Legal Counsel says running conduit is NOT electrical work.

[jusme123]

Wow, a heated debate on MH. Electricians install conduit, its our job. We KNOW and follow all applicable codes and standards, and are the responsible party of the installation from start to finish.

 

[weressl]

Honestly, I don't know what you are arguing here, but you went off on a tangent that I do not wish to follow you on.

My statement was that many of the excuses that people have made here saying that non-EC's shouldn't lay pipe also hold true for when it is an EC who lays the pipe. That's all I am saying, and I believe it is a logical statement, even if you disagree. If I read it correct, I believe even Roger agrees with that statement.

Because your statement has NOTHING TO DO with the OP. Can you focus on THAT?

Please refer to my reply where I explained where you went off the logical track of following the OP.

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/building-logical-arguments.html

 

[iwire]

To say electrical conduit is not an electricians job to install is absurd.:dunce:

It is not up to either you or I to tell any jurisdiction what work requires an electrician.


Now let me say, I am proud to have worked hard to get my license and I like that in my area it limits the numbers of people that can do what I do. But let's be honest, that is a very bias and self serving opinion.

It's like taking a poll at the casino about making gambling ilegal.

 

[mjf]

I never said that I agreed with it. NO, I do not want non-EC's installing pipe.

My contention is different as you can see from my prior posts.


BTW, laws shouldn't be made in order to give our own trade work (although I'll happily take the work if it leads to that! ).

You must be petitioning to have NJ electrical licensing laws repealed:jawdrop:

 

[don_resqcapt19]

All of the arguments that say it is ok for the non-electricians to install the electrical raceways systems also would apply to the installation of the rest of the electrical system. There is no need for electricians, or plumbers or HVAC guys as long at the installer of the systems involved has the proper training and licenses.

 

[mike1061]

I don't think the OP is for real. There is nothing to back up the statement. Like links to something.

I've seen this before too, register and say something a bit off. Imo it's a waste of time. It takes away from the people with real questions.

People should participate in there topics and thank people for there replies.
Thanks
Mike

 

[iwire]

All of the arguments that say it is ok for the non-electricians to install the electrical raceways systems also would apply to the installation of the rest of the electrical system.

Don that is an opinion, an area could decide that electrians are not needed to run conduit but are needed to terminate or any combination in between.

Here the phone company often uses excavation contractors to run underground conduits.

 

[kwired]

Don that is an opinion, an area could decide that electrians are not needed to run conduit but are needed to terminate or any combination in between.

Here the phone company often uses excavation contractors to run underground conduits.

Same here, plus electrical and other utilities. This is especially true for the guys that do directional boring. Sometimes they bury a pipe and the end user pulls another pipe through the first one, other times they bore through the area and pull the actual pipe, raceway, etc. for the end user back through.

 

[Fulthrotl]

I don't think the OP is for real. There is nothing to back up the statement. Like links to something.

I've seen this before too, register and say something a bit off. Imo it's a waste of time. It takes away from the people with real questions.

People should participate in there topics and thank people for there replies.
Thanks
Mike

didn't look.... second post from an account. hm.
we just got trolled. :dunce:

 

[kwired]

I don't think the OP is for real. There is nothing to back up the statement. Like links to something.

I've seen this before too, register and say something a bit off. Imo it's a waste of time. It takes away from the people with real questions.

People should participate in there topics and thank people for there replies.
Thanks
Mike

I don't know about the reasoning for the OP's asking the question, but I think it is a valid topic of discussion. We do face this kind of thought process of why does a person need to be licensed, qualified, etc. to run pipe or drill holes or dig a trench from time to time.

I get requests from owners all the time to drill holes, pull cables, dig a trench, etc. and have me come and make up final connections. I almost always turn down their request, because most of the time they end up making more work than if I did it myself, if I want it to be code compliant.

 

[petersonra]

at one time in Rockford, the city required all holes that were bored through wood studs to be bored by carpenters. electricians were not considered skilled enough to handle that task. I don't believe it was ever actually in the code, but was typically enforced by union contractors and the inspectors as a way to enforce carpenter union dominance in the construction trade in the city.

this has long since gone away as the cost was just insane and non-union ECs proved it was not really an issue outside of the city.

a lot of this kind of stuff is economic in nature and has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the job is done correctly or not.

does it matter any if a plumber hires some temporary labor to dig a trench to bury some pipe in? why would you want to pay $125/hour to have a plumber did a trench when a temp can do a more than adequate job for $25/hr?

a lot of places there is a silly game played where people doing this kind of work get an electrical apprentice license. no skill or training required but they can do just about any electrical work supposedly under supervision of a "real" electrician. how is hiring someone to run some UG pipe any different?

 

[iwire]

I don't know about the reasoning for the OP's asking the question, but I think it is a valid topic of discussion.

I have to agree, it is a good topic of discussion and one that I have not seen beat to death already.


Back on topic ...

Consider you are a company that would like fiber optic cable installed in your facility, you would like it installed in EMT for your own reasons.

I am really having a hard time coming up with good reason why the state should force that company to use an electrical contractor for that work.

Who decided fiber optic is electrical work? Who decided non-conductive fiber optic cable should be covered in the NEC?

My gut says it was decided by people with self serving interests and not public safety.

 

[mivey]

There is no need for electricians, or plumbers or HVAC guys as long at the installer of the systems involved has the proper training and licenses.

My problem is with any Joe-Schmoe installing the conduit without being qualified. If the installer is trained in the proper installation of conduit for electrical use, and properly licensed, and the job is subject to inspection, then I don't care if they put it in or not. But that is not quite what the OP said.

...it it is merely tubing and does not require supervision of a licensed electrician or an electrical inspection.

Granted the OP wanted an electrician to supervise but as long as the installer was properly licensed and qualified to install conduit for electrical use then that should be OK.

 

[mivey]

I am really having a hard time coming up with good reason why the state should force that company to use an electrical contractor for that work.

As long as it is not Handy-Andy, then any properly qualified and licensed contractor would do.

 

[LEO2854]

That is an illogical argument.

:lol::lol:

Well said.:thumbsup:

 

[K8MHZ]

I have to agree, it is a good topic of discussion and one that I have not seen beat to death already.


Back on topic ...

Consider you are a company that would like fiber optic cable installed in your facility, you would like it installed in EMT for your own reasons.

I am really having a hard time coming up with good reason why the state should force that company to use an electrical contractor for that work.

Who decided fiber optic is electrical work? Who decided non-conductive fiber optic cable should be covered in the NEC?

My gut says it was decided by people with self serving interests and not public safety.

I wondered, too, how fiber optics got into the NEC.

Back to EMT. Since the E stands for electrical, I see it as being something whose name indicates that installing it would be electrical work.

Like with RMC, the R stands for rigid which means installing it is hard work.

So why not come out with LMT, or light metallic tubing, made specifically for fiber optics? Installing that would be light work, not electrical work.

 

[jmellc]

Legal counsel does not sound very intelligent to me.

True, nothing strictly electrical about conduit. Just a few minor details, like rough cuts that could damage wire, too many bends to pull wire through, bends too sharp, loose couplings that could break ground continuity, flimsy racks that could drop conduits & live conductors to a crowded floor, boxes violating fill chart, improper connectors that allow water into an enclosure or conduit. Otherwise, it's not electrical work. BTW, I have some beachfront lots for sale......

 

[weressl]

I have to agree, it is a good topic of discussion and one that I have not seen beat to death already.


Back on topic ...

Consider you are a company that would like fiber optic cable installed in your facility, you would like it installed in EMT for your own reasons.

I am really having a hard time coming up with good reason why the state should force that company to use an electrical contractor for that work.

Who decided fiber optic is electrical work? Who decided non-conductive fiber optic cable should be covered in the NEC?

My gut says it was decided by people with self serving interests and not public safety.

Remember that the PRIMARY role of the NFPA(NEC) is fire prevention and control. Since the fire propagation issues of a fiber is most similar to cable and conductor parameters and the installation method as well, there is really no other sections of the NFPA where this would fit. Not to mention that the requisite experience and expertise exist within the panels and through the harmonization process a comprehensive process can be expected without the need for re-inventing the wheel.

 

[kwired]

Remember that the PRIMARY role of the NFPA(NEC) is fire prevention and control. Since the fire propagation issues of a fiber is most similar to cable and conductor parameters and the installation method as well, there is really no other sections of the NFPA where this would fit. Not to mention that the requisite experience and expertise exist within the panels and through the harmonization process a comprehensive process can be expected without the need for re-inventing the wheel.

90.1(A):

(A) Practical Safeguarding. The purpose of this Code is the practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity.

Where is the hazards from the use of electricity when talking about fiber optic?

Many other items that are not electrical could have similar fire propagation issues also.

 

[weressl]

90.1(A):


Where is the hazards from the use of electricity when talking about fiber optic?

Many other items that are not electrical could have similar fire propagation issues also.

I was talking about the original and primary function of the NFPA. Even the original NEC's primary focus was fire prevention, not electrocution.