Why should I use a Registered Electrical Contractor?

meercat

2011 wrote: »

That is not the case:

https://www.newstalk.com/news/wicklow-electrical-works-investigation-unsafe-electrical-contractor-naas-district-court-jailed-615352

And a more recent one. In fairness there have been a few cases

https://www.cru.ie/cork-man-given-criminal-conviction-and-fined-e4000-for-illegally-undertaking-electrical-works/

Bruthal

Andrea B. wrote: »

Was the conviction and sentence here driven in part by the work being wholly unsafe, unqualified and purporting to be RECI, as opposed to not being registered?

I doubt any case will ever report the standard as having been good, as it wouldnt go well with the conviction.

2011

Andrea B. wrote: »

Was the conviction and sentence here driven in part by the work being wholly unsafe, unqualified and purporting to be RECI, as opposed to not being registered?

I have no idea to be honest. I was just pointing out to antiseptic that he was incorrect by suggesting that convictions only occurred if there was an incident.

Turnrew

Andrea B. wrote: »

Was the conviction and sentence here driven in part by the work being wholly unsafe, unqualified and purporting to be RECI, as opposed to not being registered?

I believe the work was both unlawful and illegal

dathi

meercat wrote: »

And a more recent one. In fairness there have been a few cases

https://www.cru.ie/cork-man-given-criminal-conviction-and-fined-e4000-for-illegally-undertaking-electrical-works/

both cases highlighted secured convictions because the person claimed to be registered electricians when they were not

Turnrew

How many electricians are currently in jail?

2011

Turnrew wrote: »

How many electricians are currently in jail?

I doubt that statistics are kept on that.
Why do you ask?

antiskeptic

2011 wrote: »

That does not answer my question[/quote.]

You asked whether I see value. I do. That value is primarily market derived - there is a market for the skill. If electrics was like cutting grass there would be value. But less.

Clearly the market does see the value of electricians as demand is at an all time high. I think that the main reason that someone chooses not to use a qualified electrician / REC is because they can't get one as demand has outstripped supply.

According to my reci mate a reason is cost. I gather adding a socket can bring a world of pain with boards having to be checked out and the like. An old 200 quid job becomes a 1000 job or some such.

Lets assume things move to the next step and a heating control upgrade needs a plumber and a reci. The costs balloon.

Are you seriously suggesting that demand has dropped off?

No.

In one way the were better as the ESB actually inspected every rewire that a certificate was issued for and the certificates were free. I remember collecting them. I am not a fan of the current self certification at all.

Anyway that is the past we have to deal with the present.

Which returns us to the question of cost benefit. Relatively little damage done the old way. And a world of extra cost foisted upon the nation with the new way.

You are cherrypicking one example of what one type of engineer does and using this to support the argument that we should allow anyone do whatever they feel is sufficient regardless of their technical expertise. Not a valid argument IMHO.

I was actually pointing out another certification process which appears to have little merit. Buildings didnt collapse but all of a sudden the need for certed struc steel and engineer sign off.

I'm not suggesting the dog in the street ought be able perform heart surgery. I was pointing out we have data for the situation before this specific move to restricted works. And the data doesn't appear to support the need for a move to restricting works. This, if considering things from a cost / benefit perspective.

In short, what basis is there for restricted works, if death and damage ain't it.

2011

antiskeptic wrote: »

In short, what basis is there for restricted works, if death and damage ain't it.

I will give you the same answer I always gave, it’s about collecting tax revenue. Nothing else, pure and simple.

That’s my short iPhone answer as I am working abroad at present, sorry:)

2011

antiskeptic wrote: »

According to my reci mate a reason is cost. I gather adding a socket can bring a world of pain with boards having to be checked out and the like. An old 200 quid job becomes a 1000 job or some such.

It was always the car that when connecting a socket to a board it should be checked that it was safe to do so. Nothing new there.

Lets assume things move to the next step and a heating control upgrade needs a plumber and a reci. The costs balloon.

I would prefer if suitably qualified people did electrical work which is not necessarily RECI. I don’t think that anyone should be able to “have a go”.

Which returns us to the question of cost benefit. Relatively little damage done the old way. And a world of extra cost foisted upon the nation with the new way.

Relatively little wiring in the average home with relatively small loads in the old days. That has changed, many more electrical points, solar panels, induction hobs, standby generators, heating controls, heat pumps etc. You are not comparing like with like, things have moved on considerably.

I was actually pointing out another certification process which appears to have little merit. Buildings didnt collapse but all of a sudden the need for certed struc steel and engineer sign off.

Still cherrypicking though. Sometimes banks insist on this sort of thing. I have been on site for around 6 fatalities to date, 2 were in the IFSC. So regardless of what you say sh!t happens.

You could make the same arguments about drink driving, seat belts, ABS brakes etc. sure not many died. Right??

I'm not suggesting the dog in the street ought be able perform heart surgery.

Really? Earlier in your post you didn’t seem to want a board checked when adding a additional load to it.

micks

IMO the concept is good but the way Safe Electric / RECI leaves a lot to be improved

For me the biggest issue is the competency of the REC
I'd have a lot more faith in it if there was a lot more random testing by RECI not just them calling a REC and asking what job can they look at.


Electrical regulation is seriously lacking in this country. I've the guts of 30 years experience in installation, commissioning, maintenance and operation of electrical systems up to 220Kv

I have rewired up to 30 houses. Lost count of other jobs I have completed in domestic dwellings. Haven't done much outside of the day job in the last decade or so.

the main problem i have the REC only model is the competency of the person completing the work or rather determining and clarification of the standard of the work completed.

Over the last few years I have had several interactions with RECs and most have left me uncomfortable.
most recent was a REC completing workin in my parents house (received grant so had to be REC) whilst testing he was concerned and wanted to disconnect the house. He contacted the ESB who arrive the next morning to confirm all was ok after an earth loop impedance test. ESB invoiced him and he tried to invoice my parents - they obviously refused. ANway a few days later I had a look at the dist board to see was there an issue and noticed the circuit he'd connected - a 1.5mm flex he connected to the busbar to feed his spur! no protection on the flex.

Another was a lad in work who is also a REC - while completing a PM we'd to measure current of a 10kw fan - which was running - he told me it was 0.1 A he was "testing" as you would for voltage and had no idea what i was on about when i explained where he was going wrong.

I know these prob are isolated but my point is with the RECs there is no real checks and balance.

As mentioned we all know the lads that can write their name in conduit but have not idea of anything else. There is nothing to stop "johnner" the conduit expert getting a job, just out of his time, completes his testing and verification et viola he is a REC when he pays his dues.
Does a job or 2 gets his mate to show him what he needs to know and RECI inspect them and he's good to go learning his way but as a REC

antiskeptic wrote: »

Take industry (where things aren't as tight). You have a 24 hour operation employing 1 electrician (who is mechanically adept enough) and two fitters (who are electrically adept enough to deal with the kinds of things that typically cause a production line to halt). Either an electrician or a fitter covers each shift, doing both mechanical and electrical troubleshooting.

.

Sounds like low end industry - food etc
you wont get many Pharma / Large Scale Data centres having 1 person on a night shift working alone, or switching/operating/LOTO on their own

Steve wrote: »

Just to explain my earlier 'rafter monkey' comment:

There are big differences between COMPETENT, QUALIFIED, and REGISTERED.

In my 30 years in the industry, I met all three groups and permutations of them.

The only group I trust are the competent ones.

e.g being qualified and registered means nothing if all they did was served time doing domestic first fixes during the 'boom' times where - literally - they swung cable over rafters in the minimum possible time and moved to the next house.

Now, I'm not painting all with that brush by any means, I'm just pointing out they exist and they are the weak point in an otherwise sound system. There are also many overqualified RECs that have an industrial background and / or a well founded domestic background that can do an exemplary job.

Point is, you simply need to be qualified, by whatever means, no experience needed, and then pay the (€400ish?) registration tax, and take out insurance to become a REC.

Going back to the original question asked..

"Why should I use a Registered Electrical Contractor?"

Simple answer is "You have to for tax reasons.."

ye but define competent - I know the definition. But its like asking someone whats a very good premier league team.
I agree REC/Safe electric/RECI was brought in to try stop the blackmarket in the recession where there was no shortage of electricians available and killing the RECs. So they came up with this to save RECs and RECI

I'd have a lot more faith in the system if there was random tests completed by RECI. RECI should hire a load of inspectors and have them do random inspections of installations - charge the REC €500 if it fails.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Much has been said about the merits of a time served electrician vs. someone who has built up a level of expertise otherwise.

No one is arguing that the latter is more proficient than the latter.

The argument has to do with whether there is a clear cost/benefit in demanding that only the former ought be allowed work on electrics.

Given the comparatively miniscule problem of dangerous electrics (dangerous defined as actually causing harm) vs the cost of this supercertifiedsystem to the nation.

I mean, do we RECI car mechanics, chefs, food factory cleaning personnel (given the number of people who have died from Listeria in processed food). RECI every aspect of life in which there are equally miniscule or even more levels of harm caused? How many people have been harmed by cyclists. Do we licence them.

It appears clear that electrics, though potentially harmful fall way down the listof problems. Yet for some reason (which nobody appears to be able to justify) we have this enormously costly system of jobs for the RECI boys going.

Anyone like to focus on this aspect of things?

You've obviously not come across work completed by people who have little or no idea what they are doing.
When re-wiring houses i came across many dangerous situations
- sockets wired in bell wire
- an immersion wired in normal flex which fell apart in my hands
- MCB's/fuses bypassed/shorted because they'd been tripping
to name a few

There is no cost benefit is there is not a clear increase in the competency of the RECs and at the moment there is no proof of that

2011 wrote: »

In one way the were better as the ESB actually inspected every rewire that a certificate was issued for and the certificates were free. I remember collecting them. I am not a fan of the current self certification at all.

Anyway that is the past we have to deal with the present.

The problem back then was that there was no real RECs. I worked with the ESB prior to RECI and the joke was that most electricians signed there certs - N King or something similar - Nixer King

If you could have a hybrid system with that system and the current it could be an improvement

If you had the current RECs operating as they are but with ESB testing and certifying all installations it could be an improvement and make a viable system

2011 wrote: »

That is not the case:

https://www.newstalk.com/news/wicklow-electrical-works-investigation-unsafe-electrical-contractor-naas-district-court-jailed-615352

Andrea B. wrote: »

Was the conviction and sentence here driven in part by the work being wholly unsafe, unqualified and purporting to be RECI, as opposed to not being registered?

That case was slighty different from the normal scenario - ie a qualified electrician but not an REC completing the job
That example is a non electrician completing an installation that the occupant deemed dangerous, he ignored their complaint and they reported him.



Overall I agree with regulation but disagree with how it has been implemented. For me regular, random, independent testing of installations would be a good start to improving the system

Steve

micks wrote: »

ye but define competent - I know the definition. But its like asking someone whats a very good premier league team.
I agree REC/Safe electric/RECI was brought in to try stop the blackmarket in the recession where there was no shortage of electricians available and killing the RECs. So they came up with this to save RECs and RECI

I'd have a lot more faith in the system if there was random tests completed by RECI. RECI should hire a load of inspectors and have them do random inspections of installations - charge the REC €500 if it fails.

Personally, I'd like to see a system that is more transparent.

Firstly, you cannot abide by the rules because you have to pay a shedload of money to even see the rules. How does that help anyone? The rules should be made public. Following that, is can easily be determined if the person doing the work is competent. It either complies with the rules or it doesn't.

If the person(consumer) paying for the work cannot see the rules that the work is expected to adhere to - and cannot see if it is compliant or not - and therefore has to relay on the fact the contractor has paid a certain tax and is listed on a "register" of those that have paid their tax..????


Sorry, I'm getting old and grumpy, the more I see of the state trying to regulate things, the more Children's hospitals, Irish Water, Broadband plans, and countless other incompetent f-ups, the less I trust the likes of RECI to actually improve things.

2011

Steve wrote: »

Firstly, you cannot abide by the rules because you have to pay a shedload of money to even see the rules. How does that help anyone? The rules should be made public. Following that, is can easily be determined if the person doing the work is competent. It either complies with the rules or it doesn't.

The new rules (IS10101) which will be out soon shall be available in pdf format. This will mean that rightly or wrongly almost everyone will have access to a free illegal copy. Having said that it won’t mean much to the average non technical person.

Overall I agree with regulation but disagree with how it has been implemented. For me regular, random, independent testing of installations would be a good start to improving the system

Agreed.
Self certification with very little oversight is a failure. My experience of inspectors was disappointing.

For me one of the main advantages of using a REC is that they are more likely to be using qualified electricians and supervised apprentices. Where as when a REC is not used the person doing electrical work could have no technical training.

2011

https://flic.kr/p/2h3JwZD

air

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

Great relevance to the creation of RECI, the PSA and probably a hundred other quangos. I suspect that overall Ireland may be leaders in the field.

Turnrew

air wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

Great relevance to the creation of RECI, the PSA and probably a hundred other quangos. I suspect that overall Ireland may be leaders in the field.

I'm not seeing it myself

Entry to registration is easy and unrestricted-
Insurance, trade qualification and a training course needed

I don't see the regulated electrical industry having a lot of clout either .Change is coming from the top down as far as I can see

antiskeptic

micks wrote: »

Sounds like low end industry - food etc
you wont get many Pharma / Large Scale Data centres having 1 person on a night shift working alone, or switching/operating/LOTO on their own

Site belonged to a large multinational. Pharma and the like have high margins and can afford to have complete production lines as back up in case the first line breaksdown. Money no object (telling you something about profitability in that sector)

Most businesses don't have those margins and certainly not food of any type. Call it low end if you like but food and other lower-than-pharma-margin businesses forms the bulk of Irish business (thankfully: God forbid we were wholly dependent on the sociopathic tendencies of large multinationals)


So, taking the RECI idea to its logical conclusion and applying it across the board (risk anywhere, even comparatively low risk, needs to be mitigated against by way of restricting works to a chosen few/certification ) and you've just saddled up the nation with massive, unsustainable cost.

As ever, the cost/benefit needs to be considered. Not just the benefit (which I am supposing, for the sake of argument, there is with the restricted works model)

You've obviously not come across work completed by people who have little or no idea what they are doing.
When re-wiring houses i came across many dangerous situations
- sockets wired in bell wire
- an immersion wired in normal flex which fell apart in my hands
- MCB's/fuses bypassed/shorted because they'd been tripping
to name a few

I have come across dodgy stuff alright. But thats not the key issue. The key issue is how much downside has there actually been historically. Not theoretically, not idealistically. But historically/actually.

Very few deaths and some houses burnt down (due to shoddy, NOT old, electrical work). Reducing that damage is the (potential) benefit of restricted works. But that costs the nation. And the question is whether the potential benefit is worth the cost borne by that nation.

Apply RECI think across the board (minor risk needs mitigating by, for example, doubling the amount of technicians you need to run a production line) and you'll run the country into the ground. If it makes no sense to apply RECI think across the board, why does it make sense to apply it to electrical work?

2011

micks wrote: »

For me the biggest issue is the competency of the REC
I'd have a lot more faith in it if there was a lot more random testing by RECI not just them calling a REC and asking what job can they look at.

Agree 100%
Not just RECs, all electricians.

Another was a lad in work who is also a REC - while completing a PM we'd to measure current of a 10kw fan - which was running - he told me it was 0.1 A he was "testing" as you would for voltage and had no idea what i was on about when i explained where he was going wrong.

I think the problem is that many electricians (RECs included) do not have a grasp of the fundamentals. Some of them can quote regulations (often incorrectly) without having any understanding of the logic behind them. They are essentially hiding behind a regulation. We see that on this forum quite a bit.

Sounds like low end industry - food etc
you wont get many Pharma / Large Scale Data centres having 1 person on a night shift working alone, or switching/operating/LOTO on their own

I worked in a maintenance role as part of a 12 man team of electricians / instrumentation technicians for a pharmaceutical company. The maintenance team also had 12 fitters. Each team member had to do 3 months of shift work per year. On night shift there was one E & I technician (for want of a better description) and one fitter. It was a very large site and at times I would have been working alone. However the shift leader always knew where I was as did my shift partner (fitter). We were always equipped with man down radios too. As there were plenty of ways to get hurt we were constantly doing being trained on all of the different systems.

antiskeptic wrote: »

So, taking the RECI idea to its logical conclusion and applying it across the board (risk anywhere, even comparatively low risk, needs to be mitigated against by way of restricting works to a chosen few/certification ) and you've just saddled up the nation with massive, unsustainable cost.

In my opinion the "chosen few" should be people that have the required training, as such the possess the required qualification. In other words it would be best of electricians do electrical work. That is my "logical conclusion". Anyone that wants to be one of the "chosen few" can go off and serve their time for 4 years, there are plenty of companies looking for apprentices right now.

As ever, the cost/benefit needs to be considered. Not just the benefit (which I am supposing, for the sake of argument, there is with the restricted works model)

The cost / benefit analysis makes perfect sense to the government, a reduction in tax evasion (benefit) an more jobs created (negative cost).

Very few deaths and some houses burnt down (due to shoddy, NOT old, electrical work). Reducing that damage is the (potential) benefit of restricted works. But that costs the nation. And the question is whether the potential benefit is worth the cost borne by that nation.

As already stated in the old days domestic installations had far smaller loads, far less complex wiring and far fewer points. In addition we had far fewer homes. I remember going to the ESB office near Sandyford and collecting a free completion certificate from them. When I finished wiring the house the ESB sent someone out to inspect my work who always wanted at least one thing changed (just to keep us on our toes). For all of these reasons I am not surprised that there were not many electrocutions or electrical fires.

We now have even less fatalities despite the increased electrical loads, complexity of wiring and increased number of houses which suggests that the system in place is performing quite well in that respect. See breakdown of figures here.

I agree that it is far form perfect in many other respects.

Apply RECI think across the board (minor risk needs mitigating by, for example, doubling the amount of technicians you need to run a production line) and you'll run the country into the ground.

I have no idea where you are getting this from. Nobody has suggested doubling the number of technicians on a line. Risk can be mitigated in many ways without increasing staff for example work permits, proper training etc.
I do not share the view that maintenance electricians / technicians should be RECI nor was this suggested by anyone on this thread.

If it makes no sense to apply RECI think across the board, why does it make sense to apply it to electrical work?

Not really sure what you mean by "RECI think". Perhaps you could explain?

I have expressed my disappointment with some aspects of RECI more than once, however I think that we need to have properly qualified people doing skilled electrical work. This logic is already being applied to other important high risk areas. Example: RGI (Registered Gas Installers) are the only people permitted to maintain a gas boiler. I think this is for the best.

Turnrew

Was consumption lower back in the day


Didn't even look at the bill those days

There's a few bigger loads like EV, shower and heat pump alright

Payton

Very interesting thread and some good points.
From an non electrician side, would it not be better and worthwhile to train all electricians to RECI standards and make the fee acceptable so there is no electrician outside the correct regulation? The same could be for plumbers to be trained to RGI standards?
Again reduce the fee if there is one and get more members into the system.
It seems strange in this day that most trades don't fall under the one set of specs and regs, that it's and 'us and them situation' within the trades.

2011

Payton wrote: »

would it not be better and worthwhile to train all electricians to RECI standards

There are no “RECI standards”. There are the “National Rules for Electrical Installations” and all electrical work regardless of who does it should comply with these. Think of RECI as an organization that an electrician can pay so that they appear on a register. It is not a qualification and any electrician can join once they pay a membership fee.

It seems strange in this day that most trades don't fall under the one set of specs and regs, that it's and 'us and them situation' within the trades.

There is just one set of rules. The problem is that some do not adhere to these rules, instead they take a few shortcuts. Sometimes this is deliberate, other times it isn’t.

antiskeptic

2011 wrote: »

I worked in a maintenance role as part of a 12 man team of electricians / instrumentation technicians for a pharmaceutical company. The maintenance team also had 12 fitters. Each team member had to do 3 months of shift work per year. On night shift there was one E & I technician (for want of a better description) and one fitter. It was a very large site and at times I would have been working alone. However the shift leader always knew where I was as did my shift partner (fitter). We were always equipped with man down radios too. As there were plenty of ways to get hurt we were constantly doing being trained on all of the different systems.

The operable word here being 'pharma' a.k.a. Super High Margin And Wealthy Industry.

So take my point about the rest of business, which isn't that high margin, down the page to the next section..

In my opinion the "chosen few" should be people that have the required training, as such the possess the required qualification. In other words it would be best of electricians do electrical work. That is my "logical conclusion". Anyone that wants to be one of the "chosen few" can go off and serve their time for 4 years, there are plenty of companies looking for apprentices right now.

Insert my point back in here.

Combining your point and mine we see 'not high margin business (i.e. the bulk of indigenous business saddled up with extra cost.

They are to have electricians and fitters at all times. Indeed, your 'best of' scenario would require that the fitters be further specialised out. I mean steam is very dangerous as are ammonia based refrigeration systems. Ought business ensure that, unless formally trained in such systems, fitters need leave well alone? Add a refrigeration engineer to the low margin food industry shift alongside a fitter and electrician?

We've just trebled the eng dept labour cost. And no need to halt there.

-

Your thinking appears to be: if there is a risk then whatever can be done to mitigate against that risk ought be done. Cost is irrelevant.

No one dies or is injured in your scenario. Because there is no business left to expose folk to risk.

The cost / benefit analysis makes perfect sense to the government, a reduction in tax evasion (benefit) an more jobs created (negative cost).

Were it so simple. Electricians are forced onto reci to obtain work. The higher cost of getting work done in the home will tend to drive many away from electricians altogether? Complexity Theory: the reality is somewhat more involved than a simple evaluation would lead you to suspect.

The cost of electrical work goes up and that cost is borne by society. You could create work by getting folk to dig holes and fill them in again. And charge the nation so as to pay for it. Work creation in itself isn't automatically a plus.

The question is cost vs. benefit. Clearly hole digging and filling has little benefit.

And the contention here, given relatively little harm/damage done "the old way" is that restricted works is like hole digging.

As already stated in the old days domestic installations had far smaller loads, far less complex wiring and far fewer points.

The old days weren't very long ago. Houses were built to accommodate modern loads long before restricted works came about.

We have ample historical evidence to work from: the evolution of house wiring and additions to same (by whomever) right up to the time of restricted works. And that history gives us an indication of whatever downsides attach to the way things happened.

That history isn't particularily alarming.

In addition we had far fewer homes.

We haven't added a significant number of homes since restricted works. Nor has unofficial electrical work ceased. The history is eatablished and non alarming.

Back to cost/benefit. There is no call for restricted works on that basis. If it costs the nation (a.k.a. the business) nothing, then by all means. But it does cost the nation. Just like that way of thinking costs business.

I have no idea where you are getting this from. Nobody has suggested doubling the number of technicians on a line. Risk can be mitigated in many ways without increasing staff for example work permits, proper training etc.
I do not share the view that maintenance electricians / technicians should be RECI nor was this suggested by anyone on this thread.

By 'RECI-think' I mean applying the safety rationale for REC's across the board. I mean, why not include industry, since both electrics and people co-exist?

MCB in an industrial setting goes faulty. Line stopped and 50 people standing around. Cooked food, which has to be packed off, else it spoils, is sitting stewing. Fitter on duty. Middle of the night.

Question. If demanding that only a REC or at least an electrician can change out an MCB in a residential setting, then why not the same in an industrial setting?

10 min work, MCB in, line running, €000's saved. Given the washdown environment of the food industry, electrical repairs are a constant, everyday. Indeed, a production line start up straight after washdown is a rarity, due to water damage from washdown. Motors shorted and control cabinets filled with water are the norm. There is no shortage of occurances by which a fitter builds up expertise. He just doesn't do 4 years in an electrical trade.

Leave aside your viewing REC's as a tax intake action. Deal with the argument on the basis of your view that non-electricians ought not work on electrics (or non-refrigeration engineers ought not work on refrigeration. Or non-steam fitters ought not touch steam plant.Or non-hydraulic fitters ought not work on hydraulics).

You express that view again here.

I think that we need to have properly qualified people doing skilled electrical work. This logic is already being applied to other important high risk areas. Example: RGI (Registered Gas Installers) are the only people permitted to maintain a gas boiler. I think this is for the best.

The trouble, like I say, is that there is a lot of skilled work relating to potential danger in many walks of life. And if you are consistent in applying your view, across the board and in all settings... then the country closes down.

There is no basis for focusing narrowly on electrics. You ought to Google what happens when a steam boiler lets go!

Indeed, in my 25 years in industry, the worst anyone experienced electrically was a snapping tingle from a steel conveyor. Whereas at least 5 people came within a hairsbreadth of death after a high pressure ammonia valve let go, dumping a ton and a half of ammonia, in the form of gas, into the building. I know what niggled in the back of my mind as an engineering manager. And it wasn't electrics.

2011

antiskeptic wrote: »

The operable word here being 'pharma' a.k.a. Super High Margin And Wealthy Industry.

Correct, but I think you missed my point which was that only one shift electrician was sufficient.

Combining your point and mine we see 'not high margin business (i.e. the bulk of indigenous business saddled up with extra cost.

I am working on a brown filed food project right now, they have maintenance fitters and electricians. This would not be considered a "high margin business". Apart from the health & safety aspect I think they share my view that downtime is kept to a minimum by using qualified trades people.

My experience from working across a range of industries in Ireland and across the EU is that switch rooms are restricted areas. Only the electricians have the keys and only they can apply a LOTO. If you have a different policy in place this is not the norm.

Indeed, your 'best of' scenario would require that the fitters be further specialised out. I mean steam is very dangerous as are ammonia based refrigeration systems.

Regarding steam systems: What I have seen is internal training to deal with this. Some of this may occur during an apprenticeship, some after.

Regarding NH3 chillers: I know quite a bit about this because I was responsible for the electrical and instrumentation design for two of these units very recently. It is very specialised so only people with sufficient training should be permitted to work on the installation or maintenance of these units.

A few important points to consider:
1) NH3 chillers must be installed in accordance with EN378:2008, this is not optional - Ignore this at your peril.
2) If inhaled NH3 can cause damage to the lungs which can be fatal.
3) Although not that easy to ignite NH3 is an ATEX gas (II A, T1)
4) To comply with FM Global requirements we need full functional testing of the NH3 detection system annually.

So in my view cutting corners with ammonia chillers is ill advised, risky and possible illegal.

Your thinking appears to be: if there is a risk then whatever can be done to mitigate against that risk ought be done. Cost is irrelevant.

Like most people I believe that there should be a balance. Different people have a different views about where that balance point is. I have been present on site for around 6 fatalities. As an apprentice working in the IFSC (it was then the Customs House Dock Site) two died in separate incidents on that site, there were a couple of serious injuries and lots of minor ones. There was no LOTO procedure. I doubt the health and safety cost savings will be appreciated by the families of those that did not make it home.

Having said that I do not agree with everything that is done in the name of health & safety. Some of it is complete boll0x. The part I agree with is ensuring that only properly trained people work with mains voltage electricity.

No one dies or is injured in your scenario. Because there is no business left to expose folk to risk.

Except that there is. I am in this game a long time and there is a mountain of work ahead. They now have a scheme in work where employees are paid €1,000 if they recruit someone and a further €1,000 if the new recruit lasts 6 months.

Were it so simple. Electricians are forced onto reci to obtain work. The higher cost of getting work done in the home will tend to drive many away from electricians altogether?

Maybe you missed this:
1) I am not suggesting that all electricians should be RECI
2) I think it is important that electricians are employed to do electrical work, the person doing the work is insured and I would like some proper random inspections of this work. With the current system RECI is the only option for this, I would prefer if this was not the case.

The cost of electrical work goes up and that cost is borne by society.

Skilled workers be they electricians, engineers, doctors, accountants will not work for minimum wage. They got their qualification and they want a descent wage. You can get someone that flips burgers to do their work for a fraction of the price but it may not always work out for the best. That is the way that life works.

And the contention here, given relatively little harm/damage done "the old way" is that restricted works is like hole digging.

Maybe you missed this, I am not a fan of Restricted Works, never was.

The old days weren't very long ago. Houses were built to accommodate modern loads long before restricted works came about.

To a large extent you are correct.
But my point is that houses were not built for modern loads before RECI.

We have ample historical evidence to work from: the evolution of house wiring and additions to same (by whomever) right up to the time of restricted works. And that history gives us an indication of whatever downsides attach to the way things happened.

That history isn't particularily alarming.

I don't follow

We haven't added a significant number of homes since restricted works. Nor has unofficial electrical work ceased. The history is eatablished and non alarming.

Agreed. I would think that the nixers have decreased. I know many sparks that are making a good wage at work, they have no interest in nixers. They told me that Restricted Works is great as it give them an "out".

You know that Restricted works only applies to domestic installations?

By 'RECI-think' I mean applying the safety rationale for REC's across the board. I mean, why not include industry, since both electrics and people co-exist?

MCB in an industrial setting goes faulty. Line stopped and 50 people standing around. Cooked food, which has to be packed off, else it spoils, is sitting stewing. Fitter on duty. Middle of the night.

Has the fitter had arc flash training?

What happens if the fitter changes the MCB and the MCB was not faulty. Repeated closing of the MCB causes and upstream protective device to trip. This causes the loss of more production lines now 150 people are standing around. It is possible to be penny wise and pound stupid.

Question. If demanding that only a REC or at least an electrician can change out an MCB in a residential setting, then why not the same in an industrial setting?

Why not indeed. That is pretty much what the one eyed man that gave us arc flash training on site said. All he did was drop a tool across busbars when working on a distribution board. His section was isolated, but there was a gap.

This is a scary arc flash compilation, skip to 1 min 13 seconds:

Indeed, a production line start up straight after washdown is a rarity, due to water damage from washdown.

That is an installation that is not fit for purpose.

Motors shorted and control cabinets filled with water are the norm.

I have worked in the food industry a while now, it does not have to be like this. The worst installations I worked in were in Poland, but even there this would not be tolerated. A bit of capital investment, proper maintenance by professionals and these issues would be resolved.

There is no shortage of occurances by which a fitter builds up expertise. He just doesn't do 4 years in an electrical trade.

I agree that there is a lot to be learnt post apprenticeship, you can't beat experience. However there is more demand for more experienced people which drives up their rates and you do strike me as someone that wants to exert a downward pressure on wages.

Leave aside your viewing REC's as a tax intake action.

Do you disagree with this view?

There is no basis for focusing narrowly on electrics.

Agreed.

Indeed, in my 25 years in industry, the worst anyone experienced electrically was a snapping tingle from a steel conveyor.

You have been lucky! The first time I was present when someone was electrocuted was in a farm yard before I served my time. An old woman was changing a light bulb in a shed...

Whereas at least 5 people came within a hairsbreadth of death after a high pressure ammonia valve let go, dumping a ton and a half of ammonia, in the form of gas, into the building. I know what niggled in the back of my mind as an engineering manager. And it wasn't electrics.

I agree that there are lots of nasties that all deserve attention and electricity is just one, however that does not mean that it is somehow acceptable to ignore it.

Why did the ammonia relief valve lift?
Why was the ammonia released into the building and not vented outdoors away from the building?
Was this during the installation of an ammonia chiller?
Is the chiller indoors? Is the electrical equipment around it ATEX rated or designed to de-energise int he event of a leak?
Were the people employed properly trained? Or perhaps not in order to save money?

EHP

2011 wrote: »

It is not a qualification and any electrician can join once they pay a membership fee.

I've seen statement's like this a few times just to clarify not every electrician who pays a fee gets registered. Once you pay the fee an inspector has to visit a job you have completed before you are allowed self certify and I do know of contractors who haven't passed this stage and one in particular who is now being investigated for other illegal works.

I personally don't believe in self certification or at least there should be more surprise inspections without the REC choosing the location.

We need an organisation of some sort like RECI because the volume of qualified electricians out there who should never have qualified is ridiculous and rules and regulations is all that stopped alot of these guys from being self employed. Alot of RECS also started out clueless and unable to even complete an insulation resistance test and only for the necessity of joining RECI would probably never have even bothered buying testing equipment.

RECI is not perfect or anything near it they are understaffed and under funded to be anywhere near as effective as they should be. Some of there inspectors are laughable and others have a little bit of power now and are dangerous, but there is a few good ones in there.

People are also saying RECI was set up for revenue purposes which I believed 100% for along time but now I wonder is RECI costing more to run than whatever revenue it was set up to recover. I do know that rightly or wrongly it helps my revenue because it has helped prevent the local post person from completing Electrical works on the side as was often the way before RECI.

I think a system where a third party has to inspect works at various stages would no doubt be the best way of insuring everyone complies with the rules but would this be an even greater cost to everyone. One inspector is currently responsible for a couple of 100 RECs how many would be needed to offer third party certification.

2011

EHP wrote: »

I've seen statement's like this a few times just to clarify not every electrician who pays a fee gets registered. Once you pay the fee an inspector has to visit a job you have completed before you are allowed self certify

You are correct, but let's be honest that is setting the bar pretty low. An electrician wanting to join RECI can choose a "less challenging" installation to be inspected and could even get assistance with it if required without the inspector knowing.

So effectively any electrician can join.

I personally don't believe in self certification or at least there should be more surprise inspections without the REC choosing the location.

+1

I think a system where a third party has to inspect works at various stages would no doubt be the best way of insuring everyone complies with the rules but would this be an even greater cost to everyone. One inspector is currently responsible for a couple of 100 RECs how many would be needed to offer third party certification.

Agree 100%

More inspectors, more random inspections and the inspector chooses the installations to be inspected is probably the best balance. This would not have as much of a cost impact as 3rd party certification.

Bruthal

EHP wrote: »

because the volume of qualified electricians out there who should never have qualified is ridiculous

Definitely. The amount who havent a clue of the basics would surprise a few here I think.

EHP

2011 wrote: »

You are correct, but let's be honest that is setting the bar pretty low. An electrician wanting to join RECI can choose a less challenging installation and could even get assistance with it if required without the inspector knowing.

So effectively any electrician can join.

You are correct I also know of this happening but in my experience the guy getting the help is learning and does improve his game but not always unfortunately. Like every system it's not perfect and there's always people who won't work within the rules.







More inspectors, more random inspections and the inspector chooses the installations to be inspected is probably the best balance. This would not have as much of a cost impact as 3rd party certification.

Agree.

Risteard81

I've had a routine RECI inspection before where the RECI Inspector selected the installation. I got a clear inspection with no breaches. I have no difficulty with the concept of RECI choosing which job to see.

2011

Risteard81 wrote: »

I've had a routine RECI inspection before where the RECI Inspector selected the installation. I got a clear inspection with no breaches. I have no difficulty with the concept of RECI choosing which job to see.

That is good to hear, but it would be far better if this type of inspection was the norm and inspections were far more frequent. It is also beneficial for the good RECs. As it levels the playing field during the tendering process.

Admittedly I only work in the industrial sector but in the last 10 years I have seen zero surprise RECI inspections and zero scheduled inspections. Does that sound acceptable to you?

Risteard81

2011 wrote: »

That is good to hear, but it would be far better if this type of inspection was the norm and inspections were far more frequent. It is also beneficial for the good RECs. As it levels the playing field during the tendering process.

Admittedly I only work in the industrial sector but in the last 10 years I have seen zero surprise RECI inspections and zero scheduled inspections. Does that sound acceptable to you?

As I said, personally I'm all for random inspections. I suppose potential issues are feasibility RE: access etc., but in principle it's a good idea.