Health and Safety for Beginners Forums

Hi All

As one of my first steps towards a better job in a different area of the country, I'm taking up membership of either IOSH or IIRSM.

I've had a look at both websites, and am leaning towards the IOSH membership at Tech level. I'll have an opportunity on Tuesday to speak with reps from both organisations at a local SHE event, but would like some feedback/opinions from people at THIS end of the deal i.e. people who signed up with one or the other (or even both!)

Which would you recommend, and why. What benefits/drawbacks have you found with your membership?

Many regards

MM

IOSH has the kudos over IIRSM when job hunting

MM,
I am a memeber of both, but to be fair i get more out of IOSH eg branch meetings,Web site. IOSH does seem to be more recognised. You pays ya money !! PS i am debating if to renew my IIRSM next year as i dont get anything out of it.

IOSH it is then!

After a thorough viewing of the 2 websites, and looking at job adverts, IOSH seems to be the clear winner.

Monkeymick wrote:
As one of my first steps towards a better job in a different area of the country, I'm taking up membership of either IOSH or IIRSM.

I've had a look at both websites, and am leaning towards the IOSH membership at Tech level. I'll have an opportunity on Tuesday to speak with reps from both organisations at a local SHE event, but would like some feedback/opinions from people at THIS end of the deal i.e. people who signed up with one or the other (or even both!)

Which would you recommend, and why. What benefits/drawbacks have you found with your membership?

Many regards

MM

Hi All.

Basically having been involved in QSHE roles mainly H&S over the past 15 years I would say yes join both but as one person has already identified IOSH tend to care more about their Chartered members than anything else, they are also a great money making machine. I am not against IOSH in any way shape or form but from a personal level I find IIRSM is far superior to IOSH in the way it keeps in touch with its members. Certainly go for Tech IOsh but then if you don't keep up your cpd they will send a warning email to saying that your level of membership may be reduced.

Good luck in your new career.

MrQSHE30 wrote:

Monkeymick wrote:
As one of my first steps towards a better job in a different area of the country, I'm taking up membership of either IOSH or IIRSM.

I've had a look at both websites, and am leaning towards the IOSH membership at Tech level. I'll have an opportunity on Tuesday to speak with reps from both organisations at a local SHE event, but would like some feedback/opinions from people at THIS end of the deal i.e. people who signed up with one or the other (or even both!)

Which would you recommend, and why. What benefits/drawbacks have you found with your membership?

Many regards

MM

Hi All.

Basically having been involved in QSHE roles mainly H&S over the past 15 years I would say yes join both but as one person has already identified IOSH tend to care more about their Chartered members than anything else, they are also a great money making machine. I am not against IOSH in any way shape or form but from a personal level I find IIRSM is far superior to IOSH in the way it keeps in touch with its members. Certainly go for Tech IOsh but then if you don't keep up your cpd they will send a warning email to saying that your level of membership may be reduced.

Good luck in your new career.

A very warm welcome to HSfB MrQshe30.

Many thanks for your input to this query.

Agree with the above, there is very little in the way of IIRSM events in my area, though we have a new chair for the local IIRSM branch.

I know, IIRSM are now setting up the branches again and the future looks good.

I personally prefer IIRSM over IOSH.

IIRSM does put on events but not like in IOSH Branches but in my opinion they are better events with more quality about them but you may have to travel for them.

As mentioned above IOSH are better known in the UK job market but when working abroad IIRSM were better known

IIRSM Customer service is better than IOSH, again in my opinion. I have had a sour taste left in my mouth a couple of times with IOSH.

Horses for courses.

I maintain membership of both being a fellow of IIRSM and Graduate of IOSH but will not go further with IOSH.

Will

When I was researching the various membership options, what tipped the balance in favour of IOSH for me was the ability to advance in grade at the pace I dictated, not what the organisation dictated.
I was already qualified enough to get GradIOSH when I joined, having gained my NEBOSH Diploma, therefore I only needed to satisfy the additional SDP/CPD requirements before applying for CMIOSH. As it was, I flunked my 1st Peer Review through my own lack of preparation for the Panel process, so it set me back a year (IOSH have a mandatory 1 year wait before you can apply again should you not get past the Peer Review).
So I could, and should, have gained my CMIOSH in 2.5 years, but it actually took me nearly 4 years due to my own slip up on the day.

However, had I gone the IIRSM route, there is a mandatory 5 years membership before applying for Fellow.

To me, that was a no-brainer.

bernicarey wrote:When I was researching the various membership options, what tipped the balance in favour of IOSH for me was the ability to advance in grade at the pace I dictated, not what the organisation dictated.
I was already qualified enough to get GradIOSH when I joined, having gained my NEBOSH Diploma, therefore I only needed to satisfy the additional SDP/CPD requirements before applying for CMIOSH. As it was, I flunked my 1st Peer Review through my own lack of preparation for the Panel process, so it set me back a year (IOSH have a mandatory 1 year wait before you can apply again should you not get past the Peer Review).
So I could, and should, have gained my CMIOSH in 2.5 years, but it actually took me nearly 4 years due to my own slip up on the day.

However, had I gone the IIRSM route, there is a mandatory 5 years membership before applying for Fellow.

To me, that was a no-brainer.

Just as a point of clarity should anyone read the above going forward - the 1 year time bar if you fail your PRI isn't set. (It may have been when you did it though bernicarey). Panel can refer candidates and it may not actually need to be a year before being invited back dependent on what the reason for a fail was.

On the original query however, its IOSH all the way for me...but I am somewhat biased!

Jamie

JSP2016 wrote:

Just as a point of clarity should anyone read the above going forward - the 1 year time bar if you fail your PRI isn't set. (It may have been when you did it though bernicarey). Panel can refer candidates and it may not actually need to be a year before being invited back dependent on what the reason for a fail was.

On the original query however, its IOSH all the way for me...but I am somewhat biased!

Jamie

Jamie

That's very good to hear.
It most certainly was a full year back in 2013-14, but that wasn't the only problem with the 'system' back then.
Although, with hindsight, it wouldn't surprise me if the 'mandatory 12 months' that was in place wasn't a rule at all, but just an interpretation by the Membership Dept at the time.

When I failed to achieve a high enough score in 2013, it was extremely frustrating.
The promised 'Feedback' wasn't great, it was simply scans of the individual Board member's 'marking sheets' with negligable feedback content.
What it did allow me to do was compare the 3 panel members scores and see if there were any common sections that had scored low with each of them.

To give credit where due, I was given an excellent Mentor who reviewed my interview transcript and immediately spotted what I had done wrong; effectively giving too much credit to my 'Peers' as having the same baseline knowledge as myself, so therefore I had failed to explain myself sufficiently enough in just a couple of areas.

Having that information I would have been happy to reapply in perhaps 6 months.
However, the rule was that you had to wait a full 12 months before reapplying, not just re-attending, so consequently even though I reapplied as soon as I was allowed to, it was nearer 14-15 months before you could actually attend a review.

I would also say that in 2013, the whole PRI process was very haphazard and disorganised compared to my re-attendance in 2014.

In 2013 it took them around 6 weeks to let me know I hadn't succeeded; yet in 2014, I had my result within 22 hours.

So I'm very glad the system has continued to improve.