Owner Builder - Electric/Plumbing fight

[Bob Orts]

Don’t want to hi-jack the other thread so I’ll start a new one on this:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob Tucker

Solar water heating as a truly cost effective system will not occur here until some laws in Hawaii change and allow homeowners to do their own plumbing work. This is something that is possible if people would slow down the grumbling on the sidelines and start up getting organized and voting and campaigning and complaining.

People should get organized and raise some money instead of just complaining....

---

Rob, is it legal in Hawaii for an apprentice/trainee of a licensed electrician/plumber (HRS 448E-9 (b) ) to drill holes, run wires/piping, install boxes/outlets/valves etc. on their own without the license holder physically being present at the job site?

I know in places on the mainland, non-licensed employees of the licensed contractor can perform work so long as they are working under the electrician/plumber and are not working with live wires or flowing pipes. Basically these workers can do everything but hook up to the live wires or main pipes. The licensed electrician plumber is the only one who can pull these permits or make the final connection to the main electric line and go live for the incoming water/sewer or gas lines.

Not all places require that the licensed holder physically be there on site supervising their workers. The license holder is responsible for the "wire pullers" / "pipe runners" work, but most time they are not physically on-site watching over these people. The trainnees/apprentices can't design or spec the work. They can only do the physical labor stuff according to the instructions of the licensed electrician/plumber.

Also, are there any mandatory minimum education/training/experience requirements for these trainees/apprentices do perform work under the licensed contractor?

[Kapohocat]

Bob,

We have run into this question with plumbers specifically. The plumbing inspector supervisor has said that the plumbing contractor needs to have a master plumber supervising the work. But unless it was union there is no "master plumber" designation or not very publicized certificate program. Jut because the person held the RME didnt mean they qualified I was told. But this seemed to come up with a plumber that was not doing a good job only. Otherwise plumbing contractors had not heard this (or at least the ones I checked with).

Have you called the Bldg Dept about this one?

-Cat

[Bob Orts]

The Building Dept refers you to the State. The state is a bit cryptic on this and they tended to quote HRS and HAC. I’m also starting to get the impression that the actual regulations may not be what the average person think they are and even the trades may not know the actual regs (or at least never telling anyone).

The issue of owner/builder being allowed to do electric plumbing seems to be a hot topic and I was trying to figure out how this could reasonable and realistically be changed. The initial responses from all levels are "no chance in hell", but from experience, I know it’s all a matter of finding the crack in the armor.

The six groups opposed to a change are way to powerful and have ammunition the like people have not seen. Plus they have the law on their side. But as in all laws, they are never written so solid that there isn't a gap somewhere and I'm trying to find how weak the gap is. I'm also looking at other states where the rules are more lenient to private builders, but often they come at a high price in other areas.

[jerry]

Cat,

According to the DCCA there are two levels of plumbing licenses, PJ and PM. A PM (Master Plumber) needs two years experience as a PJ (Journeyman Plumber) which requires 5 years experience as an apprentice.

Electrical is similar, but there are additional categories for industrial and maintenance. An EJ (Journeyman) can work with an apprentice but cannot direct other Journeymen. An ES (Supervisory Electrician) can direct other Journeymen.

Only an Electrical Contractor can pull permits and call for inspections. To be an electrical contractor you need to be an ES or hire an RME (and go through the paperwork nightmare.)

AFAIK there are no state or county rules for apprentices.

Jerry

[Bob Orts]

Jerry, Do you know if a licensed electrician/plumber is required to physically be on-site supervising an apprentice/trainee who is working for them? In other words, you hire a licensed electrician. They have some apprentices who are pulling wires and nailing up the boxes. Can they, as employees of the licensed contractor, do that work alone or must a licensed somebody be present while the apprentice does the grunt labor?

[jerry]

I don't know what the "legal" situation may be. I do know I have had my apprentice working by himself during inspections--as a way for him to get to know the inspectors--and nobody said anything.

Jerry

[DanielP]

Bob,

While supervision is not necessarily constant, the supervisor should instruct the apprentice before the task is performed and inspect it after it is done and is ultimately responsible for the apprentices work. It is not necessary for the supervisor to be constantly on site.

What is your particular situation?

Dan

[Rob Tucker]

One of the failings of the current law is that licensed trades are putting untrained and unsupervised workers onto sites with the end result often being worst workmanship than an untrained owner builder might perform. The only difference I can see, and it may be more of a liability than an asset, is that with a licensed contractor you might have recourse - but just barely.

My argument to defeat the trades inspired laws would center on assumptions of innocence under the law. This assumption could be construed as an assumption of competence and I believe the Old English basis for most of our common law theories supports this.

So by what measure is the average citizen, assumed to be sufficiently competent to defend themselves in a court of law, assumed to be incompetent to wire an outlet or glue two pieces of ABS together? I would attack the laws as providing an predisposed assumption of guilt... which is not supported in common law.

[Wao nahele kane]

Rob,
I certainly agree that just about anyone with a basic wiring/plumbing book in hand can do the work for themselves, however, if we argued competence we’d ultimately end up proving that no training was necessary at all and anyone could do this work at any time for anyone. It seems a long hard argument direction to take and unlikely to succeed for a legal argument. Aside from this; the judiciary would already know that most people can do this work properly for themselves and a competence test would not be necessary in this case.

If this is taken to court, the argument would first focus on the States intent for forming the statute (it indicates safety) and then it would ultimately take into consideration the actions of self sustenance which is among man’s most fundamental act to exercise, “right”. From there it would be a matter of comparing the intrusion of the right to the level of safety in question. In this case the statutes intent is outlined clearly in the state Statutes themselves and it indicates safety. The courts have already set precedence’s regarding the takings of rights and to what level of safety must be at stake in order to remove and or regulate the right. The level of safety must be Public related and must pose a threat to a fairly large sector of the public with regard to the right exercised. Building a nuclear reactor or a large hydro electric dam would be examples of things that would be at the level of a general public safety issue. Needless to say, wiring your own home could in no way pose a threat to the general public nor could doing your own plumbing, not at a level favorable to meet the test for removal of the right.
Regulation of the “act” with regard to business is well within the States powers but removing the “right” from the homeowner is not, because, the safety in question is not adequate enough to fall under the States interests with regard to the private citizen acting for themselves.

[Rob Tucker]

You may be correct in all of that but the issue of safety is addressed by the requirement for a permit and inspection. Many states rely on the permit/inspection process to address public safety.

Either with a licensed trade or a simple owner builder the work is subject to permit and inspection and is either approved or disapproved.

In the case of disapproval there are sections in the code to impose additional inspection fees for multiple inspections.

I can't guarantee that the assumption of competence would be the prevailing argument but court cases often put forth more than on valid argument.