Privatizing inspectors

[RICK NAPIER]

"Only one private firm"
I'll make a suggestion, throw down the gauntlet, to all of you who think government is the proper way to have inspections. Let's try THIS:
Just open up your 'process' to allow the 'customer' (the homeowner) to have the permitting and inspections handled by any government body within, say, fifty miles. Let the customer decide which bureaucracy to pay. Let that bureaucracy keep the fees.
I mean ... just to pull a location at random .... would anyone seriously suggest that the inspectors in St. Paul are any less competent than the ones in Minneapolis? Letting the customer choose would introduce some market forces into the equation.

As previously stated I worked for a short time in a major city of a different state under a system where a contractor could choose their own inspector. The system was rife with corruption and many poor quality inspectors. To tie the inspectors livelyhood to the contractor picking his company meant there was a strong incentive to keep the contractor happy and pass them. When I was actually failing them it was a suprise and some contractors appeared to think I was doing it to put the squeeze on them and not that I was concerned with enforcing the codes. I support third party inspections but I think it is better served at the municipal level and not directly to the contractor.

 

[petersonra]

but I think it is better served at the municipal level and not directly to the contractor.

I am inclined to agree this makes the most sense and is probably the best choice overall.

It gives the inspection agency some independance from the work being inspected and gets the government out of the business of providing the service directly - both good things IMO.

 

[TimK]

Tougher is better

Tougher is better

OK, picture an area that has privatized. Lets say there are only two inspection companies available.

'Billy's blind as a bat inspections' and 'Ned the nit picker inspections'.


Which of these companies will be more commonly chosen by an EC?


Which of the companies is more likely to do the job right?

Not to stray the point, but I have always enjoyed the "Ned's" much more than the "Billys'", they tend to teach me more on things I overlook and keep me from getting lazy and saying "aw good enough"

 

[renosteinke]

Folks will always buy the cheapest? How many of you drive Yugos? Who here lives in a 'residential' hotel?

Otherwise, remember what I said about defining who is the customer. Trunkslammer Electric might love Blind Bob ... but Harry Homeowner just might choose Nitpicker Ned.

We'll toss in price variation as well. Blind Bob might be easier - but, in a free market, his rates would be higher. Now THERE's a conundrum to frive a GC nuts

 

[AV ELECTRIC]

now we know the private inspectors will be paid less and benefits will be reduced most city pay packages are very good

do to the lower pay in the private sector will this promote more of a personal negotiation between inspector and customer

government inspectors may not indulge in this activity because he or she is being paid well and does not want to loose there job

i think in the past it was common to see a bribe or a negotiation at a personal level when wages were much lower

 

[kwired]

now we know the private inspectors will be paid less and benefits will be reduced most city pay packages are very good

do to the lower pay in the private sector will this promote more of a personal negotiation between inspector and customer

government inspectors may not indulge in this activity because he or she is being paid well and does not want to loose there job

i think in the past it was common to see a bribe or a negotiation at a personal level when wages were much lower

This is possible. There likely is also at least one more layer of red tape to go through if you want to try to do something about an inspector that is abusing his position.

 

[BullsnPyrs]

An interesting and thoughtful discusion. In general i prefer a free market solution to a governmental one. however unless there are multiple providers of inspection services it is not a free market solution. A private monoply can be far worse than a city inspector. For example, you call for a rough inspection of a 500 sq ft retail space. City inspector comes in does a thourough inspection and cites 3 violations, you fix them within 24 hours, call for reinspection, pay your fee and have your inspection within 72 hours and the job proceeds. Same situation, private inspector comes in and find violation a writes you up and leaves, you go through this cycle three times, pay three fees have 9 days of delay. Which system do you prefer?
I had method B applied to many jobs by city inspectors in south Florida many years ago. How well the inspection system works is probably more influenced by the quality of the individuals involved and of the oversite/appeals process than it has to do with private/governmental inspectors.

 

[kwired]

An interesting and thoughtful discusion. In general i prefer a free market solution to a governmental one. however unless there are multiple providers of inspection services it is not a free market solution. A private monoply can be far worse than a city inspector. For example, you call for a rough inspection of a 500 sq ft retail space. City inspector comes in does a thourough inspection and cites 3 violations, you fix them within 24 hours, call for reinspection, pay your fee and have your inspection within 72 hours and the job proceeds. Same situation, private inspector comes in and find violation a writes you up and leaves, you go through this cycle three times, pay three fees have 9 days of delay. Which system do you prefer?
I had method B applied to many jobs by city inspectors in south Florida many years ago. How well the inspection system works is probably more influenced by the quality of the individuals involved and of the oversite/appeals process than it has to do with private/governmental inspectors.

How well it works has everything to do with the controlling party. Here is is the State Electrical Board. They have a director that takes care of day to day business but the board ultimately has the most power when it comes to rules and operational procedures. Some of these rules are actually part of the state laws and need legislature approval to be changed, but legislation is generally initiated by actions of the board. All of the board rules for the most part have fairness to all behind them.

 

[joeatrsp]

negative opinion of private inspectors

negative opinion of private inspectors

In the locale where I work several of the smaller municipalities don?t have their own inspectors or plan reviewers and they contract those services out to a private company. I?m on the design side, so it?s the plan reviewers I tend to deal with.

Every time, and I do mean every single encounter I have had with these people, they find problems that aren?t really problems. It goes like this: 1. I get a phone message from the reviewer and they flag something I need to explain. 2. I spend some time trying to figure out what the hell they?re talking about because it doesn?t make any sense. 3. I point them to the place in the drawings or the clause in the code that answers the question. 3. The reviewer says, ?Oh okay, I guess I missed that.? 4. We go on our merry way and get our permit. I simplified Steps 2 & 3 a little because it often involves a few days of missed phone calls or unreturned emails.

So, every time I have dealt with a private plan reviewer I ended up chasing my tail. My take is that private reviewers don?t take the time to understand the drawings. If they did, they wouldn?t be asking questions where the answers are already in front of them. Why don?t they take the time? That?s open to interpretation. Are they not accountable? Do profit goals not allow for it? Are they just not that good at their jobs?

In any case, my own anecdotal experience is that the private entity is inferior to the public one. The private entity may save the jurisdiction money ? but it doesn?t actually reduce costs. It just shifts costs to the engineers and contractors who have to waste time and money dealing with the marginally competent private entity.

 

[renosteinke]

"Marginally competent"

What we're overlooking are the legions of 'private' inspectors that industry has insisted upon- in addition to the government inspections.

Insurance companies are a prime example, whether the 'inspector' is simpy the sales agent deciding whether your house meets the criteria for any of the 'forms' he offers, or it's a specialist deciding whether to insure your CNG plant.

Likewise, most companies, and governmental entities of any size, will have their own inspector monitoring the job, checking everything from carpet color to metal thickness.

Fact is, 'city' inspectors don't contribute much to a job.

 

[cowboyjwc]

"Marginally competent"

What we're overlooking are the legions of 'private' inspectors that industry has insisted upon- in addition to the government inspections.

Insurance companies are a prime example, whether the 'inspector' is simpy the sales agent deciding whether your house meets the criteria for any of the 'forms' he offers, or it's a specialist deciding whether to insure your CNG plant.

Likewise, most companies, and governmental entities of any size, will have their own inspector monitoring the job, checking everything from carpet color to metal thickness.

Fact is, 'city' inspectors don't contribute much to a job.

That's ok I've seen some electricians that didn't contribute much to a job either.

 

[renosteinke]

Cowboy, might I suggest parking the pride for a moment, and looking at things from a purely 'market' perspective?

That is, what is something worth? Really worth? Somethig like an inspector- though the same applies to any endeavor.

Let the market operate, and you KNOW. That's why I have no reservations when I assume my Scion is not as good a car as a Lexus ... the market has not only made that decision, they relative difference in prices tells me how much better one is - though, for all I know, they both come off the same assembly line.

What's a city inspection worth? Probably not much, considering the enthusiasm with which folks avoid having one.

Contrast that to the major $$$ paid out to various professionals for their 'expertise.' Expertise in everything from structural load calculations to picking exactly the right shade of off-white paint. Manufacturers have enormous investments in 'quality control,' and there is an entire industry of 'independent testing labs' out there. The question is not whether inspections have value, but a more specific question of what government brings to the table.

Some electricians are worthless, eh? Do you really want to set up that straw man? Compare one field with 'at will employment' and market-driven wages to another field governed by Civil Service rules?

Maybe that's where there's a problem: Civil Service. We could probably devote an entire forum to government employees complaining how the bureaucracy prevents them from doing their jobs.

I don't buy the 'ethics' argument, either. Milton Friedman did a great job of showing how it wasn't the size of the paycheck nearly as much as the lack of alternatives that sets the stage for corruption, that corruption can only fluorish where the market is prevented from operating. Just think of the corruption as part of the 'overhead,' and it becomes plain how a corrupt operation places itself at a competitive disadvantage.

Do we really want to continue with a model that has failed so badly?

 

[kwired]

Cowboy, might I suggest parking the pride for a moment, and looking at things from a purely 'market' perspective?

That is, what is something worth? Really worth? Somethig like an inspector- though the same applies to any endeavor.

Let the market operate, and you KNOW. That's why I have no reservations when I assume my Scion is not as good a car as a Lexus ... the market has not only made that decision, they relative difference in prices tells me how much better one is - though, for all I know, they both come off the same assembly line.

What's a city inspection worth? Probably not much, considering the enthusiasm with which folks avoid having one.

Contrast that to the major $$$ paid out to various professionals for their 'expertise.' Expertise in everything from structural load calculations to picking exactly the right shade of off-white paint. Manufacturers have enormous investments in 'quality control,' and there is an entire industry of 'independent testing labs' out there. The question is not whether inspections have value, but a more specific question of what government brings to the table.

Some electricians are worthless, eh? Do you really want to set up that straw man? Compare one field with 'at will employment' and market-driven wages to another field governed by Civil Service rules?

Maybe that's where there's a problem: Civil Service. We could probably devote an entire forum to government employees complaining how the bureaucracy prevents them from doing their jobs.

I don't buy the 'ethics' argument, either. Milton Friedman did a great job of showing how it wasn't the size of the paycheck nearly as much as the lack of alternatives that sets the stage for corruption, that corruption can only fluorish where the market is prevented from operating. Just think of the corruption as part of the 'overhead,' and it becomes plain how a corrupt operation places itself at a competitive disadvantage.

Do we really want to continue with a model that has failed so badly?

There has been success and failure in both public and private organizations that provide this service.

Public or private does not necessarily have as much to do with the failure or success as how it gets managed.

Inspections are a service that just are not prone to being welcome to many people. I seldom have issues with electrical inspectors here and feel they do a pretty good job of what they do. Mention the word inspector to a building owner, and they automatically assume there is going to be trouble getting someone with authority involved.

Many people are weary just driving around or minding their own business and then they see a police officer. They are just doing their job, unless you have something to hide, big deal.

 

[cowboyjwc]

I've always assumed Reno that we're about the same age, maybe yes, maybe no, but I've been in the trades for over 35 years so I think I can bring some expertise to the job. It was just mentioned to me today that "I don't get paid for what I do, I get paid for what I know".

Old joke goes that a company let go an old employee. One day a piece of equipment that he helped design breaks down and as hard as they try they could not figure out what was wrong so they call him back and ask him if he'll look at it. He comes in spends twenty minutes or so going over it and then pulls a piece of chalk out of his pocket and puts an X on the machine. Your problem is right there. On the way out the door he hands them a bill for $5000. $5000 for a chalk mark! Are you out of your mind? Don't be rediculous, you only paid $5 for the chalk mark, the other $4995 was for knowing where to put the chalk mark.

I know where to put the chalk mark.:happyyes:

 

[iwire]

Cowboy, might I suggest parking the pride for a moment, and looking at things from a purely 'market' perspective?

Might I suggest that you realize your opinions are just that ..... opinions.

And while you are certainly entitled to your opinions they are not facts.

There are many excellent government employed inspectors and your continuing insults to them are not needed nor do they help the discussion.

 

[renosteinke]

I'm sorry you feel thst esy, Iwire. I also suggest you return to my posts, dictionary in hand, and confirm your grasp of the English language.

I ask that, as I have not made any comments at all that can be considered "insults" to government inspectors.

Indeed, I thought I had made it plain that I was not offering my 'opinions' as much as relaying the conclusion of others (such as Milton Friedman) that are clearly drawn from historical experience.

What does that experience, and the opinions of these other great minds, have to say? Simply put, free markets work every time they're tried. Heaven knows every other method has been tried, under every imaginable circumstance, and the 'free market' approach excells in nearly every circumstance. I submit that building inspections are a suitable circumstance for letting the free market work.

In what areas does the 'free market' fall short? One can make the case in situations like national defense, operating courts, coining money, and delivering the mail. Oddly enough, this country was set up in a manner which limited government to those very few items. It was no accident that the national government was excluded from policing the streets and running the schools.

Has the model worked? See for yourself. Which system has been more successful? Ours, or that of the 'central planning' types of any stripe? That said, why should we continue to regulate construction using a model that has proven to work poorly, if at all?

The difference in performance, free market vs. government control, is not simply a matter of opinion. It's a fact.

Excellent government inspectors? What has the merits of the individual to do with anything? Angel or demon, saint or sinner, the individual is only as good as the system lets him be. Every hell-hole on this planet was created by folks who thought they were on the side of the angels. Ironically, some of the best places -Australia and certain American states come to mind- were created by folks who you'd never let in your house, nevermind date your daughter! Inquiring minds would ask: how can this be?

Our existing system isn't broken - it never worked in the first place. Maybe it's time to stop investing in failure.

 

[kwired]

I'm sorry you feel thst esy, Iwire. I also suggest you return to my posts, dictionary in hand, and confirm your grasp of the English language.

I ask that, as I have not made any comments at all that can be considered "insults" to government inspectors.

Indeed, I thought I had made it plain that I was not offering my 'opinions' as much as relaying the conclusion of others (such as Milton Friedman) that are clearly drawn from historical experience.

What does that experience, and the opinions of these other great minds, have to say? Simply put, free markets work every time they're tried. Heaven knows every other method has been tried, under every imaginable circumstance, and the 'free market' approach excells in nearly every circumstance. I submit that building inspections are a suitable circumstance for letting the free market work.

In what areas does the 'free market' fall short? One can make the case in situations like national defense, operating courts, coining money, and delivering the mail. Oddly enough, this country was set up in a manner which limited government to those very few items. It was no accident that the national government was excluded from policing the streets and running the schools.

Has the model worked? See for yourself. Which system has been more successful? Ours, or that of the 'central planning' types of any stripe? That said, why should we continue to regulate construction using a model that has proven to work poorly, if at all?

The difference in performance, free market vs. government control, is not simply a matter of opinion. It's a fact.

Excellent government inspectors? What has the merits of the individual to do with anything? Angel or demon, saint or sinner, the individual is only as good as the system lets him be. Every hell-hole on this planet was created by folks who thought they were on the side of the angels. Ironically, some of the best places -Australia and certain American states come to mind- were created by folks who you'd never let in your house, nevermind date your daughter! Inquiring minds would ask: how can this be?

Our existing system isn't broken - it never worked in the first place. Maybe it's time to stop investing in failure.

When it comes to inspections, just how many free market companies would there be providing inspections if there was no laws requiring said inspections? You may see some activity contracted by insurance companies to do inspections or at least influenced by the insurance industry in some way. Next method that gets it done is maybe if an architect or designer wants assurance their design is being followed. Outside of situations like those self policing to a common standard is not going to happen. Even those that mean well will bend the rules as they see fit.

National government may not police the streets or run the schools, but they do help fund those activities, and do set rules that if you don't follow you may not receive the funds, so they do have ways of intervening.

With the inspections thing, it still comes down to there being a law that needs to be followed. Enforcement of that law can be done by public or private entities, but enforcement methods, penalties for not complying still need to be set by the laws, otherwise you have unfair justice possibilities.

 

[kwired]

I will start this in a new post, but it still needs tied to this thread since it is addressing similar topic and I want to compare to the topic of the thread.

If anyone out there does work for the food production industry, you may be well aware of a company called AIB (American Institue of Baking)

For those not familiar - they are an international organization. They are not a government operation. They come to your plant, and inspect things and basically give you a report card to show your clients. Food product safety is the number one concern, but they are very picky about things that may not have too direct of an impact on food product. They are more restrictive on things than government inspectors from say USDA. USDA makes a strong presence in meat and dairy operations, but other food processing areas, may not be exempt from any USDA rules but they do not have a strong of a presence there and often are a little softer on requirements outside of meat and dairy processing also.

So why does AIB come to a plant? Well a plant that I do work for, does not make consumer products, but rather ingredients for other food processing companies. They do not want to send their own people to my plant to see how we do things, so they request we have a company like AIB come to our plant - usually on an annual basis, and perform inspections. And they do very thorough inspections, with product quality and safety being the number one concern. They do also help you find solutions to problems that come up during their inspections. Sometimes a problem will result in a failure or poor result of the inspection, but you can provide solutions and make changes and get a reinspection. They then essentially give you a report card telling how well you scored according to their grading system. Many companies that buy ingredients from the plant I work for would not buy from them if they did not go through this process.

It is not exactly the same thing as electrical inspections, but is something that has effected work that I do there. They are very detailed and picky about some things that may seem like a minor thing, but it all is related to the goal of safety of the food product produced. It is not a government run organization, and actually has stricter requirements than government regulators often do. If you do good with the AIB inspections you should never have problems with USDA.

Just wanted to point out something private and how it works. But what is the motivation for homeowners to want to go to something like that for home building inspections? Maybe would work if insurance industry offered lower rates to those who complied with the codes? That would make it voluntary inspections and not required inspections though.

 

[RICK NAPIER]

"The difference in performance, free market vs. government control, is not simply a matter of opinion. It's a fact. "

No, that's an opinion. I remember when I was an electrical contractor a couple of competitors forced out of business by city inspectors who kept forcing them back to make thier work code compliant while pointing out to the consumer that state law did not allow additional charges for this. 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. These businesses prospered often for decades at the expense and safety of the consumer. Free market was not the remedy, goverment regulation in this instance was.

 

[iwire]

I'm sorry you feel thst esy, Iwire. I also suggest you return to my posts, dictionary in hand, and confirm your grasp of the English language.

I ask that, as I have not made any comments at all that can be considered "insults" to government inspectors.

Indeed, I thought I had made it plain that I was not offering my 'opinions' as much as relaying the conclusion of others (such as Milton Friedman) that are clearly drawn from historical experience.

What does that experience, and the opinions of these other great minds, have to say? Simply put, free markets work every time they're tried. Heaven knows every other method has been tried, under every imaginable circumstance, and the 'free market' approach excells in nearly every circumstance. I submit that building inspections are a suitable circumstance for letting the free market work.

In what areas does the 'free market' fall short? One can make the case in situations like national defense, operating courts, coining money, and delivering the mail. Oddly enough, this country was set up in a manner which limited government to those very few items. It was no accident that the national government was excluded from policing the streets and running the schools.

Has the model worked? See for yourself. Which system has been more successful? Ours, or that of the 'central planning' types of any stripe? That said, why should we continue to regulate construction using a model that has proven to work poorly, if at all?

The difference in performance, free market vs. government control, is not simply a matter of opinion. It's a fact.

Excellent government inspectors? What has the merits of the individual to do with anything? Angel or demon, saint or sinner, the individual is only as good as the system lets him be. Every hell-hole on this planet was created by folks who thought they were on the side of the angels. Ironically, some of the best places -Australia and certain American states come to mind- were created by folks who you'd never let in your house, nevermind date your daughter! Inquiring minds would ask: how can this be?

Our existing system isn't broken - it never worked in the first place. Maybe it's time to stop investing in failure.

The above is all personal opinion, again not facts.