During my thirty years of self-employment, I do not I recollect a single instance where a client has given me power or attorney or asked me to take their power of attorney to act in their behalf when testing their welders. Nor has any client appointed me to be their legal representative for the purpose of testing and certifying welders. I doubt many CWIs reading this thread has been given that authority by their clients. I further doubt that AWS demands that authority (power of attorney) before issuing a certification or listing an individual in the National Registry of Certified Welders (NRCW).
By your argument, AWS or any organization that issues certifications would have to have the power of attorney from each person that is issued a certification. Are you serious? I don’t recollect giving AWS that authority when I became a CWI.
I chose not to be the certifying agency when it comes to qualifying and certifying welders (or inspectors for that matter). I stopped that practice many years ago when I recognized that that is the contractor’s responsibility. If you chose to be the certifying agent on behalf of your client you are free to do so, but please follow your own advice and obtain their power of attorney (in writing) before testing their welders. If AWS elects to act as a certifying agent, please let them know they need the power of attorney from each candidate before issuing a certification. I would hate to see an AWS program placed in jeopardy because someone overlooked such an important document.
It was a nice attempt on your part to throw up a smoke screen to cloud the subject and introduce new concepts in how a welder is qualified and certified to an AWS welding standard or any other standard for that matter.
Most people or companies inquire whether or not a testing lab can test, qualify, or certify a welder. As stated before, my typical response is that I qualify the welder when I administer a test. It remains the employer's responsibility to sign the certifying statement at the bottom of the test report. My signature on the test record indicates the tests were performed and the individual passed the requisite test requirements.
I am under no legal obligation to teach or instruct a prospective client the differences or the nuances of all the different welder qualification requirements of every welding standard published. When I get a telephone inquiry from a prospective client I ask what code they want to test to. If they are uncertain or don’t know I ask them what type of work they do and usually suggest a code or standard that might be appropriate. The code they test to is their decision, not mine.
It is pure folly to imagine I am going to spend much time (at no charge) describing the pros and cons of each welding standard, the limitations of the type of work they can perform and all the different tests that can be administered to qualify a welder. If they are attempting to obtain a state license to weld pipe I direct them to the department of licenses and tell them the telephone number is in the phone book. If they need to be licensed by the City of New York I tell them to call NYC to find out what the requirements are. Better to do that than provide misinformation. Am I going to spend an hour on the telephone teaching him the difference between the test I administer and a test intended for welders that want to be included in the NRCW? The answer is, "NO!" I will direct them to call AWS in Miami.
The truth of the matter is I have never had a prospective client specifically ask for an "AWS Certification". Few individuals understand what an ATF is and fewer yet know what the NRCW is. Since the NRCW is a business venture established by the AWS with profit as their motive, it is their responsibility to market their product and to educate the public what their services are.
I doubt AWS staff has or will tell a prospective client that my testing services may be better suited than theirs for the purpose of testing to ASME, API, or to a military standard. I also doubt AWS staff will take the time to tell the prospective client that the AWS certification or inclusion in the NRCW is not universally recognized and does not have to be accepted by an Owner.
When AWS informs a prospective candidate about my capabilities as a testing company and they send a customer to my lab I will be happy to return the favor. Until then, AWS will have to market their services and I will market mine.
Am I going to try to steer the prospective client away from taking his test at an ATF? You better believe I am. It is called BUSINESS.
You have more information on the specifics of the case before the Ethics Committee than I do. However I believe the committee will have to have overwhelming evidence that the individual (CWI)[url=] intentionally lied [/url]about his ability to administer a test that would permit the welder to be listed in the National Registry of Certified Welders (NRCW). Did he understnd that he isn't qualified to provide an "AWS certification"? Did the client specifically ask to have the welder tested for inclusion in the NRCW? Or did the client ask if the CWI could test the welder in accordance with AWS? Did the client ask if the CWI could administer an AWS test? I believe there are too many opportunities for holes in the sieve to hold much water Joe.
The majority of the welders that are certified think they are "AWS Certified" because I believe it is misleading for the AWS to say they are the only one's that can issue "AWS Certification". The welders and many inspectors do not differentiated between "certification in accordance with an AWS code" and "AWS Certification. You (Joe) and I may be more sensitized of what the differences are because we work on the (or used to work) on the subcommittees developing the standards. I don't believe it is all that clear to the average CWI, testing lab, inspector, or welder. If AWS wants to market the "AWS Certification" they need to do a better job of marketing it or do a better job of branding. Perhaps a better tradename for the certification issued by AWS would be useful.
Unless a CWI is interested in becoming an ATF, there is no reason for them to have intimate knowledge of the ATF, their capabilities, or the specifics of the NRCW. There is no reason for a CWI to learn about the NRCW and no reason to expect a CWI to be a marketing tool for an ATF or AWS' NRCW.
AWS has plenty of money to market their own program. I assume AWS uses money collected from membership dues, certification fees, etc. to tout their programs. It is incumbent on AWS to do a better job of marketing their product and educate the public about their programs.
AWS and Marion Testing & Inspection are competitors. There should be no mistake that an independent CWI (one that doesn't work for an ATF) or a lab (that isn't an ATF) that offers services such as welder qualification testing is in competition with AWS and their system of ATFs. We are vying for the same clients, e.g., welders that need to be “certified”. To expect a testing lab or an independent CWI to become marketing tools for AWS is ridiculous from a business standpoint. To say that a CWI that fails to “teach” the prospective client the differences between their services and the services offered by AWS or another testing lab can hardly be considered a breach in the Code of Ethics. To do so would be a myopic view of the situation.
I’ve voiced my opinion on this subject and my good friend Joe has done a fair job of trying to slap me on the side of the “knoggin”. How do other CWIs that operate as independents feel on this subject? Isn’t that what this Forum is for? Do you feel you are obligated to “teach” your potential clients about the services offered by your competition?
Best regards – Al
I certify welders all the time to aws D1.1 and im not about to stop
i like the easy money
Disregarding all that you may have read in this post up to this point, would you have said the welders are:
A) AWS Certified
B) certified to AWS D1.1
C) certified in accordance with AWS
D) certified by Joe Pirie
E) certified by their employer
Do you typically obtain or have "power of attorney" to certify welders on behalf of your clients?
Did your client ask to be:
1) AWS certified
2) "AWS Certified"
3) certified in accordance with AWS D1.1
4) a certified welder
5) certified by Joe Pirie
Do you explain the differences in terminology to you prospective client?
Should you have your CWI credential revoked if you didn't understand the differences between the terminology used? Did you lie if you didn't know what the differences are between the terms used? Did you learn or were you told of the differences when you studied for the CWI examination?
I am not an advocate for the individual that has a case before the Ethics Committee. I don't know all the facts, but I wonder how many CWI could fall into the same trap. Are there more reasonable actions that could be considered if the customer isn't satisfied with the services provided? Return the money comes to mind if the services rendered were not to the satisfaction of the customer. This is, assuming the welder passed the tests to begin with and assuming the customer knew exactly what he wanted and asked for exactly what he wanted. This seems like a very muddy road to me.
Best regards - Al
Hi Al
You have touched on a subject that I also feel strongly about. That being: Industry bodies that compete against their members and in essence operate to restrict the growth of an industry rather than promote its growth. I have seen this in a number of welding industry bodies. Obviously there is a fine line, and the management of the industry body needs to act with both foresight and integrity to make sure they get the balance right. As an example, let me give the following, which is quite typical:
If there is a great shortage of welding inspectors, and this is restricting the growth of the welding industry, then it is a good call for a welding industry body to develop training courses and present these to boost the number of welding inspectors in the market. (It will also be a nice income for the industry body.) The cost of producing the training course and putting the infrastructure in place to present it is essentially bourne by the members of that body. (In other words the welding industry.) If other training providers show interest to also train welding inspectors, this should not be seen by the industry body as competition. Rather, it should be seen as furthering their member's interests, and they should jump at the oportunity to help these training providers get off the ground. At this point the industry body could slowly move into "accrediting" the training providers to make sure they are providing inspectors of the required standard, and slowly remove themselves from that particular training market by increasing their prices so that there is an incentive for more training providers to enter the market, and for candidates to go to the other training providers.
The argument above can be applied to consulting services, artisan training etc. I believe a truly successfull industry body is one whos business it is to establish the foundations on which the rest of the industry can build. If the industry body competes with their own members (training providers, independent inspection organisations, consultants etc.) and offers services at reduced rates because they have an income that is subsidised by the very members they are competing against, then the industry body is working exactly against its own member's interests by restricting the growth of the industry they are supposed to serve. This is a sign of an unsuccessfull industry body.
A good industry body grows the industry, not the organisation itself. Obviously good management is needed to ensure sustainability of the industry body itself.
Just my opinion!
Regards
Niekie
Hello Niekie:
I believe your position is on the mark.
Imagine how industry would respond if ASTM decided to start producing structural materials, bolts, rail, etc. in addition to publishing the standards used by the material producers. Another example: consider the response from the fabricators if AWS started to fabricate structural steel or rolling stock for the railroad industry in additon to certifying fabricators (as they do now) or if AWS started to provide third party inspectors for on-site inspections in addition to training and certifying inspectors, or if they started to certify welders at their corporate office (wait a minute, didn't they try that for a couple of years already?).
You make a good point.
Best regards - Al