This rebuttal is in response to the article written by Randy D. Roxson. Sprinkler Fitter Unions Across Nation Support Fire Sprinklers

Not surprisingly, Mr. Roxson completely misstates my position on the issue of fire sprinkler fitter training and certification. As a principal owner of a firm that plans, designs and manages the construction of fire sprinkler systems, I have an acute and committed concern about the quality of work done by sprinkler fitters industry-wide. Our clients include architects, developers and both union and open-shop contractors, and our designs are installed by technicians with both union and non-union training. I am in favor of any and all efforts, programs, etc. that will further the training and skills of fire sprinkler fitters, so long as any such program is a professional, thoughtful and substantial one that is conceived and implemented by way of a consensus process and in partnership with all stakeholders. In my opinion, those stakeholders should include union and non-union contractors, apprenticeship proctors, labor department administrators, fire service representatives, the American and National Fire Sprinkler Associations and other recognized experts – NONE of whom were consulted by the author(s) of AB-2288 until long after the bill was written and submitted to the California Assembly. Show me a program that is a genuine consensus effort from its inception, and I’ll be first in line to support it.

I will leave it to the reader to determine what Mr. Roxson actually meant by his statements. His articulate backpedalling is appreciated, as it at least illustrates that he and the unions understand how patently ridiculous and inflammatory his original statements were. But it is inaccurate to say that his statements were taken out of context, as they were quoted word for word. I challenge Mr. Roxson and the Sprinkler Fitters Unions – both the California and USA Sprinkler Fitters Associations – to make an articulate statement of support for fire sprinkler codes, regulations and ordinances, not only in California but throughout the rest of the country. Here again is what he said, “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.”

If IRC Proposal RB64-07/08 is approved, the International Residential Code will be amended to require fire sprinklers in all one and two-family dwellings. But we must remember that IRC is a model code, and the implementation of any model code – be it IBC, IFC or IRC – occurs at the state level, usually by way of a regulatory or legislative process. Even if the IRC adopts the residential fire sprinkler provision, it will up to the states to determine if the code will be adopted as is, or with amendments. And, as legislative advocate and lobbyist in California, Mr. Roxson is well aware of how this process works in our state. The 2007 California Building and Fire Codes are heavily amended versions of the 2006 ICC model codes; we’re not shy about amendments in California.

So if the Union in fact intends to 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”, it is reasonable to deduce that they will oppose the state adoption of the IRC as amended to require sprinklers, pursuant to Mr. Roxson’s clearly stated intention to do just that. What if a city wishes to create or amend a speculative building ordinance or establish higher design density criteria for fire sprinkler systems than the minimums prescribed by current codes or NFPA standards? What about a mitigation policy that prescribes fire sprinklers in lieu of apparatus access or hydrant proximity to a proposed project? Will they oppose such actions unless accompanied by, “…adequate training requirements for the installers of such systems”?

It is disingenuous for Mr. Roxson to suggest that there is any questionable context to his comments. In fact, the unions’ actual intentions seem clear, albeit cloaked in the hard-headed rhetoric of a special-interest lobbying effort. But the language Mr. Roxson has used, both in his original comments and in his rebuttal to mine, absolutely do NOT unconditionally support fire sprinkler code and regulatory requirements. I challenge Mr. Roxson and the leadership of the California and USA Sprinkler Fitters Associations to clearly, unequivocally and UNCONDITIONALLY support fire sprinkler requirements without any partisan political strings attached. It would seem reasonable and prudent for them to do so, especially in consideration of the fact that the USA Sprinkler Fitters logo (as printed on Mr. Roxson’s business card) clearly states, “Sprinklers Are For Everyone”.

The original article written by Steve Leyton on this topic is Sprinkler Fitters Union To Oppose Fire Sprinklers

A formal response to this rebuttal has been written by Randy D. Roxson. The Sprinkler Fitters Union Support Fire Sprinklers