This discussion has been locked.

You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Support the campaign to protect the title of ‘Electrician’. Whatever was the outcome.

Support the campaign to protect the title of ‘Electrician’. Whatever was the outcome?

www.jib.org.uk/support-the-campaign-to-protect-the-title-of-electrician

Another question:

Not sure about this sentence below from the JIB, it does not make complete sense taken by itself. Is a gold card lesser value than a Reg Electrician.

Electricians who signed up as Registered Electricians with the 17th Edition must upgrade to the 18th Edition by 1st July 2019 or revert to their standard gold card

jcm

Parents

0 Roy Bowdler over 6 years ago

In principle, any form of regulation that helps to protect the public who are a “vulnerable” customers from “rogue traders”, is worth considering in my opinion. Some employers/SMEs/self-employed also value external certification to validate high standards and “due diligence”. However, government intervention inevitably increases red-tape and therefore overhead costs, handing “the man in the pub”, who might be a skilled person “doing a foreigner” even more competitive advantage. Good standards are also important for training. There have been examples of unscrupulous and downright fraudulent training providers, attracted by the perennial “soft target” of public funding. The inevitable response is even more red-tape, but most races between the bureaucratic Tortoise and nimble Hare, don’t end anything like the fable.

These forums have attracted contributions from Chartered Engineers and overseas equivalents arguing that the title “Engineer” should be legally restricted only to people like them. I don’t support that, although I was at one time moderately sympathetic. That sympathy was lost, because the arguments for being privileged have been largely based on academic grounds. Unfortunately, in making their argument many of its advocates have demonstrated snobbery and one-upmanship, aimed towards well-trained and often more practically competent professionals, including other Engineering Council registrants (Eng Tech & IEng) who they consider to be “inferior”. This naïve and unethical approach is not therefore deserving of my support.

If we found a different frame of reference that was more united, fully respectful of each type of practitioner and based on sound evidence of performance, then I could be persuaded, but we seem too divided and tribal for that. There are actually many situations where being a Chartered Engineer offers a distinct advantage, including some where it couldn’t be justified to debar others, but customers (eg employers) prefer it. Chartered Engineer is a “protected title” whereas Electrician isn’t. “Eng Tech” is protected, so The IET is pursuing the angle of “Eng Tech Electrician”. I have supported this in the hope that if it is widely taken up, it will eventually become “Electrician Owned”. Unfortunately the owner of the Eng Tech title Engineering Council, is run “by Chartered Engineers for Chartered Engineers”. Although it would not wish to condone the disrespect of its own registrants, it has proved powerless and actually reinforced negative prejudice itself by defenestrating the message that registrants were “different but equally valuable”, awarding Eng Tech to very junior Engineers still in training, destroying the distinctive value of IEng etc. In such hands potential “land-grabs” are inevitable , leading to a situations where everything an Electrician (or IEng) does “has to be signed off by a CEng”.

It is the nature of all groups in engineering or other types of endeavour to engage in protectionism. This includes trade associations, trades unions and professional bodies. Legislators have to subject this lobbying to a wider public interest test, including whether privileges afforded to one group infringe upon the rights of others or create a restraint of trade. I consider it reasonable to expect someone to be able to recover the additional cost of proper training, and meeting regulatory/legal requirements. However, it is incredibly difficult to determine what is a “reasonable overhead” to account for this. Once “monopolies” are created, then they become ripe for exploitation.

By coincidence, my wife recently decided to change our fireplace and gas fire. She employed a “sweep” to clean and check the flue, who conducted a camera survey and smoke test. However, as soon as she asked someone with a Gas Safe Certificate to reconnect it, he came round and conducted a smoke pellet test, which was good, but then invented a problem that the perfectly sound terminal flue “needed a new roof grille”, turning a simple 1-2 hour job into at least half a day and several hundred pounds more (see part J of Building Regulations). We found someone else, but still at around £100 per hour, which is fairly typical for a self-employed properly qualified “Plumber” in South East England. I’m sure that we are all familiar with tactics used to inflate the job. I wonder how many Electricians try similar tactics? However, it isn’t just trades who have carte-blanche if you let them. I am fortunate to have an extremely honest Dentist, but I have had others in the past on a “job creation scheme”.

Incidentally I remember sorting out a “man from the pub” job for a friend when I was an apprentice (3^rd year probably). It was one length of 2.5mm from the fuse board with branches twisted and taped together in lieu of a junction box, from which everything else branched. It had lasted about a year, before the unclipped “trunk” cable had moved and occasionally became compressed between a floorboard and a joist, luckily the wood was only slightly scorched. The property was “unfinished” so perhaps it was originally intended as a temporary supply, but it was like that for several years. Perhaps my friend’s Dad was down the pub too much?

To reiterate, I would be willing to support appropriate forms or regulation that help to sustain professional standards. In many aspects the UK (and EU) systems of mostly voluntary regulation, with highly selective statutory intervention where needed, works quite well. International comparisons of the harms caused by engineering activities such as “industrial accidents” show us in quite a good light. However, there is still significant progress that can be made and one tragedy is one too many. We (members of the IET) have much to gain from taking a leading role, but we do ourselves no service, by demeaning each other with petty squabbles over relative status, assuming others to be less competent than ourselves on often spurious grounds etc.

Many major sectors and employers have well-established systems of training, assessment and authorisation to determine who is a “suitably qualified and experienced person”. So I don’t think that they require “protected title”. So if someone wishes to make an argument for it, then please explain the risk of harm to be ameliorated, how this should be achieved and what if any negative consequences might arise.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 6 years ago

In principle, any form of regulation that helps to protect the public who are a “vulnerable” customers from “rogue traders”, is worth considering in my opinion. Some employers/SMEs/self-employed also value external certification to validate high standards and “due diligence”. However, government intervention inevitably increases red-tape and therefore overhead costs, handing “the man in the pub”, who might be a skilled person “doing a foreigner” even more competitive advantage. Good standards are also important for training. There have been examples of unscrupulous and downright fraudulent training providers, attracted by the perennial “soft target” of public funding. The inevitable response is even more red-tape, but most races between the bureaucratic Tortoise and nimble Hare, don’t end anything like the fable.

These forums have attracted contributions from Chartered Engineers and overseas equivalents arguing that the title “Engineer” should be legally restricted only to people like them. I don’t support that, although I was at one time moderately sympathetic. That sympathy was lost, because the arguments for being privileged have been largely based on academic grounds. Unfortunately, in making their argument many of its advocates have demonstrated snobbery and one-upmanship, aimed towards well-trained and often more practically competent professionals, including other Engineering Council registrants (Eng Tech & IEng) who they consider to be “inferior”. This naïve and unethical approach is not therefore deserving of my support.

If we found a different frame of reference that was more united, fully respectful of each type of practitioner and based on sound evidence of performance, then I could be persuaded, but we seem too divided and tribal for that. There are actually many situations where being a Chartered Engineer offers a distinct advantage, including some where it couldn’t be justified to debar others, but customers (eg employers) prefer it. Chartered Engineer is a “protected title” whereas Electrician isn’t. “Eng Tech” is protected, so The IET is pursuing the angle of “Eng Tech Electrician”. I have supported this in the hope that if it is widely taken up, it will eventually become “Electrician Owned”. Unfortunately the owner of the Eng Tech title Engineering Council, is run “by Chartered Engineers for Chartered Engineers”. Although it would not wish to condone the disrespect of its own registrants, it has proved powerless and actually reinforced negative prejudice itself by defenestrating the message that registrants were “different but equally valuable”, awarding Eng Tech to very junior Engineers still in training, destroying the distinctive value of IEng etc. In such hands potential “land-grabs” are inevitable , leading to a situations where everything an Electrician (or IEng) does “has to be signed off by a CEng”.

It is the nature of all groups in engineering or other types of endeavour to engage in protectionism. This includes trade associations, trades unions and professional bodies. Legislators have to subject this lobbying to a wider public interest test, including whether privileges afforded to one group infringe upon the rights of others or create a restraint of trade. I consider it reasonable to expect someone to be able to recover the additional cost of proper training, and meeting regulatory/legal requirements. However, it is incredibly difficult to determine what is a “reasonable overhead” to account for this. Once “monopolies” are created, then they become ripe for exploitation.

By coincidence, my wife recently decided to change our fireplace and gas fire. She employed a “sweep” to clean and check the flue, who conducted a camera survey and smoke test. However, as soon as she asked someone with a Gas Safe Certificate to reconnect it, he came round and conducted a smoke pellet test, which was good, but then invented a problem that the perfectly sound terminal flue “needed a new roof grille”, turning a simple 1-2 hour job into at least half a day and several hundred pounds more (see part J of Building Regulations). We found someone else, but still at around £100 per hour, which is fairly typical for a self-employed properly qualified “Plumber” in South East England. I’m sure that we are all familiar with tactics used to inflate the job. I wonder how many Electricians try similar tactics? However, it isn’t just trades who have carte-blanche if you let them. I am fortunate to have an extremely honest Dentist, but I have had others in the past on a “job creation scheme”.

Incidentally I remember sorting out a “man from the pub” job for a friend when I was an apprentice (3^rd year probably). It was one length of 2.5mm from the fuse board with branches twisted and taped together in lieu of a junction box, from which everything else branched. It had lasted about a year, before the unclipped “trunk” cable had moved and occasionally became compressed between a floorboard and a joist, luckily the wood was only slightly scorched. The property was “unfinished” so perhaps it was originally intended as a temporary supply, but it was like that for several years. Perhaps my friend’s Dad was down the pub too much?

To reiterate, I would be willing to support appropriate forms or regulation that help to sustain professional standards. In many aspects the UK (and EU) systems of mostly voluntary regulation, with highly selective statutory intervention where needed, works quite well. International comparisons of the harms caused by engineering activities such as “industrial accidents” show us in quite a good light. However, there is still significant progress that can be made and one tragedy is one too many. We (members of the IET) have much to gain from taking a leading role, but we do ourselves no service, by demeaning each other with petty squabbles over relative status, assuming others to be less competent than ourselves on often spurious grounds etc.

Many major sectors and employers have well-established systems of training, assessment and authorisation to determine who is a “suitably qualified and experienced person”. So I don’t think that they require “protected title”. So if someone wishes to make an argument for it, then please explain the risk of harm to be ameliorated, how this should be achieved and what if any negative consequences might arise.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Children

No Data

Support the campaign to protect the title of ‘Electrician’. Whatever was the outcome.

Community Rules & Guidelines