Should Government Abolish Alarm Licenses?

Avatar
Brian Rhodes
Oct 05, 2017
IPVMU Certified

This flyer calls alarm, locksmith, and fire technicians to demand repeal of licensing laws in my state:

Here's the primary argument behind the effort:

Interestingly, the 'call to arms' in this effort is not ridiculing the quality of work or components that non-licensed companies use or sell, but the unfairness in levying license renewal fees for the companies that hold them vs. ones that do not.

In my state, the the total annual renewal fees for both companies and individual techs range from multiple hundreds of dollars per year, up to several thousand for medium sized companies, so the argument is not without merit.

But is abolishing professional licenses the step to take here, or is it opening "pandora's box"? Vote:

Avatar
Ethan Ace
Oct 05, 2017

I think it depends on what is required for the license. Verifiable expertise on staff? Then a license means something. Simply that you registered your company and pay a fee? Totally useless.

I think licensing leans more toward the latter than the former, unfortunately.

(2)
(1)
Avatar
Brian Rhodes
Oct 05, 2017
IPVMU Certified

Unenforceable laws are a joke, and they perpetuate expectations of oversight and control where there is none.

If governments do not/ are unable/ are unwilling to enforce laws and regulations, then only the law-abiding honor them anyway.

I vote to repeal licenses if they aren't enforced.

(2)
(1)
SD
Shannon Davis
Oct 06, 2017
IPVMU Certified

In Oklahoma you used to have to be at least NBFAA level 1 or 2 which at least you had to have gone through at least some type of classroom schooling about alarm systems. I do know that it is controlled through the health department as well. Or at least it used to be. A good friend of mine used to be in charge of that part of the system down there. I know they used to enforce quite heavily at one point. Texas and North Carolina are two of the heaviest regulated states when it comes to security systems.

(2)
Avatar
Brian Rhodes
Oct 09, 2017
IPVMU Certified

Until recently, licensing in Oklahoma was controlled by the Department of Health, but now it is the responsibility of the Department of Labor.  

Before, it wasn't too much of a stretch to consider the field inspectors grading restaurant kitchens for cleanliness might also check alarm or fire systems for minimum standards in the field, but it almost never happened.  Only when someone 'blew the whistle', is my understanding.

But now with the DOL running administration, my understanding is that group is stretched too far as it is and cannot/will not do field inspections or license checks.

(1)
Avatar
Chris Lanier
Oct 05, 2017

A couple of thought points:

1) DIY sales- No licensing required, except in the case of referral to an installer/company, then like any other contractor who is required to hold a valid business license, alarm contractor license (many states require background check), etc, those referral entities should be held to the same conditions. This at least protects the interests of those doing the right thing by their respective state authority.

2) But to Brian's point, if NO true and diligent enforcement of same, then it essentially is unfair to tax/burden licensed alarm dealers.

My Pandora Box concern is that we have enough suspect people and motives among the already licensed ranks, if licensing (and the intended end user security aspect) is abolished, then the efforts of the Alarm Associations, both local and those that have worked the Washington scene as industry advocates for years, will not only be a setback (think about the fight against local city false alarm fees), but the alarm industry could be a punching bag as door-to-door hustlers as those type scenarios arise every couple of years.

(1)
(1)
JE
Jim Elder
Oct 05, 2017
IPVMU Certified

I look at this from my perspective as a Consultant working on behalf of the client.  I see licensing as one of the many criteria to select an integrator. I can  see such practices as a means of funding some form of oversight... particularly in the effort to reduce nuisance alarms.  I would also think that integrators would embrace such licenses as it reduces the number of trunk slammers (from the voting results thus far however, I am obviously wrong). 

I agree with Ethan generally; but even with a simple license program (i.e. pay a fee and get a license), you have channel for customer complaints; or the PD's to place restrictions on your license for too many false alarms.  Enforcement is another matter...

   

 

UM
Undisclosed Manufacturer #1
Oct 06, 2017

I would say keep it, and tie it to the business license if there are violations for unsafe and shoddy workmanship. The problem isn't the license, the problem is enforcement.

The time, money and energy of the campaign should be focused to that end.

UI
Undisclosed Integrator #2
Oct 09, 2017

Licensing such as this, especially when it is not - and functionally cannot be - effectively and equally applied across the board, when the fees are this steep, and when there is little to no consumer/employee benefit as a result of enhanced safety in a significantly dangerous or risky activity/profession, pretty much always amounts to little more than anti-competitive protectionism on the part of unions and large businesses who can afford to eat the cost knowing that it prevents competition.

JP
Josh Penn
Oct 09, 2017
Automated Controls

Should be a combined low voltage electrical/alarm license, not a separate as it is in NC. If end users can buy/install why can't we. 

(1)
U
Undisclosed #3
Oct 09, 2017

 

"If end users can buy/install why can't we."

Because consumer protection/licensing is generally aimed at protecting consumers from others - not themselves.

example:  you can buy your own car parts and install them yourself.... but you can't operate as a commercial auto repair shop without a license in NC. 

(2)
(2)
JP
Josh Penn
Oct 09, 2017
Automated Controls

Understood that’s why it should be enforced through the electrical licensing not as a separate license. 

Avatar
Mark Jones
Oct 09, 2017

There are many valid reasons to have licensing, so many in fact I don't have the time to list them all.  Suffice it to say that in all of my years, I have seen technicians do some very questionable things and I have yet to read any comments here that would justify eliminating the licensing, save the inconvenience of it all.  They are in fact for the protection of the consumer and the contractor.  How many of you have ever been treated unfairly or illegally by GC and you did not know what your rights or responsibilities were?  You learn that in classes.  Do you really want a person with a felony charge working for your firm in security?  

There are a number of issues that need repair or tweaking in our State (NC), but the elimination argument is without merit.  

 

(1)
(1)
Avatar
Will Doherty
Oct 09, 2017
Liberty Consulting, Inc • IPVMU Certified

Ask yourself this would you prefer to use an IPVM certified specialist/technician or an (insert gov. name here) licensed specialist/technician?  What makes a company more reputable the number of training and certifications of all employees or a gov issued company license?

This is a fundamental question across all industries and I believe professional licensing is not the proper role of government.  Are buildings constructed better because of standards and by professionals who are trained and certified?  YES.  Are buildings constructed better due to government enforced codes?  NO. 

We need to reshape the conversation.  Certifications should be provided by the private sector and the consumer should decide which company to use.  The government issued license gives a false sense of security to the consumer with zero enforceable consequences to the government enforcement or issuing agency.  Put the consumer back in control and remove this role from government.

(1)
Avatar
Brian Rhodes
Oct 09, 2017
IPVMU Certified

Lee Jones asked if this should apply to site alarm licenses in another topic:

Some of us are lobbying to abolish traditional permits and registration of remote monitored, residential and commercial property alarm systems.

Just the alarm sites, not to include the security providers.

Historically, such questionable documentation of private alarm sites has served little or no purpose for law enforcement, or the citizen alarm site, other than a source of revenue for the muni. We now know that most AHJ do not, or cannot, adequately enforce the requirement, as evidenced by the low percent of permits vs. installed systems; and the very low revenue collection rate; and the very costly administration; and the privacy issues; and the nasty liability issues.

We also know most AHJ have already lowered the priority for most alarm response, to a level similar to “nuisance” alarms, ie slow or no priority. We also know, “witnessed” (key word) threats to life or property, when called by alarm companies or local citizens, will still get the full attention of 911 resources.

Registration/permits of the alarm site seem to be part of the outdated fragmented templates and business models, aka the “false alarm problem” that could destroy decades of public/private partnership. Maybe just reverse the roles… accountability for the same data about the alarm site, and for the response fees, but keep it part of the role of the licensed monitoring firms.

What do you think……?

New discussion

Ask questions and get answers to your physical security questions from IPVM team members and fellow subscribers.

Newest discussions