| ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2005 2:12 AM Subject: HB 5659 Ed, Just wanted to drop you a note thanking you and your co-sponsors for proposing HB 5659 in regards to removing plumbers from the new continuing education requirements. You will notice that I have also cc'd several others on this message. Let me first make it clear that I currently am working in the computer industry (after completing a college degree). But after hearing about this law first from solicitors trying to sign me up for their classes last year, I myself thought this law ridiculous. Besides the fact that this law is of little use for plumbers in the practical sense, I have several other reasons for which I believe this law is bad. 1) This should have been much better advertised. The average person does not watch what is going on the legislature; they are busy making a living and trying to make ends meet. I firmly believe that if this were better advertised, then the plumbing community would have spoken out and perhaps brought out better reasons for voting against this law than I have, and have better alternatives. 2) Any existing licensees should have been grandfathered. I myself have been licensed for 29 years. Now after all this time I should have to go back to school? I am sorry but I believe that continuing education is a choice for the individual. 3) This requirement may cause older plumbing tradesman to drop their licenses. I have an uncle now retired from the plumbers local, and in discussing this with him I wonder if he will even renew his license. I feel that putting this requirement onto plumbers that may be older in years may further decrease the number of plumber licensees and increase the amount of work done by unlicensed personnel. The following is a quote from the February 2004 plumbing board meeting minutes: Roger Stolting, Acting Chairperson, stated as a point-of-interest, that the total quantity of licensure in the State of Connecticut has gone down dramatically from March, 2002 compared to January, 2004. More important is that the State needs more licensure, however; they are losing them. He also stated that the plumbing industry for the State of Connecticut will get worst. The link is here: http://www.ct.gov/dcp/lib/dcp/pdf/minutes_plumbing_board_2_19_04.pdf 4) I have heard someone suggest that quarterly mailings on code changes, proposed laws, and Consumer Protection contacts and news would be more helpful and informative for tradesman than a mandatory yearly class. And it would give Consumer Protection the advantage with staying in touch with the plumbers who are out there in the field doing the daily jobs and dealing with the people of the state of Connecticut. Another suggestion that is listed at http://www.geocities.com/ctplumbers/ is that using a special web site or tech bulletins by email would work to get the word out and be helpful. It seems to me that there are a lot of people out there with good ideas. However I feel that this law was basically slid in behind the backs of the working class. I have expressed this to both my house and senate reps (Barry & Handley). I did get in touch with Handley's office last year in regards to this and came away with 'your stuck with this law' impression. Lawmakers have to try to represent everyone fairly, and in this case this did not come close to happening. Thank you for attempting to right a wrong. Sincerely, John E. Gianopoulos |