All fields are required.

Close Appointment form

Sprinkler Fitters Union To Oppose Fire Sprinklers

Sprinkler Fitters Union To Oppose Fire Sprinklers

7 Comments

In a stunning development related to a proposed sprinkler fitter regulatory bill in California, Sprinkler Fitters Local Unions 483, 709 and 669 have vowed to oppose any fire sprinkler ordinance or act in the state, unless it is accompanied by other provisions for “adequate” fitter training. This extraordinarily ill-timed threat comes only four months before what most of us in the fire protection community hope will be the monumental IRC code hearings in Minneapolis, MN where the adoption of proposal RB64-07/08 would require residential fire sprinkler systems in all one and two-family dwellings, effective January 1, 2011. The bill in question, AB-2288, would require training and certification of all sprinkler fitters, and was written and is supported by the unions.

The union’s position is detailed in a letter sent to members of the California Fire Service and signed by Randy D. Roxson, Attorney and Legislative Advocate for the proponents of the bill and the USA Sprinkler Fitters Association. Attempting to frame their position as a public safety advocacy, Mr. Roxson implies that if fitter certification isn’t undertaken, people (ostensibly including first responders) could die from failures due to installer negligence. And the union’s proposed remedy to this risk was then clearly stated, “As such, we go on record with a new policy statement from the Sprinkler Fitters Union of California. We will actively, openly, and adamantly oppose any proposed California state law, regulation, or local city or county ordinance that will require fire sprinklers or any other type of fire suppression system unless attached are adequate training requirements for the installers of such systems.” The union has offered no specific amendment or definition of what would constitute adequate training, but one could safely presume it involves membership in their organization(s), among other things.

The letter, addressed to Robert Nolan of City of Brea, California, contains several inflammatory remarks, in addition to the position statement in opposition to sprinkler ordinance. Mr. Roxson equates AFSA’s opposition to the bill with the actions of Ford Motor Company regarding the Pinto. About AFSA he stated, “The AFSA are simply doing the same as Ford Motor Company did with the Ford Pinto. The ‘bean counters’ determined that it would be more cost-effective for its bottom line to pay claims for injuries and deaths caused by a discovered defectively designed (sic) gas tank, rather than to recall the Ford Pinto. Here, AFSA believes that instead of having to pay skilled installers, it is cheaper to just pay the potential claims associated with fire sprinkler failures no matter the lives this may claim.” The union re-visits the issue of “potential claims” later in the letter, “The Sprinkler Fitters Union in California believe that fire sprinkler system failures caused from defectively installed systems will ultimately damage the image of fire sprinklers and the industry itself.”

How interesting. It seems to me that if the Union cared one bit about “the image of fire sprinklers and the industry itself”, it would watch its words and measure its own actions a tad more closely. As outrageous as their position against fire sprinkler regulations is the fear-mongering with regard to “fire sprinkler system failures from defectively installed systems.” To my knowledge, there has not been a single death or failure attributed to defectively installed systems – at least not in California. All of us have read of the tragic consequences of certain well-documented failures. The leading cause of loss in sprinklered buildings is interruption of and/or encumbrance of water supplies for example. Far too often, use and occupancy of buildings can change to a more hazardous one than that for which the system was originally designed and built. And unfortunately, our industry has had to contend with recalled and replaced sprinklers.

But to advocate support of special-interest legislation by making unfounded public statements that imply an imminent danger to the general public is not just “politics”. Such action has the potential to severely damage our industry and the efforts to pass RB64-07/08, and underscores the apparent desperation of the local unions in California, and their willingness to say and or do almost anything to convince legislators that this is an essential bill. How ironic is their intent to oppose sprinkler regulations in the face of the purported need for this legislation to preserve the safety of the general public and fire service responders? Open any homebuilding industry or fire service publication and you will see that the most controversial issue in residential construction – besides residential fire sprinklers – is the general issue of fire safety in so-called lightweight construction. For which the obvious mitigation would be the installation of residential fire sprinklers. Can we therefore deduce that the union is only interested in life safety if it is delivered to the market on their own terms?

After years of trying to push the ball up the mountain, and thousands of hours of dedicated effort by fire service and the fire sprinkler industry, we are at the cusp of gaining approval for the residential sprinkler mandate. Will we succeed or, like Sisyphus, will we again be pushed back to the base of the hill? By their actions, it seems that the union apparently does not care whether sprinklers are required in housing; what they apparently do care about is that whatever sprinklers are required in the built environment should be installed by union sprinkler fitters. Meanwhile hundreds of voting members of ICC are desperately trying to arrange for travel and accommodations – many of whom are municipal employees who will be doing so at their own expense – just to attend and vote at this historic hearing. How shameful are the union’s actions, to risk wasting the time, energies and financial resources of our fire service allies.

Fire sprinkler technology has a long and storied history of nearly flawless performance throughout the built environment. I always thought that despite differences of opinion we may have within the fire sprinkler industry on certain issues, we could at least agree that sprinklers should be installed in all buildings, regardless of occupancy. But instead of working to make communities safer, the union would rather give fodder to those who oppose mandatory sprinklers. What better argument against the code change than to point out that the fire sprinkler industry can’t even agree amongst its own factions on whether sprinkler ordinance is an unconditionally good idea?

A formal response to this article has been written by Randy D. Roxson. Sprinkler Fitter Unions Across Nation Support Fire Sprinklers


Steve Leyton is President of Protection Design & Consulting in San Diego, CA. Steve is a member of the NFPA 14 and Residential Sprinkler Systems Technical Committees and served on the ICC Residential Sprinkler Ad Hoc Committee. His wife, Terri Leyton, is Vice President of Protection Design & Consulting and a paid consultant to AFSA for AB-2288. Among their many associations and affiliations, both Steve and Terri are members of the California Fire Chiefs Association, Fire Prevention Officers Sections for Northern and Southern California. Both are long-time advocates of residential fire sprinklers and have spent a combined 46 years in the fire and life safety community.







  • Share This



Related Posts

7 Responses to “Sprinkler Fitters Union To Oppose Fire Sprinklers”

  1. Thanks Steve for your comments and thanks to Terri also for her dedication to life safety.

  2. Well, isn’t this just great. These guys just managed to steamroll a like bill through the Washington Legislature and now the State FM is stuck trying to figure out an equitable method of enforcement. Of little solace overall but of monumental importance is that the Washington State bill says nothing of “approved apprenticeship programs” but rather allows the State FM to determine acceptable levels of training and testing. This is important because it removes the standard of care from the legislation which, by my understanding of Washington law, would default to the Department of Labor & Industries for enforcement. L&I presides over what apprenticeship programs are approved and has doggedly and for years refused to approve the AFSA program even though it is approved by the US Dept. of Labor. The ONLY approved fitter apprenticeship program in Washington is the Union’s. Had the legislation we’ve been saddled with up here carried language similar to California’s we would soon see the demise of the merit shop. And as an aside, so you all may know where I’m coming from, let me give you some personal background.

    In California I was once an IBEW electrician (from a family of unionists, either IBEW or Railroad & back further to socialists in pre-Fascist Italy–don’t let the name confuse you) and then went on to be a Santa Cruz County Building Inspector. When I came north anti-California sentiment was rife in Washington. There was even a weekly (maybe daily) California bashing columnist (Emmett Watson) in the Seattle Times. My union “brothers” just couldn’t seem to find me work so I went to work for a union sprinkler company as an inspector. Now that job wasn’t a union job and my good brothers in the fitter’s union didn’t think the three inspectors at this company were worth bringing into the fold. I worked there at abysmal wages so as to feed my children until I found a better paying job with a merit shop.

    Being ambitious I rose rather rapidly and soon (at least after the first two years) was making scale or above. I then went into management. I am now no longer directly in the fire protection industry but rather in the education business and once again a union member although this time the American Federation of Teachers. I have always been an executive board officer in AFT in some capacity. I will tell you that if the Safeway workers strike or the service staff at a hotel or restaurant puts up a picket line I will not cross that line and I wouldn’t do it even in the days when I was not in a union. I didn’t eat grapes and I didn’t eat lettuce in the days of Cesar Chavez. On the other hand I find a union that uses it’s substantial economic clout to lobby for legislation that will harm the public by restricting trade, particularly when purporting that that legislation has been proposed for the benefit of the public, again particularly when its supposed to be a remedy for an ailment that doesn’t exist, is deplorable and does not warrant my support.

    This is not meant as any sort of indictment against unionism, nor organized labor, nor the hardworking fitters “picking up heavy things” (we’ll leaver the other part of THAT joke out for now) all day, but rather the current philosophy and strategy of the Union leadership. The purpose of the Union should be to organize labor to ensure a fairness in the workplace and to establish a standard of care that provides the public with a product they can rely on. Strategies like this in California seem more designed to close down merit shops at the detriment of currently satisfied workers (they would be organizable if the Union offered them a better alternative–I don’t see any head busting by hired goons a’la Ford & Reuther) and undermining the public trust and confidence in fire sprinklers.

  3. California’s legislative bill AB 2288, which will establish a minimum standard for training for those who install fire suppression systems in California, does include the AFSA apprenticehsip program as a viable method for obtaining the training required for State Fire Marshal certification. As you may not know, the AFSA apprenticeship training program is approved by the California Department of Industrial Relations.

  4. I used to be in the sprinkler fitters apprenticship program about 10 years ago. Local 709. Was wondering if someone could give me info on where to go in san diego co. to try and get into the union again. thank you.

  5. all they want is to corner the market. That way they can keep charging outrageous fees to unknowing customers and say this price pays for “life safety” BS its to line their pockets.

  6. Mafia is spelled AFSA.

  7. I would like to see this so called document I am on the executive board for Road Sprinkler Fitters Local 669 and I personally have been to the ICC an the NFPA Seminars cocerning the voting and have particapated in the voting in favor of these bills along with many others of Local 669. The only ones opposed to this has been the National Home Builders Associations. I have this personal story to tell about the Vice President from the NHBA when I was in Vegas for there convention we had our burn trailer there for the week we where doing demonstations to show how a residential sprinkler opperates when myself and another executive board member was told and I quote “the cost of a life is insignifagant” then when asked how this person would feel if thier child or grandchild would feel if he or she would be burned or killed in a fire he told us that was personal and not to go to that level. All this talk please show me this document for Local 669 is the nations largest sprinkler fitters union and we do more to promote this industry from the streets to congress more than anyone gives us credit for so please send me this document my email is JEVANS669@live.com

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Submit a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You must be logged in to post a comment.

About the author

icon

Steve Leyton