Privatizing inspectors

[kwired]

I think the only fair way to do this is the AHJ still sets the rules.

This means the permit process and fees are set by AHJ, the adopted code and any amendments is established by AHJ, rules for non compliant installations and penalties or reinspection fees are established by the AHJ, contractor, and other electrical workers licensing requirements, fees, etc. are established and handled by AHJ, and probably other items have rules set and controlled by AHJ.

The inspectors are nothing more than contractors that should have to bid for the job to go out and do what inspectors do and leave administration to the AHJ.

These contracts should be maybe 5 year contracts and need to be renewed every 5 years, and anyone willing to submit a bid to do this job that is qualified to do so can submit a bid. Lowest bidder need not be the one awarded the contract, consideration must be taken into account the ability of the bidder to get the job done, and there may be established guidelines to determine this.

If there is no money to be made then there will not be many bidders. I would think most of us would be more interested in actually making money as the EC and not as the inspection contractor. Now those wanting to be an employee and not an owner or other executive officer - would take a job as the inspector, but the typical EC will not have a lot of interest in taking on the inspection process as it would be a rather fixed budget instead of open market, but some may have their reasons.

 

[Rewire]

Some things should be left to the government not everything works well when privatized. The problem I see is that profit not safety may be the motivation if inspections are done bt a private firm . I can also see a $50 permit going to $150 .

 

[TimK]

Some things should be left to the government not everything works well when privatized. The problem I see is that profit not safety may be the motivation if inspections are done bt a private firm . I can also see a $50 permit going to $150 .

So are you saying it is better to leave it in the Gov't hands and raise my taxes, than it is to privatize and charge what it is worth and not burden everybody with the collective price?:?

 

[Rewire]

So are you saying it is better to leave it in the Gov't hands and raise my taxes, than it is to privatize and charge what it is worth and not burden everybody with the collective price?:?

yes that sums it up. You would prefer corners be cut to keep profit up???

 

[TimK]

yes that sums it up. You would prefer corners be cut to keep profit up???

So, as long as you get more money in your pocket, even if you go steal it from your neighbor.

 

[Rewire]

So, as long as you get more money in your pocket, even if you go steal it from your neighbor.

So taxes are stealing ,got it

 

[TimK]

So taxes are stealing ,got it

When you ask somebody to pay for it when they have nothing to do with that job? YES, as in taxes. Some of the inspector programs are completely self sustained, YEA, others rely on government assistance, throw the money in a pot and call it a grab bag, makes no sense as to why that would be okay?

 

[Rewire]

When you ask somebody to pay for it when they have nothing to do with that job? YES, as in taxes. Some of the inspector programs are completely self sustained, YEA, others rely on government assistance, throw the money in a pot and call it a grab bag, makes no sense as to why that would be okay?

When you live in a community what affe ts your neighbor also can affect you. I have worked house fire jobs where the neighbors had damage also. Poorly constructed homes can also devalue your home even if they are not right next door.

 

[renosteinke]

Pick any great engineering achievement, and you'll find they were accomplished in spite of, rather than assisted by, any manner of 'oversight.'

Case in point: The Eiffel Tower was opposed by the experts of the time, who insisted it would collapse.

Or, the Brooklyn Bridge, masterminded by the wife of a disabled dreamer who had little use for engineers, and whose primary obstacles were the various governmental bodies that kept trying to interfere.

Abraham Lincoln came to note when he defended the railroad's first bridge across the Mississippi - against the Steamboat Pilot's Union and the Corps of Engineers, who claimed it was a 'hazard to navigation' because they were able to deliberately ram it with a boat. Code, after all, forbade constructing any 'meance' to navigation. (Still does, in fact).

Introducing government does not ensure that corners will not be 'cut.' Prior to the MGM hotel fire in Las Vegas, Nevada inspectors freely admit that many of their 'inspections' took place at 70MPH as they drove past on the freeway. Even today, most places require their inspectors to inspect roofs- yet forbid them to climb ladders or otherwise access the roof. (I guess they're supposed to go to a nearby hill and use a telescope!)

Looking to Mark Twain's account of the Steamboat Pilots Union, we see how Mississippi River safety was greatly enhanced entirely by private insurance. Simply put, Union pilots got far lower rates because they had far fewer claims ... and that was all because of a system of mailboxes, no less!

That is the free market at work.

What do city inspections accomplish? They certainly don't approve designs; instead they rely completely on the guy who stamped the drawings. Make sure plans are followed? Ha! That works so well that customers already have their own people monitor the jobs where it matters. Buying a house? Bet you hire a home inspector.

The fears of accelerating fees and misplaced priorities that Rewire expresses are not borne out by the Missouri experience in privatising the DMV. The issue is not 'profit vs. safety.' Profit is a virtue, a measure - not a vice. As evidenced by the insurance company driven service changes, the profit motive can encourage improvements. The slumlord wanted lower rates (or just wanted to be able to buy insurance), and the insurance company wanted to reduce claims. End result: fuses replaced with breakers.

Which, of course, brings up the classic debate of which is 'safer,' the fuse or the circuit breaker. Engineering wonks and manufacturers have been quite passionate on this issue. Yet, the actual loss experience of the insurance companies has a clear answer: use breakers and fewer bad things will happen. Unlike engineering calculations, the loss experience takes into account human factors (like the overfused circuit).

The profit motive, with competition in a free market, may not be perfect - but it sure works out better than any other method.

 

[Rewire]

xxxxx

 

[kwired]

Pick any great engineering achievement, and you'll find they were accomplished in spite of, rather than assisted by, any manner of 'oversight.'

Case in point: The Eiffel Tower was opposed by the experts of the time, who insisted it would collapse.

Or, the Brooklyn Bridge, masterminded by the wife of a disabled dreamer who had little use for engineers, and whose primary obstacles were the various governmental bodies that kept trying to interfere.

Abraham Lincoln came to note when he defended the railroad's first bridge across the Mississippi - against the Steamboat Pilot's Union and the Corps of Engineers, who claimed it was a 'hazard to navigation' because they were able to deliberately ram it with a boat. Code, after all, forbade constructing any 'meance' to navigation. (Still does, in fact).

Introducing government does not ensure that corners will not be 'cut.' Prior to the MGM hotel fire in Las Vegas, Nevada inspectors freely admit that many of their 'inspections' took place at 70MPH as they drove past on the freeway. Even today, most places require their inspectors to inspect roofs- yet forbid them to climb ladders or otherwise access the roof. (I guess they're supposed to go to a nearby hill and use a telescope!)

Looking to Mark Twain's account of the Steamboat Pilots Union, we see how Mississippi River safety was greatly enhanced entirely by private insurance. Simply put, Union pilots got far lower rates because they had far fewer claims ... and that was all because of a system of mailboxes, no less!

That is the free market at work.

What do city inspections accomplish? They certainly don't approve designs; instead they rely completely on the guy who stamped the drawings. Make sure plans are followed? Ha! That works so well that customers already have their own people monitor the jobs where it matters. Buying a house? Bet you hire a home inspector.

The fears of accelerating fees and misplaced priorities that Rewire expresses are not borne out by the Missouri experience in privatising the DMV. The issue is not 'profit vs. safety.' Profit is a virtue, a measure - not a vice. As evidenced by the insurance company driven service changes, the profit motive can encourage improvements. The slumlord wanted lower rates (or just wanted to be able to buy insurance), and the insurance company wanted to reduce claims. End result: fuses replaced with breakers.

Which, of course, brings up the classic debate of which is 'safer,' the fuse or the circuit breaker. Engineering wonks and manufacturers have been quite passionate on this issue. Yet, the actual loss experience of the insurance companies has a clear answer: use breakers and fewer bad things will happen. Unlike engineering calculations, the loss experience takes into account human factors (like the overfused circuit).

The profit motive, with competition in a free market, may not be perfect - but it sure works out better than any other method.

Good points in there. I generally agree that a free market is the best thing. When it comes to regulatory type services, it may still be able to work, but there needs to be a way to make sure the regulations are being enforced fairly, though there are corruptions in government run organizations also.

I have mixed opinions as to which is best. Like I said free market is generally the best and competition will usually keep each other in check.

Here in NE we still have publicly owned electric utilities. They do not have executive officers that are taking huge bonuses, sure some of the big guys are paid pretty well but their salaries are carefully planned for in the budget and there are publicly elected boards of directors. I wouldn't necessarily call them a non for profit - though they may officially be that status, their profits are put back into the development of future needs. What does the citizens get in return? Reliable energy, and one of the lowest electric energy rates in the nation.

Now a little more on topic, the State Electrical Division - (the State AHJ). It is a government entity, controlled by the government, but not tax funded. Their budget comes from their own receipts from their own operation. The same rules apply in one corner of the state as in the opposite corner. If you have a problem with the local inspector they are usually easy to get along with and something can be worked out, but they also have support from the executive officer and the board members. Board members by law (I believe) must consist of a certain number of people from different areas including, electricians (including both contractors and journeymen, I think), engineers, POCO representatives, certified electrical, inspectors, and maybe others). Most of their "rules" are state laws and they can not just change them at will. They have to submit a bill to the legislature to change the rules. This includes getting the newest edition of the NEC adopted every three years.

I am not familiar with the permit or inspection process elsewhere, but from a lot of what I read on places like this forum, I believe that we have one of the most fair systems out there, and really don't see how contracting all of what they do to a private party would improve the quality and fairness of what we have here.

Have I ever disagreed with an inspector, yes. Have I ever done something I did not like because that is what the AHJ determined was what they would approve, yes. But whether or not I liked the result I feel the result was determined in a fair manner.

I am sure there are government run AHJ's that are full of corruption, it is up to the citizens of the governing body to take steps to clean that up, they have the power to do so.

 

[cowboyjwc]

So are you saying it is better to leave it in the Gov't hands and raise my taxes, than it is to privatize and charge what it is worth and not burden everybody with the collective price?:?

So you guys must not understand how privatization works. It's still the government, it's simply a department that is now run by people who are in the business of making money and they of course get paid by your tax dollars, unless they are making enough in permit fees to cover costs.

They certainly wouldn't stay around if they were taking a loss like we are right now, they would, as someone already stated, simply raise permit fees to cover all of their costs, which by the way is perfectly legal as long as you can show justification.

 

[cowboyjwc]

Pick any great engineering achievement, and you'll find they were accomplished in spite of, rather than assisted by, any manner of 'oversight.'

Case in point: The Eiffel Tower was opposed by the experts of the time, who insisted it would collapse.

Or, the Brooklyn Bridge, masterminded by the wife of a disabled dreamer who had little use for engineers, and whose primary obstacles were the various governmental bodies that kept trying to interfere.

Abraham Lincoln came to note when he defended the railroad's first bridge across the Mississippi - against the Steamboat Pilot's Union and the Corps of Engineers, who claimed it was a 'hazard to navigation' because they were able to deliberately ram it with a boat. Code, after all, forbade constructing any 'meance' to navigation. (Still does, in fact).

Introducing government does not ensure that corners will not be 'cut.' Prior to the MGM hotel fire in Las Vegas, Nevada inspectors freely admit that many of their 'inspections' took place at 70MPH as they drove past on the freeway. Even today, most places require their inspectors to inspect roofs- yet forbid them to climb ladders or otherwise access the roof. (I guess they're supposed to go to a nearby hill and use a telescope!)

Looking to Mark Twain's account of the Steamboat Pilots Union, we see how Mississippi River safety was greatly enhanced entirely by private insurance. Simply put, Union pilots got far lower rates because they had far fewer claims ... and that was all because of a system of mailboxes, no less!

That is the free market at work.

What do city inspections accomplish? They certainly don't approve designs; instead they rely completely on the guy who stamped the drawings. Make sure plans are followed? Ha! That works so well that customers already have their own people monitor the jobs where it matters. Buying a house? Bet you hire a home inspector.

The fears of accelerating fees and misplaced priorities that Rewire expresses are not borne out by the Missouri experience in privatising the DMV. The issue is not 'profit vs. safety.' Profit is a virtue, a measure - not a vice. As evidenced by the insurance company driven service changes, the profit motive can encourage improvements. The slumlord wanted lower rates (or just wanted to be able to buy insurance), and the insurance company wanted to reduce claims. End result: fuses replaced with breakers.

Which, of course, brings up the classic debate of which is 'safer,' the fuse or the circuit breaker. Engineering wonks and manufacturers have been quite passionate on this issue. Yet, the actual loss experience of the insurance companies has a clear answer: use breakers and fewer bad things will happen. Unlike engineering calculations, the loss experience takes into account human factors (like the overfused circuit).

The profit motive, with competition in a free market, may not be perfect - but it sure works out better than any other method.

Yes and the Kansas City skyway collapse and all of the last few crane collapses and the recent Mississippi river bridge collapse, the MGM Grand Hotel fire, were all because of lack of proper government oversite.

 

[K8MHZ]

What makes me apprehensive is that the motive for inspections change when privatized.

The gov't is not doing it for the money, obviously. Their mission is safety. Their goal is total compliance.

A corp. is doing it for the money, keeps 80 percent of the fines and have no reason to look at total compliance as a goal. Lot's of fines means lots of money.

Also, constitutionally, don't we only have our rights concerning the government? Would we still have our constitutional rights with a private company?

We don't have them here, on this board. It's not expected, being it's a private board. Wouldn't the same go for a private inspection company?

 

[tleaf28]

Is the private company essentially running the whole show or just doing inspections and other things incidental to inspections?

Shouldn't the city (or whoever the governing agency is) be the one issuing permits?

Does this company have to submit a bid periodically to retain their contract with the city, and the bid is open to other bidders? Or are they just in this position until enough people have a problem with the situation and they get legal action or legislation involved to change something?

IBI is basically running the show when it comes to electrical work around Cinci. I am not sure how they get the work other than, right or wrong, it's the way it's always been.

FWIW, they are very fair when it comes to the actual inspections. Their inspectors are very knowledgeable and don't make up code or apply it wrongly, but they do always find something "wrong" requiring a second visit. They just nickle and dime everyone for anything they can.

 

[cowboyjwc]

What makes me apprehensive is that the motive for inspections change when privatized.

The gov't is not doing it for the money, obviously. Their mission is safety. Their goal is total compliance.

A corp. is doing it for the money, keeps 80 percent of the fines and have no reason to look at total compliance as a goal. Lot's of fines means lots of money.

Also, constitutionally, don't we only have our rights concerning the government? Would we still have our constitutional rights with a private company?

We don't have them here, on this board. It's not expected, being it's a private board. Wouldn't the same go for a private inspection company?

Very well stated. Thank you.

 

[kwired]

What makes me apprehensive is that the motive for inspections change when privatized.

The gov't is not doing it for the money, obviously. Their mission is safety. Their goal is total compliance.

A corp. is doing it for the money, keeps 80 percent of the fines and have no reason to look at total compliance as a goal. Lot's of fines means lots of money.

Also, constitutionally, don't we only have our rights concerning the government? Would we still have our constitutional rights with a private company?

We don't have them here, on this board. It's not expected, being it's a private board. Wouldn't the same go for a private inspection company?

But if they are contracted to by the government to perform inspections to the standards set by that government, then there should be essentially no difference in whether a particular installation passes or fails as the standards are supposed to be the same. How do you ensure that happens IDK. In either case the inspector is a human being and can make mistakes, have their own beliefs or methods interfere with what they do or should do. What is most important is being consistent in enforcing codes and requiring inspections and having uniformity in processes no matter who is involved. It is not fair to allow contractor A to pay extra and have something overlooked, it is not fair to charge a higher fee to one individual to do same inspection as another individual has at a lower fee.

IBI is basically running the show when it comes to electrical work around Cinci. I am not sure how they get the work other than, right or wrong, it's the way it's always been.

FWIW, they are very fair when it comes to the actual inspections. Their inspectors are very knowledgeable and don't make up code or apply it wrongly, but they do always find something "wrong" requiring a second visit. They just nickle and dime everyone for anything they can.

Had an inspector that liked to do that a lot one time. Bad thing is he was always right, but had a way of finding the most minor things, so there was not much you could really do about it. His superiors eventually got enough complaints and made him back off. He is still pretty good at finding those little things (which is good) but does not always make it corrected through official correction notice and additional fees.

Finding mistakes is one thing, but when you have run several thousand feet of cable and you get a correction notice and have held up other trades all because he found one place where you should have put a support for a cable, it can make the relationship between contractor and inspector get very ugly.

 

[haskindm]

An interesting note in Maryland: A private inspector (referred to as third party) must be licensed by the Fire Marshall's office to perform inspections. There is no qualification requirement for inspectors employed directly by a government entity. Result is that government employed inspectors range from totally unqualified to extremely qualified, where private inspectors must all meet at least a minimum standard.

 

[kwired]

An interesting note in Maryland: A private inspector (referred to as third party) must be licensed by the Fire Marshall's office to perform inspections. There is no qualification requirement for inspectors employed directly by a government entity. Result is that government employed inspectors range from totally unqualified to extremely qualified, where private inspectors must all meet at least a minimum standard.

That all depends on the laws. All the inspectors here are government employees, but law still says they will be certified, not sure to what standards but I'm pretty sure the laws do spell out the details. IIRC they do need to be at least a journeyman license holder or equivelant experience necessary to even be considered for a job as an inspector, but they do not need to be a certified inspector to be hired, but will receive certification after hiring, and will go through periodic recertification. Their employer takes care of this through meetings, training sessions, etc, and is not really much of a burden the inspector needs to totally do on their own.

 

[cowboyjwc]

That all depends on the laws. All the inspectors here are government employees, but law still says they will be certified, not sure to what standards but I'm pretty sure the laws do spell out the details. IIRC they do need to be at least a journeyman license holder or equivelant experience necessary to even be considered for a job as an inspector, but they do not need to be a certified inspector to be hired, but will receive certification after hiring, and will go through periodic recertification. Their employer takes care of this through meetings, training sessions, etc, and is not really much of a burden the inspector needs to totally do on their own.

Pretty much the same here in CA