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 firstname.lastname@example.org (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 Heller "Well - I oughta....." -Jackie Gleason
#56597 - 09/26/0506:22 AMRe: California Certification
2. I have a C-10 license; do I have to be certified?
If you are the holder of a valid C-10 license and are working under that license, certification is not required. However, if you are performing covered electrical work not under your own valid license - for example, if your license is not in effect for some reason, or you are working under someone else's C-10 license - certification is required.
#56599 - 09/26/0512:44 PMRe: California Certification
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.
[This message has been edited by electure (edited 09-27-2005).]
#56600 - 09/26/0508:50 PMRe: California Certification
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!
Mark Heller "Well - I oughta....." -Jackie Gleason
#56602 - 09/26/0509:54 PMRe: California Certification
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
#56604 - 09/27/0506:53 AMRe: California Certification