California Certification Enforcement

[e57]

I don't think the law is too harsh. you are reading into it too much. Willful.
That statement alone make room for plenty of excuses.

And I respectfully don't agree with you reagarding the using the words stop. The contractor realizes that he is doing wrong. The Inspector is just stating that if he continues he will file a complaint. The choice is up to the EC.

The word willfull does offer an out - but it is one that can be ignored as the saying goes - "Ignorance of the law..." However the reason I say it is harsh is that there has been very little and late out-reach on the law - infact the DAS is still linking to an obsolete version on their website to conceal the consequenses for violating it - I think purposefully so... JMSO

As for the word 'stop' in the context of inspectors and the use of what could be preceived as a threat.... (If put that way) They had better be DAMNED SURE the guy they tell to stop is not certified - or they stand to get sued.... I'm not an inspector - but I am sure the general demeaner of an inspector could get a city sued quick if some inspector decided to stop a job without grounds... i.e. he had better be really sure....

Back on topic though.... (So to speak) the OP was about 'promoting a level playing field'. i.e. educating GC's, architechs, engineers and developers about the law and requesting them to make a slight change in contract documents to require certification. IMO this is the best alternative to government regulation or the goose stepping minion of the DAS sicking the license police after poeple. Which would affect both the Uncertified person - the C-10 holder as an employer, and quite of possibly other Certified guys.

If section 16 had the following - people who did not have their guys up to snuff might think twice about bidding... IMO

"Licensed C-10 Electrical Contractor required to perform all work. Additionally, all Electrical Labor must comply with 3099 of the California Labor Code, and provide evidence in support of employees used."

And if Joe Blow's Electric can not provide documentation for his guys - it gives him a black eye with his client. Just as much as not having workmans comp might. Or not having a license at all - since it is an announcement that his is at risk.... IMO

The question is what do you think of that?

 

[Sierrasparky]

Quote:
"Licensed C-10 Electrical Contractor required to perform all work. Additionally, all Electrical Labor must comply with 3099 of the California Labor Code, and provide evidence in support of employees used."

I think that too leaves an out. "A Licensed C-10 Electrical Contractor required to provide and perform all Electrical work as defined in sect xxxx of B&P for private or public works projects. Additionally, all Electrical Labor provided must comply with 3099 of the California Labor Code regardless if actual electrical work is done by a A or B license holder, and each employee provide evidence at all times while on the Job in support of such."
exeption 1: owner builder performing work as owner occupied of single family dwelling shall not be subject to the above.

Now that is a law.

 

[e57]

Quote:
"Licensed C-10 Electrical Contractor required to perform all work. Additionally, all Electrical Labor must comply with 3099 of the California Labor Code, and provide evidence in support of employees used."

I think that too leaves an out. "A Licensed C-10 Electrical Contractor required to provide and perform all Electrical work as defined in sect xxxx of B&P for private or public works projects. Additionally, all Electrical Labor provided must comply with 3099 of the California Labor Code regardless if actual electrical work is done by a A or B license holder, and each employee provide evidence at all times while on the Job in support of such."
exeption 1: owner builder performing work as owner occupied of single family dwelling shall not be subject to the above.

Now that is a law.

That too is not bad, and exactly what I'm looking for in an opinion.... While it does need a little legal vetting - just as much as mine does... It will however get the irk of all them '3 trades' zealot GC's who happen to have a lobby like no other it seems.... I was thinking of a wording that takes the B's out - without actually saying it - but very clear... That's tricky..... Just the type of things lawers are all about - additionally it has to be promoted with a clear intent, much like the cert law was about 'safety' but really was a ruse.... Promote one aspect and get the other..... That part is hard.

FWIW - I want to get rid of school bussing - as a "Green Inititive" - no more driving kids to work when they can walk like the old days....

 

[cowboyjwc]

Let me see if I can explain it another way that might make more sense.

You guys don't do anything that you don't get paid for. Well the state gets paid a fee for electricians to get certified. Our jurisdiction doesn't see a dime of that money. If the state wants us to enforce it then they need to share the wealth.

 

[ike5547]

You guys don't do anything that you don't get paid for. Well the state gets paid a fee for electricians to get certified. Our jurisdiction doesn't see a dime of that money. If the state wants us to enforce it then they need to share the wealth.

Seems a somewhat mercenary attitude for a local government.

On the other hand, it is unfair to expect you personally to strike out on your own and enforce certification vigilante style. Uniform policies need to be in place for the local building departments. If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't start trying to 'card' electricians either--Not until it became an official part of my job description.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Let me see if I can explain it another way that might make more sense.

You guys don't do anything that you don't get paid for. Well the state gets paid a fee for electricians to get certified. Our jurisdiction doesn't see a dime of that money. If the state wants us to enforce it then they need to share the wealth.

The local building dept checks for workers comp, and current license. There is no " show me the money there". Building depts have been given the same directive to do those checks as they have to check and look for certification.
http://www.cslb.ca.gov/Resources/GuidesAndPamphlets/CALBOGuidelines.pdf

I would see that it is the responsibility of the building dept. How do you justify which laws to enforce and which to ignore? How many contractors in your area are in violation.

 

[ike5547]

If funding is required it would most likely take the form of increased permit fees, etc. Around here they just recently doubled those fees, however.

 

[Sierrasparky]

If funding is required it would most likely take the form of increased permit fees, etc. Around here they just recently doubled those fees, however.

I realize that point and the reason for my persistence is that those depts alway cry funding. How much time does it take to check for certs on the job. There are Bldg depts that want to see your workers comp and or current license.
And then How long does it really take to file a report. just a couple of lines on a online PDF doc. and away it goes. It's now the problem of the CSLB.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Hey I just thought of this.
My question goes to the inspectors/Buiding officials.
Does the buiding Dept. get extra money to enforce the building codes?
Do they get extra cash to check complaince for AFCI's
Do they get extra Cash to check for proper wiring methods.
Do they get extra Cash to check for title 24?
Do they get extra Cash to check license???????????

 

[cowboyjwc]

Hey I just thought of this.
My question goes to the inspectors/Buiding officials.
Does the buiding Dept. get extra money to enforce the building codes?
Do they get extra cash to check complaince for AFCI's
Do they get extra Cash to check for proper wiring methods.
Do they get extra Cash to check for title 24?
Do they get extra Cash to check license???????????

1) We get paid through the permit process to enforce the model codes.
2) If it's in the code book I get paid to check for it. I do not check to see if it works.
3) Again part of the permit process
4) Yes, we charge a 25% surcharge for Title 24 (accessibility and energy)
5) Yes you are charged a fee for pulling a permit, these fees include, SMIP (paid to the State), CA Green fee (paid to the state), Records retention fee, permit automation fee, and an issuance fee (clerks time, license check, comp check, business check, etc)

These are all recoverable costs. When you pull a permit that permit should cover all of my time, including record keeping and also my truck. If you think that a service change covers my cost's you are mistaken. Our department is selfsupporting. So if the state wants me to spend an extra 15-30 minutes a job checking certs (x's that by 10 jobs a day on average) then we need to recover those costs. The law has not been written that allows us to do that.

 

[Sierrasparky]

1) We get paid through the permit process to enforce the model codes.
2) If it's in the code book I get paid to check for it. I do not check to see if it works.
3) Again part of the permit process
4) Yes, we charge a 25% surcharge for Title 24 (accessibility and energy)
5) Yes you are charged a fee for pulling a permit, these fees include, SMIP (paid to the State), CA Green fee (paid to the state), Records retention fee, permit automation fee, and an issuance fee (clerks time, license check, comp check, business check, etc)

These are all recoverable costs. When you pull a permit that permit should cover all of my time, including record keeping and also my truck. If you think that a service change covers my cost's you are mistaken. Our department is selfsupporting. So if the state wants me to spend an extra 15-30 minutes a job checking certs (x's that by 10 jobs a day on average) then we need to recover those costs. The law has not been written that allows us to do that.

Just wondering,Are you on the job while responding to these threads?
Are you using a company computer paid for by the taxpayers?

 

[ike5547]

Even something as simple as requiring a permit applicant to certify under penalty of perjury that they will only use certified/registered workers would have a positive effect. Then maybe mail a copy of this to the client and/or owner of the property.

 

[ike5547]

e57's idea that mandatory language be inserted into contracts is also a good idea. Seems simple enough. I think these are some basic steps that should be taken before we even think about having inspectors verify journeyman cards in the field.

 

[Sierrasparky]

If section 16 had the following - people who did not have their guys up to snuff might think twice about bidding

I don't know if Div 16 is an enforced document. It usually is job specific. It rarely comes into play in smaller private works.
The enforcement of certificated or unlicensed contractors/workers is an entirely different deal. We already have in the public bids process that contractors must pay prevailing wages. This is never verified. ( hardly)

 

[cowboyjwc]

Just wondering,Are you on the job while responding to these threads?
Are you using a company computer paid for by the taxpayers?

Awww, so we're gonna play that card. That one's usually reserved for ticked off homeowners.

Permit fee's pay my salary, what's left over goes into the general fund which is taxpayer based, and since I live in town that means I pay into it too.

I actually find this fourm very valuable. I use many of the things I read here for training purposes and I hope that some of the things I post are used for the same reason. Our computers are very strictly monitored and this is one of the few sites that have been released for me to view.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Awww, so we're gonna play that card. That one's usually reserved for ticked off homeowners.

Permit fee's pay my salary, what's left over goes into the general fund which is taxpayer based, and since I live in town that means I pay into it too.

I actually find this fourm very valuable. I use many of the things I read here for training purposes and I hope that some of the things I post are used for the same reason. Our computers are very strictly monitored and this is one of the few sites that have been released for me to view.

Thanks for being straight up. That was quite respectful of you. It's just very frustraiting that there are so many laws on the books with the intent to protect, but no one willing to enforce. I find it very difficult to comply when others don't. I respect your opinion although I don't see as cut and dry as you do.
I assume you are in Ventura County. I was wondering if your department belong to CALBO? What do they think of the expectations of the Building department to help the CLSB in enforcement?

-

 

[ike5547]

It's just very frustraiting that there are so many laws on the books with the intent to protect, but no one willing to enforce.
-

Enforcement? But it's so much easier, not to mention hilarious, for them to just take our money and snarl us in red tape. Why enforcement?

 

[Sierrasparky]

Enforcement? But it's so much easier, not to mention hilarious, for them to just take our money and snarl us in red tape. Why enforcement?

I know it's frustraiting because I've been there. let the guy reply.

 

[ike5547]

let the guy reply.

You mean cowboyjwc?

He's just an employee, a mere cog, in the machine (no offense). What can he do? He is not personally authorized to do anything. In fact, it may even be possible for him to get himself in trouble here.

 

[cowboyjwc]

Thanks for being straight up. That was quite respectful of you. It's just very frustraiting that there are so many laws on the books with the intent to protect, but no one willing to enforce. I find it very difficult to comply when others don't. I respect your opinion although I don't see as cut and dry as you do.
I assume you are in Ventura County. I was wondering if your department belong to CALBO? What do they think of the expectations of the Building department to help the CLSB in enforcement?

-

You give respect, you get respect.:smile: I haven't lied to you yet.

I don't disagree with you about the laws and your right, it's not as cut and dry as I tried to explain it, but the way the laws are written is that if the state charges a fee for the certification that fee should also include the enforcement of the law. If you are not going to be enforcing it then you shouldn't charge for it and if you are going to charge for it you should divide the funds amongst all of the statewide jurisdiction so they can do it for you. Unless the law is written to include who is responsible for the enforcement.

The fee for working without a permit used to be, double the permit fee up to $1000. Recently the law was changed and the most we can charge is $207 dollars. If you figure that they calc my time at $41 an hour it's not hardly worth the city's time for me to go out to the job, write the notice and the follow up letter and follow it up. Is it the right thing to do, Yes and do we do it Yes, but You get my drift.

You are right on both counts and I may bring it up with the new BO.

Have we beat this dead horse enough?:grin::grin: