to promote a certification, especially when folks ask about other certifications and college.

I'm not going to take the foolish approach in life to degrade something because others degrade it. Like if some folks barely passed their drivers exam and got 10 speeding tickets, there's no way I'd get rid of my license or degrade the potential use, because it's still a tool that can be put to good use - several good uses. To get rid of a license due to the failures would be weak thinking - weak, innefective, unproductive and unsuccessful.

But I'm glad I've got my CA certificate. It's a valuable tool that brings a lot of valuable work.

At best, you will convince us that you fail to realize how to use the ISA certification as a beneficial too.
cool.gif
 
I've always been amazed by the number of big talking CA's that couldn't climb a tree if their life depended on it.

But they can certainly talk the talk.

jomoco
 
[ QUOTE ]
I've always been amazed by the number of big talking CA's that couldn't climb a tree if their life depended on it.

But they can certainly talk the talk.

jomoco

[/ QUOTE ]

You should be more amazed at the people who can't take an item or tool and put it to good use.

Like I said in my last post.

You know who your remind me of - Robert Redford's character in The Last Castle where he plays the ex-General.

He's telling the one man how the warden sees the worst in people. But Redford's character sees the best in people.

You are like that with the ISA certificate. You see it as the 60% bare minimum thing.

Personally, I see it as the 100% potential thing.

cool.gif
 
jo i dunnow what your chipper experience was but if you found hypocrisy that is no big news. show me a big org that is 100% consistent...........ok then. O and it is too bad you brought up MD; I hear their cert ranks up there with Charmin now.

O and ps I know someone who has all 4 ISA certs and condemns trees to removal and can climb as high and as wide, without hugging, as you, bruddamon. ;)

"Personally, I see it as the 100% potential thing."

Mario I deeply disgaree with you from time to time but right there you nailed the whole cert thing to its essence. A step; a springboard.

It's amazin how much passion gets roiled up over this one topic. Now how about tree care?
 
More like 100 percent complicit Guy.

You'll have a hard time understanding my viewpoint until one of your friends get chipped alive and spit into the back of a dumptruck.

jomoco
 
[ QUOTE ]
More like 100 percent complicit Guy.
You'll have a hard time understanding my viewpoint until one of your friends get chipped alive and spit into the back of a dumptruck.

[/ QUOTE ]OK well that'll never happen, and chippers are a whoooole lot safer now than in the chuckandduck days so this derail just hit a wall.

Re the Code, is anyone up for making a draft revision, altering the onerous sections to something real and enforceable?
 
I would like to bring up a couple things that I have noticed in regard to the Code of Ethics:


The first statement brought up in Guy's post on page 1 does not require that a CA report a violation:

"Report apparent violations of the Code of Ethics by a certificant or candidate upon a reasonable and clear factual basis."

It states that reports must be made upon a clear and factual basis, which I agree with.


The second statement brought up says that CA's must:

"Inform appropriate government representatives or agencies when aware of an activity or circumstance that may cause an unsafe condition or violate legal requirements."

Nowhere does it say that this requirement is for CA's to report other CA's or even other arborists. This is under the 'responsibilites to public safety' section, and could be construed to mean just about anything. This should be clarified by ISA. I have a feeling that they are saying that a CA is responsible to report dangerous situations that compromise public safety with regard to trees in general, i.e, if he/she sees a hazard tree, or major root cutting during construction, and not necessarily directed at the activities of other arborists.


The ethics agreement for Cert or Recert is another matter entirely. I think that we certed arborists need to contact ISA about several of the questions on the agreement. It will be on our BoD agenda for June.


-Tom
 
Sorry, Guy, we posted at the same time. I honestly don't think it needs revision, just clarification.

The Cert. agreement on the other hand, does, IMO.

-Tom
 
Maybe read it again Tom your the one who suppose to gain the evidence.-i just have enough resposibility to worry about in my own life now I'm being mandated to police the industry. No way I handle things man to man.the isa needs to be proactive with local government and get laws implemented so they can police the industry they need to let go of the monopaly and help open the door for city and state arborist programs. Look at all the other industries that require a license they are not ran and policed by private organizations or by their competition. It doesn't matter I've already made up my mind if I have to sign then I'm done with it.I know of plenty successful companies without isa affiliation. Maybe this is what the industry needs a little competition for the isa. I'm sure others will walk away also and maybe something with higher personal standards can be born from this. Personal accountabiloity from arborist who are its members who don't need to be policed because they police themselves I've never had a problem with the isa up to this point,I've spent a lot of money over the years buying training material and such. I've really tried to promote what they are doin. So I did not come into this with a beef,but I believe they have lost focus and personal responsibilty. Of there own. And these standards and policys will violate my own personal ethics and even privacy. .
 
Jimmy, I think I separated the issues in my post. I see the Certification Agreement and the Code of Ethics as two different subjects, with the Cert Agreement needing revision, and the CoE needing clarification. I don't see anything specific in the CoE that requires CA's to report other CA's or arborists.

-Tom
 
Tom,

In the CoE, what is a "certificant" if not a CA?

For that matter what is a "candidate". Someone who has written the exam and is just waiting for their marks?

Northwind
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
More like 100 percent complicit Guy.
You'll have a hard time understanding my viewpoint until one of your friends get chipped alive and spit into the back of a dumptruck.

[/ QUOTE ]OK well that'll never happen, and chippers are a whoooole lot safer now than in the chuckandduck days so this derail just hit a wall.


[/ QUOTE ]

You can't be serious guy, how many chipper operators got chipped alive in the 60's, 70's and 80's?

If you really believe that turning a blind eye on the ever increasing number of chipper fatalities is acceptable in our industry, then both you and the ISA/TCIA have truly compromised ethics and morals that I find truly disgusting.

The numbers prove you and the so called authorities wrong on a very fundamental level.

Ethics? Derailed? Yeah right!

You and the ISA just don't get it, everytime a chipper operator gets pulled through a chipper, my phone rings and I have to explain the hows and whys that our industry continues to turn a blind eye on these grisly deaths for the sake of corporations maintaining their limited liability.

Whose son or daughter will be next?

jomoco
 
[ QUOTE ]
Tom,

In the CoE, what is a "certificant" if not a CA?

For that matter what is a "candidate". Someone who has written the exam and is just waiting for their marks?

Northwind

[/ QUOTE ]

I would think that a Certificant is a CA, BCMA, etc, and a candidate is a potential Certificant.

What I am trying to say in my post is that the CoE does not say that a CA must report apparent violations (by a CA or candidate), it states that a CA must report apparent violations upon a clear and factual basis, and not on hearsay. It does not mandate that they report the CA or candidate, it states that if they do so, it should be backed up with facts.

You follow? I know it is semantics, but that's what we're dealing with here. I believe this is legal boilerplate that sounds bad, but is actually for everyone's protection.

-Tom
 
[ QUOTE ]
I would think that a Certificant is a CA, BCMA, etc, and a candidate is a potential Certificant.


[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, though potential certificant is still muddy, not your fault. Who isn't a candidate? Or must you have applied to the ISA for consideration to write before you are a candidate? Again, agree this needs clarification.

[ QUOTE ]
What I am trying to say in my post is that the CoE does not say that a CA must report apparent violations (by a CA or candidate), it states that a CA must report apparent violations upon a clear and factual basis, and not on hearsay. It does not mandate that they report the CA or candidate, it states that if they do so, it should be backed up with facts.

You follow? I know it is semantics, but that's what we're dealing with here. I believe this is legal boilerplate that sounds bad, but is actually for everyone's protection.


[/ QUOTE ]

NOW I follow! And if that is what the ISA intends most of this discussion is moot, as most of us have interpreted it the other way. Frankly I prefer NOT to have the ISA clarify this, I'm accepting your interpretation as the correct one and now feel free to go happily along as I always have. Thanks!
smirk.gif


Northwind
 
[ QUOTE ]


You can't be serious guy, how many chipper operators got chipped alive in the 60's, 70's and 80's?



[/ QUOTE ]

Guy ...

I think he wants you to get in the time machine and go back a few decades.

Most folks around here are using machines that are pretty new. I agree that machines are much better now.
 
jo i am not a chipper expert, but maybe your stats should be looked at in proportion to the total number of chippers operating, which i'm guessing is way more now.

40 per year is 40 too many, but you understand the background on the political issue way more than anyone else here it seems, so it's hard to follow.

CJ, it looks like you are reading A and jumping to Z. Consider what Tom is saying about interpretation. For example I take "unsafe" to mean "immediate life-threatening", not "the chain brake broke off" or "that tree has decay" or "he had no PPE".

Tom, what is a hazard tree?
 
Well by all means let me shine a little light on the corporate collusion currently being aided and abetted by the ISA and TCIA.

Back in 95 I patented the chipper safety gate and submitted it for evaluation to every major chipper manufacturer in the US.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parse...p;RS=PN/5667152

Each of the manufacturers got back to me saying thanks but no thanks. I countered by offering the MFG rights to them all for free in the interests of increasing the safety standards of our industry as a whole. But again they gave me a polite but firm no thanks.

I contacted what was then the NAA, and spoke directly with Bob Felix to determine what the rationale was for these manufacturers refusal to incorporate a safety device quite capable of keeping an unconscious or incapacitated chipper operator from being eaten alive was. He promised to get back to me, and a few weeks later he did, stating that he had hit a brick wall and was unable to provide an answer to me for their refusal to accept my free offer to them.

I smelled a rat and contacted an industry insider friend of mine who finally got the lowdown for me many months later.

These manufacturers got together privately and concluded that maintaining their current limited liability each time an operator was eaten alive was preferrable to them as an industry rather than incorporating a safety gate onto their chippers, because if for any reason the safety gate failed, their liability would be huge and subject them to judgements in court that could bankrupt them. So by refusing this life saving technology they can maintain a limited liability status and claim that each time a chipper operator was eaten alive the operator had made a mistake that unfortunately cost him his life. And indeed each time these cases have been adjudicated in courts the manufacturers have been found innocent and the chipper operators at fault to this very day.

This sort of twisted logic applied elsewhere in our industry would have meant no chainsaw safety brakes, that the saw operator was at fault for not being careful and watching his saw tip.

And of course this twisted logic applied to other industries would mean no seatbelts, no airbags, no metal detectors in courts or airports, etc etc.

And the ISA and TCIA are afraid to mandate to these manufacturers that a chipper safety system capable of saving an incapacitated chipper from being eaten alive be incorporated onto their chippers because these manufacturers are their most profitable advertisers and patrons.

If this is the ISA and TCIA's way of leading the tree industry into the 21st century, then they'll get absolutely zero support from me.

What's even worse is that in 2000 an Australian bloke name of peter mather invented an even cheaper system than mine that uses off the shelf RFID technology to accomplish the same goal of keeping an incapacitated chipper operator from death, but he also hit the same brick wall that I did.

http://www.indsafe.com/story.htm

And still the ISA and TCIA continue to turn a blind eye to the mounting death toll each year that goes by.

Not my idea of ethical or moral behavior in the least, in fact I see it as the exact opposite, and a stain on our entire industry as a whole.

Just one man's opinion of course, but names like matt allen and randy sparks are with me to this very day, haunting me.

jomoco
 
[ QUOTE ]

The number of fatalities in the last 2 decades is now approaching 40 with well over 2000 injuries.

What are you guys, blind or just mathematically compromised?

jomoco

[/ QUOTE ]

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) began tracking fatal accidents 42 years ago, according to the Associated Press. National highway fatalities were at their highest in 1972, with more than 54,000 deaths. Data collected this year through October showed a total of 31,110 deaths, down from 34,502 at the same point in 2007. “I’m thrilled about these numbers,” NHTSA Administrator David Kelly told the Associated Press. “When you talk about reductions in traffic fatalities in one year you are usually talking about hundreds in a good year. The fact that deaths are down 3,000 so far this year is staggering.”

40 won't alarm people.

We won't reduce machine related death to zero without rendering the machine useless.

cool.gif
 
What does any of that have to do with the sky rocketing number of chipper operators being pulled through wood chippers in the last 2 decades MD Vaden?

Practically no chipper fatalities occurred until these huge whole tree chipers hit the market in the early 90's, and that's an indesputable fact.

I've personally witnessed 3 separate occassions where a chipper operator would have been chipped alive if not for the fast reactions of a second operator getting to the reverse bar in time. One of them was actually in the feed rollers when the second man saved him.

These are real people with families just trying to bring home the bacon.

Where is the ethics in ignoring a problem that will only get worse with each passing year?

jomoco
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom