Privatizing inspectors

[renosteinke]

We've had quite a decent discussion so far, and it ought to be saved as an example of what the internet makes possible.

I notice that no one has picked up the gauntlet I tossed down some time back: why not let ANY government do the inspecting- and keep the fees?

That would certainly introduce some market forces into the equation, while keeping intact every 'virtue' some see in governmental operations.

Sure, there are places like Elko, Nv., that are located a good 100+ miles from any other jurisdiction, but those are by far the exception. Even places like Sterling, Ill., are part of a 'cluster' of a handful of towns. Let the inspector of Sterling keep the inspectors in Rock Falls honest

Again, I must protest assertions that I've been voicing MY personal opinions. How many times need I cite my sources for you to recognize that I'm voicing someone else's work? Call me a fool, or misguided, or even wrong - just don't imply I's a thief as well!

A government inspection agency making something good happen? I take it we're in favor of good things. Again, I thought I'd made it plain .... but I'll take a line from a Forbes ad campaign: "Does it (government direction) work? Of course it does. As well as what we have (free markets)? Are you kidding?"

Private inspections in the absence of governmental requirements? Private hewing to standards? How can one claim that private operations would not exist without government, when we are surrounded by proof to the contrary?
Here are some facts to consider:

-NEMA, UL, NFPA, FM, and even the NEC were created by private parties long before there were any governmental mandates;

-Numerous orginizations (such as the AIB) operate in specific fields for the purpose; for example, the Snell Foundation was testing helmets decades before the DOT horned in on the act;

-The very computer you're using has myriad plugs, accessories, etc., that all comply with completely private, voluntary standards; and,

-The gorilla in the room: ISO. How many have seen the phrase "ISO 9000" appended to a company's literature? That is a completely private and voluntary international inspection / auditing operation.

That's probably the biggest myth about government, that we can't live without it.

Seemingly off topic, but ..... anyone here ever buy a dog? Was it AKC registered? If it was - AKC being a completely private group without any governmental endorsement - I bet the seller made darn sure you knew that fact .... and I bet you made sure the papers were in order.

Why can we not have the same dynamic for building inspections? Sure, there will be 'other' certifications, just like there are 'other' kennel clubs. Yet, oddly enough, dog owners know the difference. I'm willing to bet property owners are just as capable.

 

[kwired]

state law did not allow additional charges for this[/B]. Since becomming an inspecor I became aware of electrical contractors that are now out of business or required to clean up there act because the field has a goverment proffessional board that monitors thier compliance with consumer protection laws.

Wow, why does the inspector have any business getting involved with that issue in the first place?

His job is making sure installation is in compliance with the codes and any other applicable laws are followed, and he should have no business even knowing who paid what or how much.

Consumer protection laws? Understandable that they could apply. Most electrical, and for that matter any building inspector likely does not even want to get involved in those issues. If customer feels he got ripped off and laws were violated then they need to go see an attorney, not the electrical inspector.

 

[kwired]

-NEMA, UL, NFPA, FM, and even the NEC were created by private parties long before there were any governmental mandates;

Those organizations AFAIK all are still private organizations. The fact that a governing body chooses to use something like NEC as their adopted standard is just an easy way to have a standard instead of doing all the research and updating that research to develop a standard of their own. There are other organizations that do similar things, but the ones you listed are most popular and generally accepted by industry, and adopted by governing bodies as laws where applicable.

Go to very front of NEC and in the Notices and Disclaimers section you will read this:

Copyrights


This document is copyrighted by the NFPA. It is made available for a wide variety of both public and private uses. These include both use, by reference, in laws and regulations, and use in private self-regulation, standardization, and the promotion of safe practices and methods. By making this document available for use and adoption by public authorities and private users, the NFPA does not waive any rights in copyright to this document.


Use of NFPA documents for regulatory purposes should be accomplished through adoption by reference. The term "adoption by reference" means the citing of title, edition, and publishing information only. Any deletions, additions, and changes desired by the adopting authority should be noted separately in the adopting instrument. In order to assist NFPA in following the uses made of its documents, adopting authorities are requested to notify the NFPA (Attention: Secretary, Standards Council) in writing of such use. For technical assistance and questions concerning adoption of NFPA documents, contact NFPA at the address below.

 

[renosteinke]

kwired, I was careful in my statement, as reality has changed somewhat since those organizations were founded.

For example, UL's "not for profit" arrangement allows it to operate certain accounting methods that are generally reserved for governmental organizations. Within UL, they're quite aware of how they've 'blurred' the distinction. Their extensive participation in various government agencies and their executive 'exchange' programs continue the trend.

Likewise, the groups cited do all they can to get their 'product' enacted into law. The disclaimer in the NEC is disingenious, and a direct result of the NEC entering the public domain through such adoption. They don't call them 'model codes' for nothing. Both the NFPA and UL have legions of folks whose 'consulting' activities are nothing less than lobbying for their organization's viewpoint.

Likewise, code requirements for 'listing' were written specifically to point folks to UL.

That's today. It was not always that way. There was a time when those groups had no government to rely upon. There were no OSHA, EPA, DOT, CPSC, HUD, or other ministries to order anyone to do anything. There wasn't even an FBI. Even at the local level, building codes and zoning were the exception. No 'special use districts' or 'development zones.'

These groups came about as strictly private efforts from the insurance industry. In market terms, their services had a value which folks were willing to pay for.

So, when I said that city inspections add little value, that wasn't my expressing an 'opinion.' It was my way of saying that the market is not willing to pay very much for it. Low price = low value. My evidence was the efforts folks go through to avoid getting permits and inspections, and the complaints about the fees.

That city inspections are of little value has nothing to do with the virtues of the people involved. The market has simply decided that they are of little value. That's a fact. If anything, the restrictions placed on inspections (you're required to have them, and you have no choice as to the provider) have resulted in costs far in excess of the 'market price.' That's what happens when you have a monopoly.

 

[RICK NAPIER]

Wow, why does the inspector have any business getting involved with that issue in the first place?

His job is making sure installation is in compliance with the codes and any other applicable laws are followed, and he should have no business even knowing who paid what or how much.

Consumer protection laws? Understandable that they could apply. Most electrical, and for that matter any building inspector likely does not even want to get involved in those issues. If customer feels he got ripped off and laws were violated then they need to go see an attorney, not the electrical inspector.

I said I was aware of these events, not that I was involved in them. You are correct that my responsibility is code compliance and I limit myself to that. When a consumer complains about excessive charges or charges for corrections that are not allowed in this state I do not address the issue but direct the consumer to the proffesional board that is responsible for these issues. I became aware of these cases through either my proffesional involvement with those whose business it is to deal with these issues or through mass notifications from electrical proffesional board of revoked licences.

I have unfortunately seen consumers taken advantage of, particularly the elderly but my resposibilties are clearly delineated andd I make a great effort to stay within those limits.

 

[kwired]

kwired, I was careful in my statement, as reality has changed somewhat since those organizations were founded.

For example, UL's "not for profit" arrangement allows it to operate certain accounting methods that are generally reserved for governmental organizations. Within UL, they're quite aware of how they've 'blurred' the distinction. Their extensive participation in various government agencies and their executive 'exchange' programs continue the trend.

Likewise, the groups cited do all they can to get their 'product' enacted into law. The disclaimer in the NEC is disingenious, and a direct result of the NEC entering the public domain through such adoption. They don't call them 'model codes' for nothing. Both the NFPA and UL have legions of folks whose 'consulting' activities are nothing less than lobbying for their organization's viewpoint.

Likewise, code requirements for 'listing' were written specifically to point folks to UL.

That's today. It was not always that way. There was a time when those groups had no government to rely upon. There were no OSHA, EPA, DOT, CPSC, HUD, or other ministries to order anyone to do anything. There wasn't even an FBI. Even at the local level, building codes and zoning were the exception. No 'special use districts' or 'development zones.'

These groups came about as strictly private efforts from the insurance industry. In market terms, their services had a value which folks were willing to pay for.

So, when I said that city inspections add little value, that wasn't my expressing an 'opinion.' It was my way of saying that the market is not willing to pay very much for it. Low price = low value. My evidence was the efforts folks go through to avoid getting permits and inspections, and the complaints about the fees.

That city inspections are of little value has nothing to do with the virtues of the people involved. The market has simply decided that they are of little value. That's a fact. If anything, the restrictions placed on inspections (you're required to have them, and you have no choice as to the provider) have resulted in costs far in excess of the 'market price.' That's what happens when you have a monopoly.

I agree that many of the mentioned organizations have become a monopoly to at least some degree, which leads to them or some of their direct supporters (like manufacturers and big business) having their way with things. I don't know what to do about it. This happens in more than just the electrical trade also.

 

[kwired]

I said I was aware of these events, not that I was involved in them. You are correct that my responsibility is code compliance and I limit myself to that. When a consumer complains about excessive charges or charges for corrections that are not allowed in this state I do not address the issue but direct the consumer to the proffesional board that is responsible for these issues. I became aware of these cases through either my proffesional involvement with those whose business it is to deal with these issues or through mass notifications from electrical proffesional board of revoked licences.

I have unfortunately seen consumers taken advantage of, particularly the elderly but my resposibilties are clearly delineated andd I make a great effort to stay within those limits.

I am proud of you for doing your job and not thinking you have authority in areas that are not part of your job.

If you see someone being taken advantage of you have no jurisdiction in that matter. As a concerned citizen there is nothing wrong with putting a bug in the ear of whoever does have jurisdiction in the matter, but your good deed ends there.

 

[renosteinke]

kwired, you'll get complete agreement from me about that one!

Yes, many of the private trade groups often act in a manner that would cost a king his head - then seek shelter behind the 'private enterprise' excuse.

That's mostly a topic for another thread ... though is does help empasize that there's more to a 'free' market than simply saying something has been 'privatised.'