STU - Steel & Tube Holdings

[Joshuatree]

Yes , listened to CEO being interviewed this morn on National Radio . Had an excuse that wasn't, refused to answer critical questions, very unprofessional, came across shocking.

[winner69]

Yes , listened to CEO being interviewed this morn on National Radio . Had an excuse that wasn't, refused to answer critical questions, very unprofessional, came across shocking.

The interview

http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/201793532

Only thing he really admitted was there were thousands of these 'certificates'

Trust isverything. Wonder what oer things ae 'mistakenly' been done latelyi

[winner69]

So the production manager is also in charge of the testing lab issuing certicates (Radio NZ this morning). Lab not accredited either.

STU seem loathe to get independent checks done. Be a disaster if found if this mesh didn't comply wouldn't it

Looks like making money for shareholders (and management bonuses?) higher priority than good practices and company reputation and that's not considering any implications about the integrity of the buildings this steel gone into.

[thedrunkfish]

They forgot to update a form..... dont spill your coffee.

[macduffy]

They forgot to update a form..... dont spill your coffee.

Unfortunately, it looks a little more serious than that.The testing was apparently carried out in the comopany's own lab; the lab's not properly accredited; and the manager who signed off on the cerificate is also a factory manager. Meanwhile, being very careful with my coffee.

[sideline]

Unfortunately, it looks a little more serious than that.The testing was apparently carried out in the comopany's own lab; the lab's not properly accredited; and the manager who signed off on the cerificate is also a factory manager. Meanwhile, being very careful with my coffee.

Apparently in-house testing is entirely normal and accepted practice in the industry. Nothing illegal in that.

I suspect this storm in a tea-cup got whipped up by those competitors who DID actually get pulled up for
selling suspected sub-strength imported mesh by ComCom and had to withdraw their product from market.

Funny you don't hear about the worried owners of the houses where that stuff was used, instead everybody
is talking about one stamp too much on the form of STU.

[RTM]

Apparently in-house testing is entirely normal and accepted practice in the industry. Nothing illegal in that.

I suspect this storm in a tea-cup got whipped up by those competitors who DID actually get pulled up for
selling suspected sub-strength imported mesh by ComCom and had to withdraw their product from market.

Funny you don't hear about the worried owners of the houses where that stuff was used, instead everybody
is talking about one stamp too much on the form of STU.

Agreed Sideline. In house testing is not an issue in itself. What is interesting is that the company, unless I have missed it, has not come out and defended its testing system to give everyone confidence that it is at least comparable to that performed by Holmes. I am quite surprised that they have not done this and that makes me wonder if there is more than just using the wrong logo on the testing certificate behind the issue. I am not sure if they have an accredited quality system, ISO9001 ?, couldn't see any reference to one on their website. So it may be that the testing done has not been rigorous or well done ? I guess they will be expecting a pretty significan audit...and that may be the reason for the silence, especially if there are any testing anomalies.

[sideline]

Agreed Sideline. In house testing is not an issue in itself. What is interesting is that the company, unless I have missed it, has not come out and defended its testing system to give everyone confidence that it is at least comparable to that performed by Holmes. I am quite surprised that they have not done this and that makes me wonder if there is more than just using the wrong logo on the testing certificate behind the issue. I am not sure if they have an accredited quality system, ISO9001 ?, couldn't see any reference to one on their website. So it may be that the testing done has not been rigorous or well done ? I guess they will be expecting a pretty significan audit...and that may be the reason for the silence, especially if there are any testing anomalies.

RTM,
can't find any ISO stuff either.
In their Corporate Profile STU talk a bit about their quality standards and in particular about the reinforcing mesh (page 15).
In particular they say: "Before it
leaves the factory floor, each sheet
of reinforcing is tested and tagged
with a unique identifier linking the
sheet to its test certification, date
of manufacture and quality control
data. The tag remains with the
sheet throughout the life of the
product and can be used to track
performance years after the sheet
is installed"

[winner69]

RTM,
can't find any ISO stuff either.
In their Corporate Profile STU talk a bit about their quality standards and in particular about the reinforcing mesh (page 15).
In particular they say: "Before it
leaves the factory floor, each sheet
of reinforcing is tested and tagged
with a unique identifier linking the
sheet to its test certification, date
of manufacture and quality control
data. The tag remains with the
sheet throughout the life of the
product and can be used to track
performance years after the sheet
is installed"

Ok - lets dig a bit of concrete up to find out

[thedrunkfish]

I can't see the issue. It is standard industry practice and legal for them to do their own testing. The only issue was that the testing laboratoy they used to use was still on the certification form. This was discovered during an internal audit.