Membership grade review - comments

[Nathan Redfern]

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed
membership levels.

New Grades

Associate – suggest Affiliate be considered, as the term associate can
be misinterpreted to mean a level much higher than someone with an
interest (refer to other professional bodies)

Practitioner – this term is inappropriate – the term is commonly used
to prefer to a professional in the field (such as safety practitioners
or medical practitioners!) – undertaking a 5 day course is clearly not
someone who is a practitioner in the field of occupational hygiene.
The grade is essentially a technician level . Would suggest Technician
of the AIOH is better suited to this level of education. Agree some
small level of qualifying points are necessary as this is one of the
levels which require professional education and mentoring.

Licentiate – The term is much more suited to the current provisional
level (please cast aside the term provisional member – it is confusing
and is regularly interpreted (by non-hygienists) as someone who is
still on training wheels). The additional of a post-nominal such as
LAIOH is a positive and whilst the Licentiate term has very limited
use in Australia (except in theology and music qualifications), I
understand it is used by the BOHS as a certificate or ‘license’ of
competence to practice as a professional – and I do not see a reason
why the AIOH cannot lead in this area in providing a valuable and
recognised track to full membership. The qualifying period of 3
years experience (I assume full time) appears appropriate.

Full Member – essentially I can see little change except for the
reduction in qualifying period. Agree with the academic qualifications
but also the transitional arrangement for current provision, noting
that not all current provisional members would have been able to or
did not need to have studied specific OH courses in the past. Suggest
5 years be retained for eligibility as a full member.

Certified Specialist – the name is a little confusing – are they
certified or full members or both? I am not sure if they should be
below or above or equal to a Full Member. In some cases these
professionals have their own professional bodies (is the AIOH going to
be certifying someone who is not a hygienist as a specialist?),
however it would be good to have a professional level that verifies
they can apply their professional skills to occupational health and
hygiene. However this level does need to be carefully administered to
ensure these specialists are indeed that.
Maybe specialist member of the AIOH (SMAIOH or MAIOH(S)) is more
suitable. The only issue is for example the range of scientific areas
– clearly being a specialist in an area may need to be defined -
occupational safety for example would similarly fit within my post-
graduate qualifications and experience so could I be a specialist
member as well as a full member?
I would suggest that the qualifying period should be minimum 5 years
in the field as were are referring to specialists levels.

Certified – It could be argued that Certified Status is neither a
membership level nor a qualification noting that there is no
additional qualifications required from that of Full Member nor should
someone be able to be a COH without being a Full or Specialist
With little difference between full member - this is now even going
to be more confusion with the full member and specialist levels which
also require achieving or maintenance points (and with the same or
equivalent qualifications as COH) – almost negating the purpose of
the certification! Maybe certification should be 8 years or so as on
the job experience is an important factor here.

A review of the certification to the scheme should also be undertaken,
in order to determine why the programme has had a poor uptake.