What would you charge, how many hours?

[mdshunk]

Marc...care to explain how 2 men will be slower/more time than 1 man?
I usually figure it the oppossite...1 man will take 3x as many hours as 2 men (NOTE: Taking HOURS not MANHOURS)
If 2 men take 2.5 hours, 1 man would take 7.5.

That's my historical data that I used. That's why questions like "how long does it take to..." or "how much do you charge to..." are totally worthless questions. I'll gladly answer them, but the answer will only be correct for me and mine. I actually have some pretty good historical data of my own for 6 or 8 cans in the same room, access from above, with one electrician and with two electricians. Go ahead and use your data if it works for you. I'm certainly not twisting anyone's arm to use mine.

 

[jameshot]

Here's what you have to do:

1. Install six (6) new recessed Halo lights (only items to be supplied by owner).
2. Single switch installed, but owner wants to have two half-switched recepatcles in two locations - one on the wall opposite the switch, one on other end of wall where switch is located. So we're bumping this up to a two gang switch box.
3. Feed with existing circuit - presently two flourescent 1 x 4 fixtures.

Thanks,

Brett

I recently did a job exactly like this last week here in new orleans. since all my work is based on a total quoted price no labor or material breakdown.I charged a total of 160.00 per can thats the cost of the can,trim and lamp,wire /misc connectors. these six cans were located in a large walkin closet on a 2nd floor attic ,And they wanted a dimmer on them also (go figure??? ) and i did have to remove the wiring for the 2 existing wall lights that were already in there also so they could patch the holes.so lets see thats 160.00 x 6 =960.00 ADD 1- 1000 WATT SWITCH PRESET DIMMER AT 79.00 AND 45.00 FOR REMOVING EACH BOX AND WIRING ON THE WALL 45.00 X 2= 90.00 TOTAL AMOUNT 1129.00 FOR THIS JOB. TOTAL COST OF THE MATERIAL WAS 269.00 AND THE JOB TOOK ME ALONE ONLY 5 HOURS TO DO.

 

[tallgirl]

Installing cans is a perfect example of a 2 man job .... one man is drilling the holes, the other slinging wire or humping material in....then one guy is installing the fixtures, while the other cleans up.
This isn't highly technical work, a little converstaion isn't going to slow the job down.

"Interaction" might have been the wrong word. I mean all the different ways that people talk to, run into, are dependent upon, etc. There's interactions between the framing carpenters and electricians because you can't wire before framing. I live and breath these things --

The classic example of a task that can't be subdivided or performed in parallel is a baby. If the goal is "One Baby", nine pregnant women will not produce a baby in one month's time.

Tasks that can be subdivided, but which don't parallize easily, might be installing branch circuits. If you have ten branch circuits, you could throw ten people at it -- one circuit each. Assuming they don't run all over each other, they can get the job done in as many person hours as one. But "run all over each other" is an assumption,and unless someone coordinates the home runs being started at the panel, there's going to be a bottleneck there. If you broke each branch circuit down into individual steps -- for example, 10 pieces of wire to run, 10 devices to install for each branch circuit -- the best you can get is 10 people doing two tasks each because the wires have to be in the boxes before the devices can be installed. And again, that assumes they don't climb all over each other, which I think everyone will agree would happen, even if they all took turns with their home runs. Analyzing these sorts of interdependencies is a skill unto itself and applies to just about everything -- computer programming, construction, demolition, buying the wife a present for Valentine's Day

FWIW, this same kind of "people climbing all over each other" happens in highly technical work as well. I led a $4.5M project years ago and we had to put up with being short-staffed because where we were in the project, adding more people would have made us late. Not just "cost more", but "late" -- actual negative productivity. My boss screamed bloody hell (we had a $20M contract resting on the project we were doing) wanting to know why I didn't want more people, but I stood by my decision and we came in on-time.

What will slow the job down is one man running around trying to do it all and forgetting things/dropping things..like a wirenut - another trip up and down the ladder...all the while talking to himself in French @#% &*!.

LOL!

Been there, done that.

 

[jagster]

Be careful on those easy looking jobs...I did one very similar, make sure you check what all is on that circuit. I almost had to add a new feed to the job due to all that was wired over a long period of time.

 

[ibew613]

pairs

pairs

I've always liked the old saying that " electricians come in pairs ".
Two men that have been working together for a while, can produce at a very efficent rate. Maybe the difference is the work is commerical. But, at any rate I HATE going solo, as a service tech it really #$%!.

 

[mdshunk]

I've always liked the old saying that " electricians come in pairs "..

I've always liked the saying "there's no such thing as a two-man job in the electrical business".

 

[celtic]

I guess it would safe to say that we are all in agreement that, based on the appropiate task - a 2 man crew would be satisfactory....
..."we/all" meaning everyone EXCEPT marc

 

[stickboy1375]

I agree with Marc, someone with me is someone in my way...

 

[bikeindy]

Well I will throw in my 2 cents here. We do this type of work all the time did it today and will do it tomarrow. I would have to look it up but I quess last year we installed 300 remodle cans. I have come up with a flat price that has made it good for me and the customer to get this work done. I almost always have two guys on these jobs. 6 cans 2 switches 2 recptacles would be $950.00 all materials included. remodle cans are $7.17 at Home depot, trim is $3.25 lamp is $1.95 wire is insane still. Don't buy the remodle juno cans at Lowes they don't go in the hole very well due to thier design. The job you talk about would take us 3 hours from pull in to drive off leaving time to BS with the customer listening to them tell you how nice the work looks.

 

[allenwayne]

Well I will throw in my 2 cents here. We do this type of work all the time did it today and will do it tomarrow. I would have to look it up but I quess last year we installed 300 remodle cans. I have come up with a flat price that has made it good for me and the customer to get this work done. I almost always have two guys on these jobs. 6 cans 2 switches 2 recptacles would be $950.00 all materials included. remodle cans are $7.17 at Home depot, trim is $3.25 lamp is $1.95 wire is insane still. Don't buy the remodle juno cans at Lowes they don't go in the hole very well due to thier design. The job you talk about would take us 3 hours from pull in to drive off leaving time to BS with the customer listening to them tell you how nice the work looks.

FWIW,I think you are selling your self a bit to cheap.Flat rates do work out in the long run.I`ve been using them for along time.But $950.00 doesn`t come close to my figure.I have found where you lose on one job you`ll gain 2 fold on the next one.

Add a recessed can - $195 @
Add a receptacle - $ 95 @
Add a switch - $ 95 @

Total - $ 1,550.00


These are figures that have worked for me, but if you are satisfied with $950 that`s up to you.

 

[iwire]

The classic example of a task that can't be subdivided or performed in parallel is a baby. If the goal is "One Baby", nine pregnant women will not produce a baby in one month's time.

Tasks that can be subdivided, but which don't parallize easily, might be installing branch circuits. If you have ten branch circuits, you could throw ten people at it -- one circuit each.

So in a long winded way you have simply said what Celtic and I have said, many tasks can benefit from more workers, that is unless you did that project by yourself.

It is a no brainier that there is a point where more workers are wasteful.

The last 'big deal' cut over I did I used seven workers, more would not have made it go faster.

And as much as I respect Marc there is no way a single person is going to pull sets of 600 CU in as efficiently as a few people.

As far as the can lights it would surprise me that Marc can do it faster by himself, I suspect that is because he really does not delegate the work even with a helper on site. In other words he ends up doing more than 1/2 the work himself as he is not happy with anyones work but his own.

 

[tallgirl]

So in a long winded way you have simply said what Celtic and I have said, many tasks can benefit from more workers, that is unless you did that project by yourself.

Correct.

It is a no brainier that there is a point where more workers are wasteful.

I wish that were true. For people who have actual work experience in whatever field, it seems to be well understood after years of learning that adding people can make things worse. But many inexperienced people think in very linear terms -- more people, more throughput -- or fail to grasp that negative productivity is a possibility -- more people, less total throughput. The latter is completely counterintuitive, even amongst really smart people who work on computers

The flip side is people who think only in terms of efficiency and who ignore things like opportunity cost, marginal costs, marginal productivity, etc. which are pretty hard concepts, again, for a lot of people to grasp. It's probably the single greatest obstacle facing a small business that wants to expand -- justifying hiring another employee because the current staff seems to be "efficient" and there wouldn't be "enough work". It might be more efficient for a two person crew to work together, but the difference in efficiency between a two person and a three person crew is offset by the marginal increase in profits from having a third worker available when needed. Then, once that third worker is available, the lost opportunities (such as jobs that require three workers) become more apparent or are created as this third worker is able to assume more responsibility and increase employer profit.

As for Marc and the 10 can example, I've seen examples of this in a variety of fields, including the geek field. Highly skilled workers who fail to make the transition from "working" to "leading". Not saying that this is what Marc is up to personally, but that people become very good at what they are doing and rightly believe they are better than anyone they might delegate to do the work. Many of the software architects I've known over the years eventually learn that they need to put down the keyboard and stop programming as much as they used to. They are still better programmers than everyone working for them, but they can't get anything done if they are trying to do it all themselves.

 

[bkludecke]

FWIW, in a small company (10 or fewer employees) the type of work as well as the type of employee makes all the difference in the efficiency of the crew. I've got a GREAT jman (been on my payroll 20+ yrs) who is always complaining about not having a helper. Problem is that he is not a leader or foreman by a long stretch, he wants to always do things his own way by himself and throw the poor apprentice "under the bus" and then blaming all mistakes on the helper who was not really supervised. He is a great producer when he is solo and if he needs help I have to send another jman to make it work.

When I started out I was solo and still brag to this day about what I could get done in a day (I embellish the stories more every year). But to compare my production to an employee is not fair because I was basically doing "peicework" and, as the owner of the company, had more of a stake in my own production than anyone can ever hope to expect from an employee.

My point is that when I staff a job I consider the type of work, the type of employee(s), personalities/conflicts, and training opportunities for the apprentices.

 

[tallgirl]

That's one of the problems with small companies -- you can't afford to spend time training top performers to be leaders, so if they aren't interested or don't have the skills, they stay stuck. Somewhere between having too much of an ego and not having enough of one is where most leaders function.

Before Tech became a bunch of cheap-skates we used to do "team building" exercises. Employees versus managers volleyball was always great fun. I have great aim when I serve and would pick on managers who'd caused me trouble. Maybe journeypeeps versus apprentices full-contact rugby would teach that buy a bit of humility :grin:

 

[Luketrician]

"That's one of the problems with small companies -- you can't afford to spend time training top performers to be leaders, so if they aren't interested or don't have the skills, they stay stuck."


Staying stuck, I wonder if that's the way they see it? Maybe those mentioned are content in their position?

Just another point of view. :smile:

 

[tallgirl]

"That's one of the problems with small companies -- you can't afford to spend time training top performers to be leaders, so if they aren't interested or don't have the skills, they stay stuck."


Staying stuck, I wonder if that's the way they see it? Maybe those mentioned are content in their position?

Just another point of view. :smile:

Could be. I got a lecture from a 2nd line manager a few years ago about other architects (loosely, "people who design software") who never advanced beyond their level because they just didn't want to.

But a person who has conflicts with helpers is more likely, in my professional experience, to have ego problems, and blaming a job's problems on the helper is another good sign of that.

When I mentor leaders-to-be I work on two major skills. The first is "You don't have to do it all yourself", which is about getting them to delegate tasks to underlings. The second is "You don't have to know everything", which is about getting them to go others for help. One key item relevant to this discussion is for them to know that they are responsible, even when things go wrong. And that means, it's their fault -- they can't blame their helper because THEY are the senior person on the team. For someone who feels like they've finally reached the height of their game, accepting responsibility for an underling's mistakes can be a huge obstacle to advancement. As an aside, it can also be a problem with management in that management can be overly or inappropriately critical. For example if Joe Whiz Journeyman is "slipping" because he has a new helper, instead of getting Joe to focus more on teaching skills to Alice Apprentice to bring her up to speed, the manager harshes on the fact that Joe's productivity is slipping. Do that more than once and Joe is going to learn not to have an apprentice working around him.

 

[mdshunk]

And as much as I respect Marc there is no way a single person is going to pull sets of 600 CU in as efficiently as a few people.

But the equipment does exist to make that a one man job, if it absolutely had to be. I was mostly just taking the extreme opposite view when I said that there are no 2 man jobs. There are exceptions, such a heavy things and big things.

As far as the can lights it wouldn't surprise me that Marc can do it faster by himself, I suspect that is because he really does not delegate the work even with a helper on site. In other words he ends up doing more than 1/2 the work himself as he is not happy with anyones work but his own.

That about sums it up. We all have our cross to bear. This is why I will never be able to grow a company much.

 

[iwire]

Marc, I hope you know that I did not mean any disrespect.

That about sums it up. We all have our cross to bear. This is why I will never be able to grow a company much.

Is that important to you?

Are you happy now?

 

[mdshunk]

I've got a GREAT jman (been on my payroll 20+ yrs) who is always complaining about not having a helper. Problem is that he is not a leader or foreman by a long stretch, he wants to always do things his own way by himself and throw the poor apprentice "under the bus" and then blaming all mistakes on the helper who was not really supervised. He is a great producer when he is solo and if he needs help I have to send another jman to make it work. .

Yeah, that's pretty much the way my resume reads too.

 

[mdshunk]

Marc, I hope you know that I did not mean any disrespect.

No, I appreciate your very correct observation. It is the same observation that I have made about myself in that past. I agree. My response was also a true and accurate asessment of my future, as best as I can tell.

Is that important to you?

Are you happy now?

I'm as busy as I care to be, have more money than I really need, so I'm in cruise control in a comfort zone. I could be so much more with more management skills, I do realize. I have resolved instead to work until I'm 100, and I see nothing wrong with that. 'Hard work never killed anyone', my daddy always said.