If you have to licensed electrical contractors, and contractor A "sub-contracts" contractor B to do a job, does contractor B need to be "certified" or does his own license cover him?

I think that he does not have to be "certified", but have heard otherwise?

Does anyone have a "source/reference" I could inquire to? I am thinking about asking the CSLB.

Thanks

Steve

Only "employees" of C-10 contractors that work with tools are required to be "Certified". And C-10 holders, who are "employees" of another C-10, and work with tools. Thats as far as the CA DAS goes....

The IRS sees any "Sub-Contractor" that gets a regular check as questionable as an "Employee". (A different story all together)

Anyway, many have seen the "Sub-contractor" route, as a way around "Certification". Not that you're trying to do that... It is a real big question that nobody as of yet that I know of, has an answer for.

It says nothing about sub-contracting... Just those employed by C-10's

(See the regulations and labor code links on this page.)http://www.dir.ca.gov/DAS/Electricaltrade.htm

And, Steve, the CSLB has nothing to do with this law. They will only direct you to the DIR/DAS, the peeps in charge of this fiasco. You need to speak to Jeanie Kaatz, in the Dept. of Apprenticeship jkaatz@dir.ca.gov (She doesn't answer e-mail too often, it is best to call her.... Try this number, and ask for her: (415) 703-4920) She is a paid consultant, supposedly in charge of information about this law. If you find anything out, let us know.

Mark

Why wouldn't contractor "B" just go get certified? It's really not that dificult.

After a couple of years of back-and-forth-opposite-sides-of-the-fence between e57 and myself, I think we've both just come to the conclusion that this thing is just one big bureaucratic mess.

http://www.dir.ca.gov/DAS/ECU_FAQ.htm

All - Thanks for the replies.

e57 - I was trying to remember what the "DAS" was so I could go to their site as well. From what dmattox states, a licensed C-10 would not have to be certified, so long as they are working under their own license. And yes, I truly belive this is a real cluster &$$#@ of a law, with many problems.

electure - I don't see why a "licensed" contractor should get certified. They have already passed their license requirements and according to CSLB their is no requirement for further certification or education (at least not yet). To get certified is (to me) just an additional cost, as you have to recertify every 3 years and you already have to renew your license every 2 years, neither of which are free. You can say it is a cost of doing business, which is true enough, but why add to that cost if you don't have to?

I (personally) beleive ............... Unions........... I know, that opens up a whole nother (is "nother" really a word?) can of worms that could be "discussed graciously" till the cows come home.

dmattox - thanks for the reference and quote.

Steve

[This message has been edited by electure (edited 09-27-2005).]

We stay out of Union or Non Union debate or criticism here, Steve

To all, I talked to a laywer buddy about some of the wording. And, BY NO MEANS IS THIS A LEGALLY BINDING OPINION, ('Cause it was free!) he felt, by the way it was worded, that it would depend on WHO pulled the permits. Who's license was on the permit, could determine WHO was responsable for the job. If 'A' pulled the permit, 'B' needs to be certified, or at least his employees do. (who actually do the work) And if 'B' pulled them, 'A' was only acting as a broker for ther work.

Electure, were we ever on opposite sides of the fence, so to speak? I didn't realize we were....

(I'm going to do my best not to go over the top, so bear with me...)

Personaly, I think certification is a great idea/concept/ideal even, just this law, is in the hands of the wrong entity. I'm sure when Davis signed it, he had no idea what he was doing. In a breif describtion, it sounded like a great idea... A higher standard of edjucation, and training for electricians, recipical licensing with other states, etc. (Which I am all for!)What I'm sure Davis had no idea of, was the politics... (We might be on opposite sides of the fence there, I don't know?)

The law has been re-worded in several incarnations over the years. (The Fed's first glimps of it made them threaten to drop ALL appenticeship funding state-wide in the original wording... Forcing some concessions.) But right now, IMPO, it is still in the hands of the wrong entity, the CSLB should be handling this, not the DAS. (Electure, I know that you've felt that I have an agenda about it. But, I think we can both agree that the DAS had an agenda first off. And you know I have kept my head about, and out of it here on ECN, with some promting of course.) Personally, this matter is best handled by the CSLB for some wide ranging reasons. Partial, they have facilities already in place for testing, a closer relationship with Union, and non-union construction trades, have simular enforcment proceedures for aspestos workers, the list goes on, and on. And that is one thing that needs to change at this point, or this law is going to go nowhere.... If left in the hands of the DAS, they will coninue to drag thier feet (Purposely IMO) until they feel they can get what they want.... (Whatever that is... Thats a big secret too.)

As it stands now, the state needs 60,000+ electricians to be certified by the end of the year. And by the current RATE (Over the life of this law), they could start enforcing it by, lets say, 2020! Its a joke!

Oh you posted the forum censur thing while I was carefully wording my post, I hope I don't get my card punched. (BTW) Where on earth did you get thet smiley?

(Union or not) Lets think about it, this needs to be talked about seriously, and what better place....

Mark,
As long as we stick to factual things about this without getting into the "fuzzy math" type things, I think it should be discussed in depth.
We have, I think, basically agreed in concept all along, but not in the presentations

I've been saving the smiley for a special occasion

There was another post in between the 2 I have here. Unfortunately, due to its content, Roger had to remove it. I've left mine intact


Guys, you are really pushing it.

Is this another one of those threads that will have to be shut down because you can't behave?

Very simply put for the umpteenth time:

Religion=NO
Politics=NO
Ethnic=NO
Racial=NO
Gender=NO
Sexuality=NO
Union vs Non Union=NO
Vulgarity/Profanity=NO

If you think these type things are instrumental in your discussion, do it via email or take it to the chat room.

{edited to add italicized text above}



[This message has been edited by electure (edited 09-27-2005).]

Electure's post is non negotiable.

I ask that we all abide by the rules.

As Electure says, there are places and areas these issues can be discussed but not on the forums.

Thank you

Roger

[This message has been edited by Roger (edited 09-27-2005).]

Oh, the "fuzzy math" thing...

If you're talking about the rise in C-10 license application, it did go up. No you're right, I did only track C-10's, I should have tracked all licenses.... Next time I'll get get ALL of the numbers, and see if we can "un-fuzzy" the numbers, would that be OK?

Or was it the super-double-secret certified guys, and out of state army of electricians storming the Nevada and Oregon border conspiracy? I told you, I got that directly from an angry guy who happened to be pulling my leg....

Either way, numbers at this point are subjective...

However, I would like to participate in the "Postponement Pool", if Gambling were allowed.

I agree...we are all professionals, and we should act as such. There are other places where one can spout heated rhetoric, if your heart needs a pressure boost!

I am not in California. Nor am I associated in any way with any union. Nor did the non-union apprentice programs see fit to allow me into their hallowed halls. Nor would anyone recognise my very real work experience.
Thankfully, most of those hurdles are behind me now.

My point is- it is too easy to find a job, get valuable, in-depth training.....and find out when you leave that you have no way to quantify that training to future employers. You leave the job with only your hat in your hand!

Certain trade unions -IBEW being in the forefront- got the ball rolling in the right direction, with the development of a formal apprentice program, standard training- and a journeyman card at the end. Now the working stiff had something to back up his claims!

I see the California certification as a step in the right direction as well. While I am sure that it will not be perfect, it will provide a way to document your qualifications.

After all, we've all known charming BS artists who claimed to have built the space shuttle, with duct tape and a Swiss knife! I even seem to recall hearing of a senior government official who had a fancier resume than life!

California has no hold over me- but I just might pony up the $$$ for the benefit of a credential like that; Nevada has no state regulation of electricians.

We put as much effort into out training as any doctor, lawyer, or engineer. Unfortunatly, too many of us have nothing to hang on the wall for it. There are even "degreed professional only" clubs that consider us as little more than gutter scum. There is a place for a piece of paper we can all point to and say "I earned it- and you wouldn't make the grade!"

Mark (e57), I laud your restraint
The thing that wasn't factored into your earlier equation? Not everyone applied for contractors licenses in order to circumvent the certification program. I'll bet some of them applied for the same reason as you and I did when we got ours.....to contract!!

I think I've finally learned that if something sounds too good to be true, it is. This started out as an ideal, and ended up as a mess.
As to the "Postponement Pool", the odds of guessing correctly are too bad to get my bet. (maybe there's a Ouija Board somewhere they've used as a tool for decision making.)

Reno, you make some great points there, and I totaly agree!

The main reason, I even have issue with this law is that it is not an "Electrician, or Journeyman Law", it is an "Apprenticeship" law. After this gets inforced, (when-ever that is?) It will limit or restrict entry to the trade. The currently established apprenticeship programs can not deal with the current levels of demand in the trade. (For instance, Local 6 here in SF takes in 100 every other year or so, but the line to apply is well over 1000! Some years they don't take anyone. It could take years to get in, if you were willing to wait.) And the demand for apprentices, and journeyman labor far outstrips what they can deliver here. There are, for the time being, other Apprenticeship Programs, but there is this "Other" quirky law in the Labor Code.

That section of law goes on to say, that addition progams could be allowed, if demand is present... If the chief of that area, in the DAS deems it nessesary. Its like dealing with a NEC code that is vague, and subject to interpitation. The DAS just doesn't see the demand... (Or want to see it.) In fact they have closed some programs down, while they go forward with the certification law.

And seeing that the company I work for wouldn't be able to draw apprentices from the JATC. The nearest "Geographical location" we could draw from is about 80 miles away, and they can't satisfy the demand either!

Anyway, my point is, after it goes through, it will be even harder to get labor than it is now. And restrict even further the flow of people into the trade, where it is already hard to attract them in the first place. It's not good buisiness sense.

I just don't think appenticeship needs to be institutionalized. Especially if those institutions can't handle the demand.

Sorry Electrure, you posted while I was in find-law....

Ouija board is about the ticket.

Post dinner edit....
The pool could work, you could buy-in parts of years as a block....

As for the numbers, I'm going to get some more. The thing about people going for licenses vs. certification is that I have heard from people following, or looking to follow that path. Presisely for the reason that started this post, sub-contracting... And it wasn't like a 5% growth factor, it rose about 30% over 3 years starting 2001. One of the many years this was to start. But you are right, I should've gotten all of them. If C-10 were out of line with the rest, or out of scale with with growth of the rest, it might light the picture better on either way. It is funny that about the same amount of people got licenses as got certified in the same period. Not that it means anything, just funny.



[This message has been edited by e57 (edited 09-27-2005).]

Your labor affiliation nor your completion of an apprenticeship has NEVER been an indicator to me of Code knoweldge. Of course I only see a small percentage of electricians in the state as a city inspector.

The knowledgeable electricians who post here shows me it does not have to be this way.


I too also believe the certification program is a great thing and a benefit to participants, employers and customers.

Unfortunately it is not managed well. Wow, I was pretty nice to the DAS this time.

Even with good management of the program, the benefits would not be reaped for years.

After reading this debate here for the past however-many years it's been going on, I can only come up with one solution to solve the beaurocratic mess: California needs to be broken up into 3 or more states.

Laugh if you want, but I'm serious about that. It's out of control. I agree that a certification process is a great thing. But when the monster gets so large that it can't be tamed anymore, it's time to think outside the box.

Peter

Actually, the splitting of the state in two has been tossed around.

Nothing will ever come of it, I think.

Politicians are not interested in the good of the people.

The San Andreas fault is the logical line for this split, so that the borders wouldn't have to be redefined later.

Problem with splitting the State... is where does it get split? I vote for splitting from just south, or north of Santa Cruz then due east.

Anyway, I have alot of critizisms of this law, but this is what needs to change...

• Rest the certification of journeymen from the DAS, to the CSLB.
• Re-vamp the testing to be more reflective of real world trade knowlege, rather than a reading, or english language comrehention test. (Right now the test is solely code interpitaion, look at the NEC forum here and see how braodly some things could be interpitated as...) Add more installation, circuit design, electrical and job-site safety. Dare I say it, something simular to the inside wiremans exam...
• Re-vamp the law I mentioned above to allow more programs that can actually meet the real demand for labor. (Allow the expansion of existing, like ABC etc. Community Colleges... And even allow privatization of coursework, with manditory supervised OJT.)

I'm a million % behind Electure, some of you guys seem to have a very SHORT memory!.
It wasn't that long ago when we were locking out threads here for the same reason.
As Scott said:
You know what annoys me the most?.
Is the fact that most of the people that are making all the noise here, haven't even been in the chat rooms lately.
Unreal.