Can a non time served (short course) person call themselves an Electrician

Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
armeg
Talk Electrician Forum

Help Support Talk Electrician Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Steps.

I believe you are missing my point in this whole thread.

As stated by us both on occasion proof or otherwise of competency is not the question here. What I am trying to show you, and have been since my first post in this thread is that the ability to call ones self an electrician is not controlled by you.

You then claim that the dictionary definition of an electrician is not valid and only that as given by the EAWR can be used.

Since I have proved to you that the EAWR does not even contain the word Electrician, not once, (note the singular), and uses Electricians only once in a different context, you have moved your argument. I am trying to get you to see that whilst your thoughts on competency may well be valid in many circumstances, that is not what I have been posting about.

If it would help you I am willing to list all of my engineering qualifications, however these would PROVE little. As Manator has indicated, competency cannot truely be proved on a forum.

Are you willing to stand up and say that every man who has completed his apprenticeship is a competent electrician?

The training I received in the RN gave me a very solid grounding in many aspects of engineering and life in general, I then went on to my OJT, (on job training). It was there that all of the training I had received was combined into making me the person and engineer that I was. The training alone was not sufficient for anyone to do their job.

I digress.

Despite all of this training and OJT it was the man inside that made the difference. I saw men who had received all that I had, but lacked the ability or "get up and go" to use it effectively. They made mistakes, as we all do, but didn't learn from them, simply making them time and again. On paper they were skilled engineers.

A full apprenticeship does not make the man, the man makes the man.

I believe myself to be competent in what I do. Note in what I do. I do not claim to cover all of the aspects of electrical installation that an apprenticed man would. I avoid those I am uncomfortable with.

I also believe you are wrong not to admit that you have made a mistake in stating as fact that EAWR governs the use of the word electrician, and now that you have been proved wrong in that fact you cannot be the man you are and admit that statement is incorrect.

My argument is and has been from the start, "Why can a man who has not completed a full electrical apprenticeship not call himself an electrician"?

 
Hi to both of you :) first I would appreciate if you both have any debates of a difference in opinions to message each other as the true content of this thread which I started has now been lost due to this. Much appreciated. :)

 
Hi to both of you :) first I would appreciate if you both have any debates of a difference in opinions to message each other as the true content of this thread which I started has now been lost due to this. Much appreciated. :)
Click to expand...
Apologies Gavin, not my intention.

Maybe these aspects of this thread should be moved to a new thread of their own, Admin?

I would hate to lose the detail so far provided, it does make for the argument.

 
Hi to both of you :) first I would appreciate if you both have any debates of a difference in opinions to message each other as the true content of this thread which I started has now been lost due to this. Much appreciated. :)
Click to expand...
I have enjoyed reading it all though, better than watching Eastenders :coat

 
Muttley accurately represents my attitude toward the Part P industry and the scam providers ....

---------- Post Auto-Merged at 12:23 ---------- Previous post was made at 11:42 ----------

I think what is being missed here is the issue of "proven competence".

In the eyes of the public, a tradesman undertakes an apprenticeship and earns the right to call himself an "electrician". Things have now moved on BUT that does not mean that every man and his dog should use the confusion to mislead their customers by mis-representing themselves as something that they are not.

The idea that "I carry out electrical work, so I`m an electrician" is farcical - showing the total lack of respect many have for both the trade and their customers.

The old apprenticeships may never return but that is not to say that the core principles that underpinned the whole concept should not be retained. Surely it is important to ascertain what abilities and attitudes an apprenticeship instilled THEN judge the modern( :slap ) approach by the same standards.

Unfortunately, the "industry" (not, I may add, the TRADE) is now desperate to deem people competent without them, seemingly, having to possess the ability of a truly competent person - to the extent that in many instances competence is merely "office based", with those in the field being so monumentally useless it defies belief.

The present system of non-independent assessment, overseen by the near-farcical UKAS is clearly open to widespread abuse - as is evident by the number of posters on this forum that, whilst claiming to be registered, clearly have no idea what they are doing. The fact that many of these individuals try to hide behind various definitions of their choosing speaks volumes about the present, dysfunctional, system.

It must be remembered that, with regards any definition of competence, the one that matters is the one that will both be used to prosecute you and render any work-related insurance policy invalid due to lack of any independent third party assessment of your ability. Like it or not, independent examinations are valid in a court of law, non-independent assessments are not.

I have seen many, many examples of both incompetent trained/qualified electricians and short course installers. Overall, the main difference (apart from age) is that a minority of properly trained individuals are incompetent whilst within the "short course" fraternity, the majority are incompetent.

The only way of sorting things out would be to require everyone who works unsupervised to undergo an individual (independent) technical and practical assessment of their abilities to both understand the principles involved and the ability to initially assess, design, install and inspect/test - regardless of current experience, training or qualifications. I suspect that many currently claiming the title of "electrician" would not even bother turning up for assessment, knowing full well that they are simply not up to the job.

I have lost count of the number of times I have had to walk away from individuals who, whilst claiming competence, do not possess the knowledge expected of an apprentice only 6 months into their 3/4 year training. The fact that these individuals are allowed to charge the public for their services is fraud, plain and simple.

I would estimate that in excess of 80% of ALL registered "enterprises" are incapable of accurately completing a standard EIC - yet this is a basic requirement of competence for Scheme entry .... what more evidence is needed?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am not aware of currently taking part in any argument - just drawing conclusions from my own experiences and inside knowledge of the Scheme Operators.
Click to expand...
It's more a pity that your inside knowledge doesn't translate into inside influence!!

 
Last year I employed a short course( Electrician), he seemed a very nice and polite guy, aged 28 and looked the part, snickers workwear, so I decided to give him a go.

Over the following weeks I started to lose faith and found myself checking everything he was doing, he was asked to spur off the ring for an additional socket, he commented how hard it was getting 5 X 2.5mm

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry to break the argument, but are professional and steps the same person? Or are they both blessed arguers????Love and peace to both xxxx
Click to expand...
:slap

if only,

if truth be told professional has probably forgot more than I'll ever learn. :|

 
Muttley accurately represents my attitude toward the Part P industry and the scam providers ....---------- Post Auto-Merged at 12:23 ---------- Previous post was made at 11:42 ----------

I think what is being missed here is the issue of "proven competence".

In the eyes of the public, a tradesman undertakes an apprenticeship and earns the right to call himself an "electrician". Things have now moved on BUT that does not mean that every man and his dog should use the confusion to mislead their customers by mis-representing themselves as something that they are not.

The idea that "I carry out electrical work, so I`m an electrician" is farcical - showing the total lack of respect many have for both the trade and their customers.

The old apprenticeships may never return but that is not to say that the core principles that underpinned the whole concept should not be retained. Surely it is important to ascertain what abilities and attitudes an apprenticeship instilled THEN judge the modern( :slap ) approach by the same standards.

Unfortunately, the "industry" (not, I may add, the TRADE) is now desperate to deem people competent without them, seemingly, having to possess the ability of a truly competent person - to the extent that in many instances competence is merely "office based", with those in the field being so monumentally useless it defies belief.

The present system of non-independent assessment, overseen by the near-farcical UKAS is clearly open to widespread abuse - as is evident by the number of posters on this forum that, whilst claiming to be registered, clearly have no idea what they are doing. The fact that many of these individuals try to hide behind various definitions of their choosing speaks volumes about the present, dysfunctional, system.

It must be remembered that, with regards any definition of competence, the one that matters is the one that will both be used to prosecute you and render any work-related insurance policy invalid due to lack of any independent third party assessment of your ability. Like it or not, independent examinations are valid in a court of law, non-independent assessments are not.

I have seen many, many examples of both incompetent trained/qualified electricians and short course installers. Overall, the main difference (apart from age) is that a minority of properly trained individuals are incompetent whilst within the "short course" fraternity, the majority are incompetent.

The only way of sorting things out would be to require everyone who works unsupervised to undergo an individual (independent) technical and practical assessment of their abilities to both understand the principles involved and the ability to initially assess, design, install and inspect/test - regardless of current experience, training or qualifications. I suspect that many currently claiming the title of "electrician" would not even bother turning up for assessment, knowing full well that they are simply not up to the job.

I have lost count of the number of times I have had to walk away from individuals who, whilst claiming competence, do not possess the knowledge expected of an apprentice only 6 months into their 3/4 year training. The fact that these individuals are allowed to charge the public for their services is fraud, plain and simple.

I would estimate that in excess of 80% of ALL registered "enterprises" are incapable of accurately completing a standard EIC - yet this is a basic requirement of competence for Scheme entry .... what more evidence is needed?
Click to expand...
Please remember that my comments here are given with the view from a man who works on the domestic side, therefore do not include the opinions of a heavy commercial or industrial customer.

I am aware of no one who is in the belief that a "tradesman" is some one who has served a 3/4 year apprenticeship. Of course I have not asked the whole population's opinion on this matter, have you?

I would welcome the opportunity to have my competency assessed in the manner you suggest, should it be deemed neccessary. So far the industry, government and customer base does not believe so.

I am assessed in the same manner as any other DI. If enough of you full term apprentices make enough of a noise to the correct authorities they might see your concerns and act upon them.

I firmly believe that the current situation where a scheme provider assesses my work, in the knowledge that a failure would possibly see me taking my money elsewhere is a farce and should not be allowed to continue. Unfortunately that is the situation we find ourselves in.

A single governing and regulatory body, conducting independent assessments with the power to prevent trading is the answer to the current dilema. We don't have that. I have been assessed by various bodies and institutions over a number of years for differing reasons. I have had the good fortune to have passed them all, first time with the notable exception of my motor bike license, this required a retake!

The fact I have jumped through all of the hoops placed in front of me is an indication to my customers that I have achieved a certain level of competence in something.

As Manator has indicated the rules are what the rules are, this is the world we live in, we must get on with it or change it. It will not be changed by Steptoe inventing areas of the EAWR that don't currently exist.

My core argument still remains, "Why can a man who works on electrical installations not call himself an electrician"?

I fully understand the frustrations of some people who see shoddy work from people who should not be allowed to trade, in my opinion that is not the case I am making here. Steptoe has made a statement, a statement he has claimed to be fact, but when challenged to prove that statement to be true he moves his argument to the issue of my competence and evades the challenge to justify his statement.

 
I have not changed my stance, a tradesman, specifically an electrician in this case, would, I think, be regarded by the general public to be someone who is knowledgeable, experienced, skilled and competent in his or her field,

this is a requirement of EAWR, regulation 16, a statutory document.

so how have I failed to back up my stance on this? you are the one that has claimed doing a short course allows you to comply with the requirements expected of you to be called an electrician.

your dictionary definition of an electrician is someone who works with wires,

reg 16 :- no person shall be engaged in any work activity where technical knowledge or experience is necessary... or is under such a degree of supervision....

 
I have not changed my stance, a tradesman, specifically an electrician in this case, would, I think, be regarded by the general public to be someone who is knowledgeable, experienced, skilled and competent in his or her field,this is a requirement of EAWR, regulation 16, a statutory document.

so how have I failed to back up my stance on this? you are the one that has claimed doing a short course allows you to comply with the requirements expected of you to be called an electrician.

your dictionary definition of an electrician is someone who works with wires,

reg 16 :- no person shall be engaged in any work activity where technical knowledge or experience is necessary... or is under such a degree of supervision....
Click to expand...
Your stance has changed because you insisted the EAWR gave the definition of an electrician. That word is not mentioned, you are therefore wrong. Simple really.

 
I have just closed the thread simply because the original post has been lost in another debate. I have removed the first post and would urge Gavindrummand to open a new thread possibly in the poll section for those who wish to partake in his survey.

If this debate is so important to other members then open a new thread where these ideals can be debated in a civilised manner without the need to hijack another's question.

My apologies to Gavin for allowing the topic to run so far off course.

 
For those who are interested and do not have a copy of EAWR or the memorandum of guidance on the electricity at work regulations, it can be obtained from the HSE website: Memorandum of guidance on the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 - HSE Books

One of Steptoes references is this paragraph 4:

4 When those who design, construct, operate or maintain electrical installations and equipment need advice they should refer to appropriate guidance, such as may be found in national, international, reputable foreign and harmonised or industry standards and codes of practice or HSE guidance, or they should seek expert advice. Only those who have both the knowledge and the experience to make the right judgements and decisions and the necessary skill and ability to carry them into effect should undertake work subject to these Regulations. A little knowledge is often sufficient to make electrical equipment function but a much higher level of knowledge and experience is usually needed to ensure safety.
Click to expand...
This paragraph clearly states persons must have both knowledge and experience to make right judgements and skill and ability to carry them out if they are carrying out unsupervised work. I believe this is what Steptoe implies that a large proportion of persons asking some basic questions on forums should not be working alone or trading as competent.

Another one is Regulation 16:

Regulation 16 Persons to be competent to prevent danger and injuryNo person shall be engaged in any work activity where technical knowledge or experience is necessary to prevent

danger or, where appropriate, injury, unless he possesses such knowledge or experience, or is under such degree of supervision as may be appropriate having regard to the nature of the work.
Click to expand...
However note, this paragraph does suggest a person needs such knowledge OR experience, not AND experience? We are back in the realms of interpretation again I fear! the first quote is from the introduction, the second quote is from the actual regulations. Whatever members thoughts are I do hope we can all agree with this underlying principal: A little knowledge is often sufficient to make electrical equipment function but a much higher level of knowledge and experience is usually needed to ensure safety

Doc H.

---------- Post Auto-Merged at 15:17 ---------- Previous post was made at 14:58 ----------

I have just closed the thread simply because the original post has been lost in another debate. I have removed the first post and would urge Gavindrummand to open a new thread possibly in the poll section for those who wish to partake in his survey.If this debate is so important to other members then open a new thread where these ideals can be debated in a civilised manner without the need to hijack another's question.

My apologies to Gavin for allowing the topic to run so far off course.
Click to expand...
I think I have moved all of the original answers to Gavins question to the thread that you created Manator. I have renamed this debate with a more appropriate title. As it hasn't got to swearing and calling people girls names yet I think we can probably keep the two separate topics going again.

Doc H.

 
Thanks Doc. Your post clearly shows the crux of my argument here. The level of a persons competency can be judged in a limited number of ways, none of which include a forum debate. That person use their apprenticeship to indicate their level of training but not their actual competency. In an earlier post I said training did not make the man. You also show that Steptoes statement of EAWR being the defining document for the definition of electrician is simply incorrect.

 
Guidance on regulation 16 is not very long so here is the rest of it for any that want to put stuff into context:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No person shall be engaged in any work activity where technical knowledge or experience is necessary to prevent

danger or, where appropriate, injury, unless he possesses such knowledge or experience, or is under such degree of supervision as may be appropriate having regard to the nature of the work.

233 The defence (regulation 29) is available in any proceedings for an offence under this regulation.

234 The object of the regulation is to ensure that people are not placed at risk due to a lack of skills on the part of themselves or others in dealing with electrical equipment.

"... prevent danger or, where appropriate, injury ..."

235 This regulation uses both of the terms,

 
So where do I fit in then? I never served a recognised apprenticehip, but went to college and got 2330 parts 1 & 2, 16th edition regs, 2391 I&T. Then joined the firm that I'm currnetly at as an improver, shadowed someone for a year and a bit or so, then ended up going on PIR jobs with a manager who did them, soon I was going out doing reports with the manager keeping a close eye on the reports and being impressed.

These days I mainly do PIRS, with a little fault finding and our of hours call out work thrown in, along with a little design work.

Since working at the firm I've done my 17th edition update and completed my NVQ3. I might still be a little slow at installation work, but thats because I do not do it day in, day out.

My JIB card says electrician on it.

 

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Personal Statement, Please Help!
Replies
3
Views
2K
Evans Electric
Evans Electric
S
Good morning all
Replies
10
Views
2K
SPECIAL LOCATION
SPECIAL LOCATION
M
Calling for time served electricians need your advice
Replies
14
Views
5K
apprentice87
apprentice87
Anton Mc Ab Benjy
Nightmare, How The Hell Can I Get Relevant Experience For Nvq?
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
Manator
Manator
C
Electrician Woes...
Replies
6
Views
924
batty
batty

Latest posts

Top