Mandated Regulation/Certification for Computer Repair?

josquint asks: "Does the Computer Service/Repair field need to be regulated? This is a question I asked myself after spending a day off from my position as Lead Technician at a local computer shop, in an auto repair shop and a hair salon. In both places, I noted that all the employees had their trade credentials displayed for all customers to see. They are not only displayed as a matter of pride or to gain customer trust (as my A+ and Network Security certificate is) but as a matter of law. This regulation, to me, makes sense. If you're going to pay good money to have your automobile repaired, it better be by someone trained and proficient at doing it (otherwise I might as well do it myself!). Also, there is a matter of safety --an error in repairing a car can easily result in injury or death of quite a few people, so some accountability is needed. The salon regulation, to me at first, seemed like the usual overkill large government regulation. However, it too is a matter of safety to the clients, as the chemicals and equipment (tanning beds especially) can also do harm if used incorrectly. Would you view regulation or mandatory certification as a good thing in the computer repair/installation/maintenance world? What kind of regulation would you like to see, if any? How and at what level would it be implemented and enforced?"

"I personally would like something that requires certain basic certifications for the techs themselves, and possibly something to do with retail shop areas (use of static mats, data backup procedures, etc). And enforced at the State level similar to most small business type codes.

I wouldn't have a problem following some such type of regulation, and probably wouldn't need to do much if anything to make code. I do a fair share of cleaning up after fly-by-night companies/consultants/johnny's-14-year-old nephew-that-really-knows-computers. It costs a lot of the local businesses serious money to replace lost data and sub-standard equipment. I just completed a total system replacement at a clinic that had the system replaced about 2 months ago. It cost them over $10,000 for a system the should have been close to $3,500, but they had to replace the first replacement due to a consultant that had no experience or knowledge in that type of system trying to put one in.

While regulation wouldn't solve everything, I think it might cut down on the riff-raff and wannabes in an industry that many businesses can't do without as they can't do without electricity."

Re:definitely

[swb]

If you backflow from groundwater or the sewer system, you can poison and kill hundreds of people.

Re:definitely

[spencerogden]

Yes, you data does carry liability, but you can remove all risk by backing up before the work is done. No one should loose more than the cost of their equipment when it is service. If you trust you data to some else who is going to be banging around inside you computer you are going to get in trouble.

Certs are just ways to block competition

[richmaine]

Most of those certifications (like your saloon example) are there solely to block competition. The excuses about protecting customers are usually prettly thin.

In rare cases, the customer protection argument makes sense, but those cases are very much in a minority. Doctors come to mind as probably the biggest case. But tanning saloons? If you believe that tanning saloons are regulated in order to protect customers, then I have a deal for you.

Re:definitely

[wilburdg]

I've worked in PC repair, and I'd like you to show me a single shop out there that doesn't make you sign a nice long release of liability saying "No matter what happens to your data, it isn't our problem"

Job protection for the incompetent

[DavidinAla]

I'm a political consultant, and I'm not sure whether to laugh at the ignorance implied by the proposed solution or calmly explain why things work the way they do. I'm trying hard to remember that some people actually believed the garbage they heard in seventh grade civics classes and that they haven't actually dealt with real politicians enough to know what motivates such laws.

Laws requiring people to be licensed to do certain things (such as repair plumbing or cut hair) are sold to the public as protection for the public, but, in reality, those regulations are about protecting the people already in a business and keeping prices high for the service. If you honestly think that regulations such as you're proposing will keep out incompetent people, you clearly haven't seen some of the bad haircuts that I've seen from fully licensed haircutters. Do you think the licensing keeps incompetent plumbers from working? Do you think that licensing keeps incompetent people in almost ANY field from working?

Government licensing is popular because it provides barriers to entry into a profession. It makes it harder to compete with the people who are already doing it (and tends to make prices for those services HIGHER than they otherwise would be). But all those things do is create hoops for people to jump through. Any idiot can memorize enough basic facts long enough to get a real estate license, for instance, but that doesn't mean that person is going to be a competent agent. A licensed haircutter isn't necessarily a good haircutter. And a licensed plumber isn't necessarily a good plumber.

The market is what works. If somebody is good at something, you recommend him or her to your friends -- and that person gets more business. If somebody is lousy at something, word gets around and the person has trouble getting work, until he's getting work only from people who are more interested in a cheap price than a quality job. The same is true in ANY field -- even things where we like to pretend that licensing provides a level playing field for everyone, such as with physicians.

Politicians like licensing requirements, because they allow them to tell the voters that they're protecting them, while they're really taking contributions from professional groups of union groups which are eager to lock out competition.

Giving the government the power to decide who is competent to do ANYTHING is crazy. The longer I'm around politics, the more I think that anarchy is a darn good idea. :-)

David

Re:Not the same thing...

[nolife]

I believe the ASE (the main auto cert system) has their best interests in mind when they offer their certifications. If they can impress on the public that having their certs makes a difference then the public will look for those certs. Techs and businesses now have to have a program in place to get those certs to meet the publics demands. Not many of the ASE certs are even remotely related to safety, okay, maybe the brakes but the braking system is not complex by any means. State run vehicle inspection mechanics do not have to be ASE certified, they have to be certified from the state, it is not hard test. Remembering the states or regions requirements and specifications is 95% of the test. IMHO, the ASE certs are a solution to a problem that did not exist. There was never an outbreak of saftey issues from non certified mechanics that this system was needed. Understanding all of the automotive systems from various companies is no easy task, specilized training is definately a plus and experience is a must but the claim that certs are required for safety if FUD.

Re:certification?

[Anonymous Coward]

As one who fixes his own car, _EVERY TIME_ someone else works on it, they mess something up.

Well of course. A messed-up car will almost always translate into repeat business. I've always thought it would be a piece of cake for a mechanic to make a little 'alteration' here and there that would cause non-life-threatening damage to your vehicle a few months down the road.

Mechanics are the worst bunch of people I've ever encountered, because so many of them will ratchet up the prices as soon as they figure out you don't know what they're talking about. I've met mechanics who come out straight away with a line that's obviously bullshit, just in order to see if you understand what they're saying or not. If not, tough luck for your wallet. The next question is usually "What do you do for a living?" - translate as "How much am I likely to be able to gouge out of you?"

On that note, can anyone point me to a good self-education site on vehicle maintenance? I'm a little sick of getting ripped off (and no, I can't use google in this case, because I can't verify the accuracy of the information on any random googled site... the best I can do is spot OBVIOUS bullshit).

Certification != Competence

[BanjoBoy]

Having spent younger years in the repair industry and since then having paid many people for repair on various items, I have reach the conclusion that having certification has nothing to do with the ability to perform the work. I am not a certified network engineer but have found myself in a position several times in different companies that the certified network administrator was unable to perform the work but had to rely on me to help them understand what needed to be done and how to do it. So, research on the quality of service and capabilities of prospective employees is far more important than relying on certifications.

Re:"Yup, sounds like you have a virus."

[StanAnderton]

Well, I do agree that there are many disreputable shops out there. There are also many incompetents that see the 'big money' out there. I have not seemed to find much of that because I am the rare 'Honest Joe'. If they need a video card, that's what I fix. If they have a virus I clean it. The problem with regulation is that it doesn't really fix much. It just costs. Most repair shops that cheat now will cheat when regulated too. I have been troubleshooting, repairing, and building systems for 20 years now. I haven't taken the time to get certified. I don't doubt that I could pass the test, I just haven't had the need. I have more work than I can handle. By the way, I have interviewed and hired college trained, and certified, individuals that couldn't do squat! I have followed behind one company that charged $33,000 to install some new servers in a WAN using 2000 Advanced Server. They claimed to be certified. Certifiable is more like it. It was a mess! DHCP scopes were wrong, DNS was wrong! WINS was wrong. Security sucked! One domain even had the wrong subnet mask set. It seems that if you pays your money, you gets the paper. It hasn't sold me on certification, and especially not on regulation. Just one man's humble opinion, of course.