Re: A few more for Nick!

[JoeRaisin <joeraisin2001@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 9/15/2011 11:42 PM, Jim wrote:
> On Sep 15, 8:19 pm, JoeRaisin<joeraisin2...@xxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
>>
>> I am more cynical than you - I believe they ARE capable of identifying
>> an incorrectly installed control.  They just choose not to.  Could 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.  Installers may make more of an effort  if
>> 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 agree about the ahj inspections.  Up my way, several years ago, all
the inspectors except the electrical inspector were fired for doing
"drive by" inspections where they often didn't even get out of their
vehicles (in their defense, this IS northern Michigan and it gets COLD
up here).

State inspectors had to be called for quite some time and it REALLY
slowed down construction as it would often take a week or more from the
time you called to get an inspector on site.

But, I was speaking in terms of an NFPA-72 type alarm inspection.
Having that performed by an alarm company that didn't install the system
and doesn't service it - the only thing they would be beholding to is an
honest inspection.

>
>>
>> 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.  If 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.
>>    All but the service supervisor - who used to say, "I'm glad you're on
>> our team."  Some 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.