CONSIDERING IET MEMBERSHIP OR YOU ARE ALREADY A MEMBER

If we want more installers joining the IET then we need to get more installers involved with the IET on the shop floor. 

I believe that a refocus would improve things, let us begin with a rebrand back to the Institute Of Electrical Engineering for starters, plus a distancing from something which is trying and failing to be a one-size-fits-all, namely the IET.

I was intrigued to learn from one of the previous posts that the IET cannot comment upon aspects or content of BS7671.

I have always been puzzled by what the structural hierarchy is and what the command flow direction is between the likes of IEC, JPLE64, BSI and the IET. Who drives it and who sets the priorities? Who is funded by who and who decides how to drive revenue generation etc?

Basically, who is wagging whose tails?

I believe that a refocus would improve things, let us begin with a rebrand back to the Institute Of Electrical Engineering for starters, plus a distancing from something which is trying and failing to be a one-size-fits-all, namely the IET.

I was intrigued to learn from one of the previous posts that the IET cannot comment upon aspects or content of BS7671.

I have always been puzzled by what the structural hierarchy is and what the command flow direction is between the likes of IEC, JPLE64, BSI and the IET. Who drives it and who sets the priorities? Who is funded by who and who decides how to drive revenue generation etc?

Basically, who is wagging whose tails?

whjohnson said:

Basically, who is wagging whose tails?

Easy,  it's Spectre....

Or the World Economic Forum's Klaus Schwab, same as Spectre in reality 

Bring back the Society of Telegraph Engineers!!

I am more interested in the hierarchical structure and the revenue flows.

Who creates new regulations and upon what basis?

Today, I ran into two former colleagues who worked at the same place where I used to work, like myself, both turned to self employment and both became Approved Contractors. Both told me today that they had told their Approved Scheme Inspectors that they were refusing to fit AFDDs because of the high price. Both of their inspectors told them that they HAD TO begin fitting them, to which both contractors replied that if this was the case, then they would cancel their scheme memberships. The major fear being the expense and total lack of confidence in these devices coupled with the present worsening cost of living crisis and subsequent loss of business due to over-expensive quotes for the mandatory fitting of unproven technology.

This is one of the reasons why I am most interested as to who drives the changes and what the real, as opposed to the spurious 'enhanced safety' reason is behind it, and who is really benefiting form the changes. If increased recruitment is what the IET is after, then perhaps they might wish to transparently explain their role in drafting the changes to the wiring regulations.

So how do these 'committees' integrate? CENLEC, BEAMA, IEC, JPLE64, IET, BSI et al? Who is at the top and who is at the bottom of the food chain?