Safety training?
- Thread starter ctroyp
- Start date
- Status
charlie
Senior Member
- Location
- Indianapolis
Re: Safety training?
For the most part, this is the training you received when you went through your apprenticeship training. Journeymen are normally considered to be qualified persons. This is not always a true statement since a journeyman could be qualified in one area and not have all the training to work in another area.
For the most part, this is the training you received when you went through your apprenticeship training. Journeymen are normally considered to be qualified persons. This is not always a true statement since a journeyman could be qualified in one area and not have all the training to work in another area.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Safety training?
As stated in another thread my state, CA, now requires all electricians to be state certified. You have to take a Journeyman's type test to be certified. Then there is annual continuing education. A component of all that is safety training. CA has decided that you have to prove that you are qualified.
I hope this helps. Your mileage may vary.
As stated in another thread my state, CA, now requires all electricians to be state certified. You have to take a Journeyman's type test to be certified. Then there is annual continuing education. A component of all that is safety training. CA has decided that you have to prove that you are qualified.
I hope this helps. Your mileage may vary.
- Location
- Lockport, IL
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Engineer
Re: Safety training?
I think this is one of those ?You?re welcome to come in, but leave your lawsuit at the door? kinds of statements. If someone is hurt, and if someone else starts asking how it happened, the NFPA can say, ?We told you that you should get safety training. And since it now appears that you didn?t get enough safety training, we conclude that you were not qualified to do the job. You can?t blame us if you did work for which you were not qualified.? I'm not criticizing the NFPA. I think it is a sensible way for the NFPA to protect their own interests, while expressing a valid caution to its readers about the hazards of the profession.
To me, it resembles something I recall from my Navy days: the ?Rules of the Nautical Road.? The actions that two vessels might be required to take as they approach one another are, in fact, not required, if the two vessels will not approach close enough for there to be a ?risk of collision.? But if two vessels do collide, it becomes hard to make the case that they were never close enough to create a risk of collision. By analogy, if someone does get hurt, it becomes hard to make the case that the person had received the safety training needed to prevent the injury.
Am I getting cynical in my old age?
I think this is one of those ?You?re welcome to come in, but leave your lawsuit at the door? kinds of statements. If someone is hurt, and if someone else starts asking how it happened, the NFPA can say, ?We told you that you should get safety training. And since it now appears that you didn?t get enough safety training, we conclude that you were not qualified to do the job. You can?t blame us if you did work for which you were not qualified.? I'm not criticizing the NFPA. I think it is a sensible way for the NFPA to protect their own interests, while expressing a valid caution to its readers about the hazards of the profession.
To me, it resembles something I recall from my Navy days: the ?Rules of the Nautical Road.? The actions that two vessels might be required to take as they approach one another are, in fact, not required, if the two vessels will not approach close enough for there to be a ?risk of collision.? But if two vessels do collide, it becomes hard to make the case that they were never close enough to create a risk of collision. By analogy, if someone does get hurt, it becomes hard to make the case that the person had received the safety training needed to prevent the injury.
Am I getting cynical in my old age?
websparky
Senior Member
- Location
- Cleveland, Ohio
Re: Safety training?
Here are two definitions from OSHA;
Here are two definitions from OSHA;
Re: Safety training?
Nice work Dave. The OSHA definition is a little more informative than the 2002 NEC def.
It still doesn't specify anything discrete concerning safety training. I doubt that there is an answer.
If a contractor belongs to an organization w/ other contractors, they sometimes will require a certification for the Journeyman or Master electrician that is to be on the job at all times.
Maybe next code cycle, the NEC gods will better define what safety training means
Nice work Dave. The OSHA definition is a little more informative than the 2002 NEC def.
It still doesn't specify anything discrete concerning safety training. I doubt that there is an answer.
If a contractor belongs to an organization w/ other contractors, they sometimes will require a certification for the Journeyman or Master electrician that is to be on the job at all times.
Maybe next code cycle, the NEC gods will better define what safety training means
pierre
Senior Member
- Location
- Westchester County, New York
Re: Safety training?
Hello Troy and Guys
This subject is usually not covered in the NEC, installer safety is not the main substance of the NEC.
The NEC is using the background of OSHA, and NFPA 70E to base it's wording. 110.16 is another step towards worker safety (as much as it peeves a lot of people).
Qualified Person - is going to have a hugh impact on this industry if the men/contractor do not wake up! With the changes in technology and the advancements in this industry, there are plenty who are making installations and do not UNDERSTAND the risks they are taking. This is the reason that the NEC has started and will continue to add 'worker' safety to it's wording.
BTW - It is a good thing.
Will it add to the cost of work? YES
Will it make the worker safer? NO Only the boss and the worker working together will be able to do that.
Will it raise awareness? It has already started to.
When the 'boss' stops taking advantage of the worker, rules like this will not be necessary.
Pierre
Hello Troy and Guys
This subject is usually not covered in the NEC, installer safety is not the main substance of the NEC.
The NEC is using the background of OSHA, and NFPA 70E to base it's wording. 110.16 is another step towards worker safety (as much as it peeves a lot of people).
Qualified Person - is going to have a hugh impact on this industry if the men/contractor do not wake up! With the changes in technology and the advancements in this industry, there are plenty who are making installations and do not UNDERSTAND the risks they are taking. This is the reason that the NEC has started and will continue to add 'worker' safety to it's wording.
BTW - It is a good thing.
Will it add to the cost of work? YES
Will it make the worker safer? NO Only the boss and the worker working together will be able to do that.
Will it raise awareness? It has already started to.
When the 'boss' stops taking advantage of the worker, rules like this will not be necessary.
Pierre
- Status