In a message dated 11/24/98 1:07:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, [log in to unmask]
writes:

>  Ken Follett talked about the tradesmen who never read anything about their
>  trade, but nevertheless gained expertise.  I'm afraid that is not possible
>  for preservation tradesmen.  They have to learn techniques that are not
>  used in new construction.  They have to learn principles that are not
>  germane to new construction.

I agree that there is no way a mechanic can learn preservation without study,
experience, and training. My argument is that there needs to be a balance of
resources applied between training for design professionals and the
preservation craftsmen. As Deans' firm provides a mentoring environment, which
I can attest to the effectiveness of, so also is needed such a mentoring
environment on the hands-on side of the preservation team. I'm very much in
favor of mechanics being able to demonstrate a knowledge of preservation
skills prior to being assigned to a project.

I am generally against trade certification not because it is not needed, but
because I do not believe that it can be done in a comprehensive manner for
such a complex set of skills that are required in construction. I prefer a
project-by-project proving out of the labor resource.

My immediate problem is that without work mechanics cannot be trained. As Dean
suggests, a distinction needs to be made between mechanics actually trained
and experienced in preservation, as opposed to construction in general. The
problem in getting work occurs when contractors/trades of various imbalanced
capacities to do, or understand, preservation work are asked to bid against
each other.

I am very much in favor of pre-qualification, but am constantly frustrated
that pre-qualification seems to mean very little in the end. You can qualify
up the ying-yang, but the low bidder, who may not be very well qualified at
all, prevails. The expectation should be that craftsmen working in
preservation are held to high standards, certainly not to absurd standards,
but at the same time HP has to remain profitable enough to allow a budget for
the specialized training required. Just as contractors are required to prove
all sorts of capacities (apprenticeship programs, equal opportunity, pensions
etc.) in order to get work, their commitment to preservation craft training
should be considered in pre-qualification for preservation projects.

Following a recent pre-bid meeting at Richmondtown Restoration, an obviously
sensitive HP project, one of the potential bidders wrote in a question wanting
to know if all of the bidders were qualified to bid the job. Almost everyone
is qualified to bid, I think all you really need is a driver's license. The
question I have is if you do not know that you are allowed to bid the project
then how can you be expected to be qualified to do the job? As far as I am
concerned the pre-qualification filters have no bite and do not work, not for
lack of trying on the part of the preservation minded, but due to the fact
that the bean counters & legal departments are the deciding factor.

>  Ken's original peeve railed against inexperienced people who disrupted the
>  construction process.  I think the fault lies not with them, but with
>  those who put them in positions of authority.

Most certainly, those who put unprepared individuals in vulnurable position
are responsbile. Though I also believe that HP, at least as it occurs in the
field, is a nascent process and that it is difficult for anyone to come to the
project fully aware of the complexity of problems that can be encountered. We
all need to be able to agree to talk with each other about our peeves.

>  All of the firms working on those teams were
>  professionals, although the majority were not licensed.  It's not the
>  license which makes the professional.

I concede to this argument and in future will insist that experienced
preservation craftspeople be considered professionals on the project team.

][<en