Re: A few more for Nick!

[Jim <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

On Sep 15, 8:19=A0pm, JoeRaisin <joeraisin2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I am more cynical than you - I believe they ARE capable of identifying
> an incorrectly installed control. =A0They just choose not to. =A0Could be
> laziness, could be their instructions.
>
> This is one of the reasons I think that fire alarm inspections should be
> performed by a third party. =A0Installers may make more of an effort =A0i=
f
> they know that their work will be inspected (thoroughly) by someone who,
> A) knows what they are doing and B) ISN'T their buddy.

Some time ago, for a short while, I was all for having any/every alarm
system inspected in the same manner as is required by the electrical
and other building trades. HOWEVER, since that time and over many
years, I've come to see that it's all talk and show and very little
action. It seems to me that the so called "inspections" generally fall
into a few categories.

1/ If you're new in the trade, the inspectors are real hard on you for
quite a long time. It's sort of like an initiation into "the club" so
to speak.

2/ After you've been around for awhile, and the "inspectors" get to
know you .... and your work style/ethic/standards, they don't do as
thorough a job of "inspecting".

3/ After you've invited them out to lunch or dinner a few times, the
inspection amounts to the "inspector" getting out of his car, standing
in the driveway, looking at the building being worked on, filling out
a check list and then driving away.

4/ Once you've given them holiday gifts, bottles of wine or booze,
game tickets, a weekend in the Pocono's, you can then ask them to
ignore certain things on jobs that otherwise wouldn't pass
"inspection"

In the meantime, the installations of the company get sloppyer and
sloppyer since now one now has to meet any standards. Ultimately it
all depends on the standards of the owners or managers of the
installation company. If they keep to high standards they usually
can't compete fairly with those who don't. Then it all gets right back
down to word of mouth and reputation. And that leads us right back to
where we are right now.

So now ..... as you can see, I don't think that inspections in this
trade will serve any purpose other than to create another non
productive, useless, for show only, adding expense to jobs, by people
who are not responsible for the things that they miss or who don't
know enough about what they are "inspecting" .... or are just to damn
lazy to explain things to you .... so as to help you out  But .... for
the right people, they can make rightly questionalble things ..... "
disappear".

Trade Inspections work sometimes but .... in my opinion, not often
enough to make it worth having to deal with the people who will
eventually turn their jobs into a "rule over a dominion" bureaucracy
run by the enforcement of rules depending upon "if they like you ....
or not" And again .... THEY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE THINGS THAT
THEY MISS!


>
> I know that the company I previously worked for frowned upon making a
> service ticket for an installation error I found during an inspection
> unless I could spin it so that it was billable. =A0If I could correct it
> without taking too much time I would and call the installer later and
> give him crap - a lot of it required a service tech to come out and mgmt
> would give me crap for writing the finding down on the inspection form.
> =A0 All but the service supervisor - who used to say, "I'm glad you're on
> our team." =A0Some of the things I found had been glossed over by the
> previous inspector - I can only assumed he had been sufficiently cowed.

This sort of proves my point(s)


>
> I wonder if that had anything to do with my being fired for wrecking a
> truck...-

But you weren't fired for failing to do your job. Truck wrecking is an
accident, not intentional dereliction of duty.