And that includes subcontractors.
Ever sub out part of your work? :blink:
I was referring only to the first part where that clause is present. The second part applies it also to subs, but between the two of them it still limits it to people working on your job site doing work that you are paying for.
It goes even further than requiring you to report non-compliant subs, it requires you to take positive action to check up on them.
For your own employees, you just have to report it after the fact if you become aware that somebody has faked his credentials.
I take all of that about subcontractors back after looking again at the actual language.....
It is also not clear to me that it is intended to apply to subcontractors, since you would not be directly supervising their work, just looking at the results.
(c) An owner, operator, manager, or supervisor of a business performing electrical services must check to see if an employee or independent contractor has the proper license under subchapter II of this chapter before allowing such employee or independent contractor to perform electrical work for such owner, operator, manager or supervisor.
It is also noteworthy that there is no penalty specified for failing to snitch, at least not in the published text. Just penalties for the unlicensed individual who did the work.
The language "independent contractor" is used in the tax code to describe an individual, not a group or company, who works largely without supervision on a task assigned by the management and has control over his own hours and working methods as long as he delivers the contracted results.
In the tax code, it identifies somebody who does not get a W-2 form from the company they are doing the work for, NOR do they get a W-2 from some other company who contracts out their work to the first company.
It would typically apply to a consultant or a freelancer, not to the employees of a subcontractor per se.
Last point: I think the language of the law is badly flawed in that it allows a large range of exceptions to the licensing requirement (in-house, DOT, agricultural), but does not say that this does not constitute electrical work, just that an electrical license is not necessary for the person doing that work.
Yet someone who hires such a person is required to report continuously to the board all of the electrical work that person does, since they are unlicensed.
Clearly not their intention, but that is the way it reads.
I guess you could argue that the second requirement for reportable incidents namely that the person does not have the license required by subchapter II is not met because no license is required in those cases. Hmmm.
Either this is nothing but a "marijuana stamp" law or they are truly interested in collecting valid statistics on work done by unlicensed persons.
