ECN Forum Forums General Topics of the Trade General Discussion Area Work Performed by Unlicensed Electricians

I sure would not slam you for telling the truth.

Gentlemen:

LK brought up the NOW 34 hours of CE in NJ, a 'big' jump from the 10 hour previous requirement. (1 HR of LAW, 9 of NEC Changes)

Yes, as a EC, the 10 was a 'pain', and the 34 is worse (aside from the 24 for AHJ + 16 for Sub-Code)........BUT

It's amazing how many EC's don't know, or pretend they don't know the LAW PART.

It's more amazing how many EC's claim "I Didn't know that changed" when the State (NJ) adopts and enforces the new edition of the NEC.

I know this first hand, as I work as a PT AHJ, so I see both sides of the fence.

The added 24 can be a burden if you go at it with that attitude. It COULD be a good experience if you give it a chance. You reap what you sow........

Now, as to the 'guys' doing the CE classes, yes they do it for a profit, why would they not?? Some of the guys make a living by doing electrical courses; contractor prep, one-on-one, inspector prep, CE, etc.

If no one makes the effort to teach, no one will be taught, and we may have to import 'sparkies' from the far east to do the job, to go along with all the 'outsorceing' that's hurting the economy.

Now, I'll get of my soap box & get back to the paperwork.

John

John,

You noted that you see both sides, and if contractors are telling you they they don't know the laws, I can't believe additional hours will be the cure, that dog will just not hunt, no mater how many hours are added, but don't beat all the dog's.
No one will argue with additional instruction, however, vendors pitching a product in the name of education, should not fly. When I speak of for profit instruction, I am refering to all the mail pitches for CEU credits. An industry just grew overnight or was it overnight that it grew.
John, I am all for quality education, and would be the first to defend it, I also respect your views, on this issue, your exposure to both sides makes your opinion valuable.
What may be a better approach to the hours requirement, would be to add courses that are needed to better enable the contractor to excell in his area of need, it appears the law section is one such area, and i am sure that all the active inspectors know all the areas that need improvement.
I sure hope we have an inspector on the board
to make suggestions, for CEU hours. If not there should be.

You give a man the tools and a plan, he will build.


[This message has been edited by LK (edited 03-09-2004).]

This is a subject I deal with at work. The guy I work for has app. out in vans by themselfs all the time.

Here we recently changed from 15 hrs to 15 and 5, this is once per code cycle.

15 hrs code and 5 hrs "trade related" this is open for me to choose, any OSHA, first aid, CPR, safety or electrical training course will do.

The 15 hr part is a highly structured class about code changes.

Yes I went to one and have heard of other 15 hr class's that are just time waisting BS sessions, now I know what instructor to choose.

Go to the right instructor and you can really learn the changes, I do not think many people would really go through the book on their own to learn the new changes.

I say bring on continuing ed. anything that makes me more trained keeps my wages higher, the standards in this state to get a either a Journeyman's or Masters just keep going up meaning less people are coming in and the ones that do make it are committed to the trade.

20 hrs and about $125 from me every 3 years is not much of a hardship in my opinion.

I see far to many electricians that do not know the changes, I am not a inspector I work in a company with about 200 electricians and apprentices. Some of them would not pick up a code book at all if they did not have to for these class's.

Time to step off my soap box.

Bob

Joe, I think all of the work listed should be performed by a licensed electrician or under the direct supervision of the licensed electrician filing the applications, especially since each item is addressed in the NEC. I don't think electrical licenses should be taken casually. Usually, those who take our licenses casually are those without them. Most of us in the electrical industry are fotunate to have licensing laws in the jurisdictions where we work which provide a level of achievement, quality, and responsibility. Of course a license doesn't guarantee competence across the board, but it does substantially raise the overall quality of our trade.

When an electrical accident occurs with loss of life, watch how casual the lawyers are about licenses and supervision.

Andy

John,

Moving the CEU's from 10 to 34 hours might have something to do with the Contractor's Associations. Do you see the county contractors trade assoc. giving credit for every meeting that you attend? I felt that 10 or even 15 hours was enough time to refresh all the lic. contractors and bring them up on the new code changes. Some of the old timers would never crack open the newest additions of the newest codes when they came out.

Harold

Andy (Cavo148) - I've got to (partially) disagree with you on this one.

While I'd love to see these fall under the "licensed EC required" portion (if only for the $$), as long as the person performing these tasks understands how to position the items in question, and the fact the fastening needs to be done in a workmanlike manner (meeting NEC req's about interior protrusion, etc), why couldn't an apprentice do these tasks w/o direct visual supervision?

I'll yield on the actual physical installation and connection of current carrying components, and their associated fittings (connectors, bonding pigtails, running NM, securing NM, mounting panels, etc)

I'm also willing to concede that, even with marked heights / depths and locations,[story stick thread ] a truly clueless App or helper might goof on the physical installation of boxes or cans.

But moving supplies?

Unboxing fixtures?

I need to directly supervise my helpers, or hire a Licensed EC to do these tasks?

Of course, I could be misunderstanding your use of "direct supervision"...

Couldn't supervision be achieved through the EC reviewing the work performed by his subordinates?

[This message has been edited by DougW (edited 03-10-2004).]

Doug, I can only speak in relation to NJ State and NYC where I'm licensed and work. Ultimately, the licensed electrician filing the job is 100% responsible to see the work meets or exceeds the appropriate code. When nobody files the work, then the property owner gets the bullet in the neck.

If a laborer moves some material such as pre-cut pieces of 500kcm across the floor by dragging it over steel studding debris, is the licensee off the hook if the insulation is damaged and goes unnoticed until after it's pulled through conduit? If a GC's carpenter who has nothing to do for a moment is told to open oversized fixture boxes to free up some storage space and decides to throw out some installation warning notices, is the licensee off the hook for not following manufacturer's instructions when a fixture falls? I have seen many disputes over these very such incidents. I don't mean to say that the licensee should don pinstripes and a referee's whistle to watch over his crew, but the law says supervision is required. Unfortunately, these definitions; "supervised", "directly supervised", etc., don't become truly definitive until they reach the courts.

I think we all have an understanding of what a "licensed electrician" is, but an "unlicensed eletrician" could be the greatest electrician to have ever walked the earth and a direct descendant of Thomas Edison, or he could be the ex-rodeo clown I hired this morning, eh? BTW, nothing against rodeo clowns, some of my best friends are...well you know.

As you may be able to tell by my opinion, I've completed 24 of those 34 CE hours. I think the manufacturing industries have been brought to their knees through outsourcing and we in the service industry are next. If the law is on our side we should promote it and not let it slip into gray areas where the cost cutters lurk.

Just my opinion,
Andy

[This message has been edited by cavo148 (edited 03-11-2004).]

I don't think this is something that can be decided on the basis of specific tasks. Each situation is different; each person is different.

The responsibility lies on the license holder or senior man to teach the apprentices and helpers the correct way, the safe way, to do a job.

The responsibility is also on the helper or apprentice to understand their limitations. If they don't know how to do something, if they can't ensure the safety of their installation then it shouldn't be done, certainly not unsupervised.

A person should be judged by their abilities and their talents, not simply their title.

-John