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