California Elect. Contractor question

[Bob Anchorite]

I am a student taking code classes. The instructor and others were having an argument over whether a licensed master electrical contractor (C-10) license has the right to actually perform the work. Wondering if a person with 30 years experience and a C-10 license would not actually be qualified to do actual work. Does anyone know for sure the answer for this in California.

Bob

 

[acrwc10]

there are two things that can happen when you are licenced as a c-10 in California, You can be a "Quallifier" for a company and the company is licenced. In that case if you leave to company they need to get a new "Quallifier"They are called the RME or resonceable maniging employee. Or you can be the licence holder, usally a sole owner, In this case you have to have minimum of 4 years in the trade under a quallified employer.then you take a two part test, trade and law.If you pass you are issued a c-10 licence and you can do the work "hands on" your self or have employees work for you.If you have employees they are supposed to be certified as a journeyman,or under the supervision of a journeyman and enrolled in training classes.

 

[acrwc10]

quallified and licensed are not always synonimous.

 

[norcal]

You can work under your own C10 lic. but if you work under someone else's lic. you must be certified, but I suspect that compliance is quite iffy at the moment.

 

[acrwc10]

You can work under your own C10 lic. but if you work under someone else's lic. you must be certified, but I suspect that compliance is quite iffy at the moment.

that is why I said "supposed to by cirtified" I have not heard of who is going to enforce the new law. I see this as a way to place the blame in a court room. I like the new law, I just hope they find a way to enforce it effectively.It is my oppinion that it makes for an unlevel playing field, those of us who comply and those that think it isn't important to use quallified help.

 

[noxx]

but I suspect that compliance is quite iffy at the moment.

I nominate this for understatement of the year.

Californias enforcement is in an incredibly sorry state.

 

[e57]

We dont have a "master" licence - we just have a C-10 no other distinctions of Residential, Commercial or Industrial either.

You can find most of the B&P codes that govern California Contractors here:
http://198.187.128.12/california/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0

California Code of Regulations
Division 8, Title 16, Article 3. Classification
C10 – Electrical Contractor
An electrical contractor places, installs, erects or connects any electrical wires, fixtures, appliances, apparatus, raceways, conduits, solar photovoltaic cells or any part thereof, which generate, transmit, transform or utilize electrical energy in any form or for any purpose.

I will also note that the laws governing contracors and licensing of them is done by the CSLB! They do NOT have any laws govering workers except for Aspestos workers... Union or non-union... That said, I can and do use tools and work with them installing anything I want when working under my own license and seen as qualified to do so. But working under an employers license I need to be "certified" by the DAS....

Recently enacted laws under the guidence and enforcement (if it can be called that) of another agency (the DAS), and hotly debated over the years is the "Electrician Certification Program". which is run by the DAS, under the wings of the DIR, who govern laws concerning labor and workers. (As well as the dividing wedge of labor and management) They are running this little program of theirs into the ground and as a thorn in the side "contractors" that they have little to do with outside of Apprenticeship programs - IMO It is really an "Apprenticeship" law in a sense mandating apprenticeship for entry to our trade specifically. Not plumbers, carpenters or any other trade.... And thier de-ceritification of all but JATC programs at the same time was seen as afront to all but a certain few. (those who came from, or were in, or fund JATC programs) After several years of debate, and lawsuits did they reluctantly agree to other programs and now only shuffle thier feet with this law of thiers. Essentially used as a tool to control entry to the trade, and if left to thier own devices without keen over-site to control the industry itself by saying only labor approved by them is legal. IMO they are making it difficult for new people to enter the trade. And by making it difficult for people in certain areas of the state to choose who they work for as they rarely allow two different programs to operate in the same geographical area. So that anyone who would want to work for me would have to take classes 40-50 miles away, or find thier way in to the local IBEW program... Which is consistanty full, and only take about 100 of the several thousand applicants every year or so. It thier employers who are not allowed to touch tools.... If I have people working under me, I can still and will use mine... (As I starve for legal labor)

 

[acrwc10]

Well said.

I believe that a "B" licence holder who does three or more trades on one job is exempt from this law, how that is right is beyond me.

 

[e57]

Yep, a "B" can still do that in many places, and for certain things - and a homeowner can do just about anything they want... But what it really does in the long run is make the underground economy more attractive to the consumer as the law abiding contracor will have to pay more for what little labor is left... And pass that cost to the customer who will be less willing to pay... Fewer deep pocketed customers mean less work for the journeyman following the law, and more fore the un-licensed and un-certified, or those "B's" who have started doing thier own electrical work... A growing trend lately - as a "B" doesn't have to hire the 'certified'.

 

[e57]

In a PM with someone else we were discussing "B's" and the law, and if they could still take out permits for other trades. The law has changed somewhat but is not being enforced in many places in CA as of yet - it isn't here...... And there is still some contestment of it.... Get ready this will hurt you brain..... Law and decision with intent in italics

? 7057. General building contractor

(a) Except as provided in this section, a general building contractor is a contractor whose principal contracting business is in connection with any structure built, being built, or to be built, for the support, shelter, and enclosure of persons, animals, chattels, or movable property of any kind, requiring in its construction the use of at least two unrelated building trades or crafts, or to do or superintend the whole or any part thereof.This does not include anyone who merely furnishes materials or supplies under Section 7045 without fabricating them into, or consuming them in the performance of the work of the general building contractor.

(b) A general building contractor may take a prime contract or a subcontract for a framing or carpentry project. However, a general building contractor shall not take a prime contract for any project involving trades other than framing or carpentry unless the prime contract requires at least two unrelated building trades or crafts other than framing or carpentry, or unless the general building contractor holds the appropriate license classification or subcontracts with an appropriately licensed contractor to perform the work. A general building contractor shall not take a subcontract involving trades other than framing or carpentry, unless the subcontract requires at least two unrelated trades or crafts other than framing or carpentry, or unless the general building contractor holds the appropriate license classification. The general building contractor may not count framing or carpentry in calculating the two unrelated trades necessary in order for the general building contractor to be able to take a prime contract or subcontract for a project involving other trades.

SEC. 9.
(a) It is the intent of the Legislature to amend Section 7057 of the Business and Professions Code in order to modify the holdings in Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. v. Contractors' State License Bd., 41 Cal. App. 4th 1592, and Hazard, Jr., Enterprises, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of the West, 52 Cal. App. 4th 1088, to the extent the courts' holdings, or the courts' statutory construction of Section 7057 of the Business and Professions Code, are inconsistent with this act.

(b) The limitations applicable to general building contractors performing in the role of specified specialty building contractors for which other standards and criteria have been established, are necessary to serve as a means of protecting the public against contractors who have not demonstrated competence in specified specialty aspects of work for which a specialty license is required and as a means of facilitating the selection and provision of contracting services by and for the public that provides recognition to those persons or entities that have demonstrated experience, competence, and appropriate qualifications in those specialties specified in Section 7057 of the Business and Professions Code. In addition, experience has shown that consumers need and deserve to be protected against work being performed by contractors not licensed in specialty areas, and that the majority of consumer abuses occur and the focus of enforcement is needed most in these areas.

(c) The Legislature finds and declares that the administrative regulation adopted by the Contractors' State License Board as subdivision (b) of Section 834 of Title 16 of the California Code of Regulations had, for over four decades, served the public good by prohibiting general building contractors from undertaking certain projects in aspects of construction work in which specialty licenses had been established, until that regulation was ruled invalid as a result of the Home Depot and Hazard cases. It is the intent of the Legislature by enacting this act to statutorily establish the standard promulgated as subdivision (b) of Section 834 of Title 16 of the California Code of Regulations, with changes incorporated in this enactment, on the basis that the experience of license enforcement has demonstrated that the majority of consumer abuses occur and the focus of enforcement is most needed in smaller jobs involving one or two specialty trades that typically comprise service or repair functions and home improvement jobs. The Legislature also reiterates its previously stated intent that the Contractors' State License Law should be administered to "promote and protect the interests of consumers as well as law-abiding competitive licensed contractors" (Section 34.5 as contained in Chapter 1013 of the Statutes of 1979).

And this is where debate still lays on the issue:

830. Classification
(a) All contractors to whom licenses are issued shall be classified by the Registrar as a specialty contractor, as defined in this article; a general engineering contractor (Class A), as defined in Section 7056 of the Code; or a general building contractor (Class B), as defined in Section 7057 of the Code.

(b) Contractors licensed in one classification shall be prohibited from contracting in the field of any other classification unless they are also licensed in that classification or are permitted to do so by Section 831
(Authority cited: Section 7008, Business and Professions Code. Reference: Section 7059, Business and Professions Code.)

831. Incidental and Supplemental Defined

For purposes of Section 7059, work in other classifications is “incidental and supplemental” to the work for which a specialty contractor is licensed if that work is essential to accomplish the work in which the contractor is classified. A specialty contractor may use subcontractors to complete the incidental and supplemental work, or he may use his own employees to do so.

(Authority cited: Sections 7008 and 7059, Business and Professions Code. Reference: Section 7059, Business and Professions Code.)

And..... I told you this was going to hurt.....

834. Limitation of Classification
(a) A licensee classified as a general engineering contractor shall operate only within those areas defined in Section 7056 of the Code.

(b) A licensee classified as a general building contractor, as defined in Section 7057 of the Code, shall take a prime contract or subcontract only as authorized by Section 7057.

(c) A licensee classified as a specialty contractor, as defined in Section 7058 of the Code, shall not act in the capacity of a contractor in any classification other than one in which he/she is classified except on work incidental or supplemental to the performance of a contract in a classification in which any contractor is licensed by the Board.

(Authority cited: Sections 7008 and 7059, Business and Professions Code. Reference: Sections 7056, 7057, 7058 and 7059, Business and Professions Code.)

 

[acrwc10]

''My head hurts" I am licenced as both a 'B' and 'C-10'. I have been a C-10 for about 16 years and B for about 8 years. I can't imagine saying that if I contract to build a 5000sq ft. house that the electrical and plumbing are incidental to completing the job and would exempt me from the same rules that govern my C-10 classification. I did ask a building inspector if they were going to be inforcing this ruling and he just laughed. This is the big problem as I see it, making rules that no one is going to enforce. It is as senseless as the "it's not against the law to be an illegal alien." If there is no enforcement there is no compliance.

 

[e57]

True for all laws.... Aliens, Certification, and cheap skate GC's (No offense) who butcher most trades they attempt. Ever seen a panel a carpenter has done - most are not pretty.... Often worse than a 1 yr man in the trade....

As for getting away with it - they still do all the time. Makes me think of going to our Building Department's brown bag lunch pow-wows and making a stink.... But would have to were a black hood...