B
B J Foster
Guest
Sylvia Else wrote:
You're not with Telstra?
B
B J Foster
Guest
Don McKenzie wrote:
Mine go straight into the recycle bin.
These directories should be opt in. Telstra is living in the last century.
Good idea. Everyone should send this to everyone they know.
Mine go straight into the recycle bin.
These directories should be opt in. Telstra is living in the last century.
G
Grant
Guest
On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 04:25:37 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
drives the van, the other throws the book at front doors
bother, unless they still do the old book muncher recycle points, as
well?
who don't want one don't get one? But I sometimes refer to the paper
book in the Internet not turning up some local whatsit I expected,
that's more the yellow pages, which can be better for country town.
But I've yet to receive a free catalogue from Jaycar's order form in
current one, just their junk mail. Though some years the shop will
give me one, if I been buying a fair bit around that time of year.
If they charges for it, few would bother, but then the cost would
likely skyrocket too, if the numbers (volume) go down.
couple hours from Melbourne. I use yellow pages a few times a year.
had voip. His used to fall over lots too, so it would often just ring
out. No message option?
supposed to be a minority these days?
charging?
I met someone who'll ring an odd number (from phone bill in shared house)
to ask who they are, in order to work out who should pay for the calls.
Grant.
Contracted out to cheapest bidder, seems to be a two person team, one
drives the van, the other throws the book at front doors
What, with a sign, "free, take one"? I think a lot of people wouldn't
bother, unless they still do the old book muncher recycle points, as
well?
How about an order form in next phone book --> then at least those
who don't want one don't get one? But I sometimes refer to the paper
book in the Internet not turning up some local whatsit I expected,
that's more the yellow pages, which can be better for country town.
But I've yet to receive a free catalogue from Jaycar's order form in
current one, just their junk mail. Though some years the shop will
give me one, if I been buying a fair bit around that time of year.
If they charges for it, few would bother, but then the cost would
likely skyrocket too, if the numbers (volume) go down.
How country? I'm in Bendigo, which is larger than average, but only
couple hours from Melbourne. I use yellow pages a few times a year.
Viop is worth it? I'm not so happy with the voice quality, a friend
had voip. His used to fall over lots too, so it would often just ring
out. No message option?
And, what of all those on mobiles these days? People with landlines
supposed to be a minority these days?
I suppose he'll strike some balance between overuse and under use by
charging?
I met someone who'll ring an odd number (from phone bill in shared house)
to ask who they are, in order to work out who should pay for the calls.
Grant.
S
Sylvia Else
Guest
On 6/09/2010 8:02 AM, B J Foster wrote:
Sylvia.
No. The phone is via Optus cable, as is my Internet service.
Sylvia.
S
Sylvia Else
Guest
On 6/09/2010 4:36 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
Sylvia.
How much did you have to pay him?
Sylvia.
T
terryc
Guest
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 04:36:57 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
Lol, that is how they know. Usually too neat or too many fastners.
G
Grant
Guest
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 10:48:14 +1000, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote:
workmanship 'guarantee' and puts his stamp on the meter (at least that's
how it was a while ago) as signoff.
I've done 200A industrial wiring that just needed to be looked at and
signed off by the sparky. Good systems in place on industrial sites,
nice big padlocks holding the power switch off.
Lotsa people do their own house wiring and only get caught out after the
place burns down and it gets looked at -- oops no insurance cover...
Grant.
Dunno how much they charge, but it's legal. The electrician takes on the
workmanship 'guarantee' and puts his stamp on the meter (at least that's
how it was a while ago) as signoff.
I've done 200A industrial wiring that just needed to be looked at and
signed off by the sparky. Good systems in place on industrial sites,
nice big padlocks holding the power switch off.
Lotsa people do their own house wiring and only get caught out after the
place burns down and it gets looked at -- oops no insurance cover...
Grant.
S
Sylvia Else
Guest
On 6/09/2010 1:09 PM, Grant wrote:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/hba1989128/s14.html
unless the sparky is on site and available for consultation while the
work is being done. It appears that a householder could do some of the
work while the electrician he is employing does another part, but it
would not be lawful to do the work first, and then get the electrician
to look at it later.
From a safety perspective, and as long as the electrician really does
look at the relevant parts of the work, I can't see what difference it
makes, but that's how I read the law.
Sylvia.
In NSW, at least, it does not appear to be legal
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/hba1989128/s14.html
unless the sparky is on site and available for consultation while the
work is being done. It appears that a householder could do some of the
work while the electrician he is employing does another part, but it
would not be lawful to do the work first, and then get the electrician
to look at it later.
From a safety perspective, and as long as the electrician really does
look at the relevant parts of the work, I can't see what difference it
makes, but that's how I read the law.
Sylvia.
E
Epsilon
Guest
Sylvia Else wrote:
How does that come about under section 14?
R
Rod Speed
Guest
Sylvia Else wrote
Basically he was a mate of a mate.
I later knew another couple personally who would have
done it for free because I did their computer stuff for free.
Nothing, I did get him to do the meter box because that was too much hassle to do myself.
Basically he was a mate of a mate.
I later knew another couple personally who would have
done it for free because I did their computer stuff for free.
P
Peter Jason
Guest
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
news:8ej6p5Fo43U1@mid.individual.net...
electrician and their lazy apprentices. I soon learned the
basic tricks:
1/ When buying electrical switches, relays etc always pump
the man behind the counter for all the info you need. Ask
for the regulations book on cable sizes and installations.
2/ Go to auctions to buy cabling; it's 1/10th the price.
Remember if the cable is too small it can be doubled up
inside a conduit. Similarly it can be lengthened if too
short, though this is best done with solder. A good trick
with cabling of the old yellow colour (verboten) is to hide
it inside conduit.
3/ Lose your fear of switchboards and substations. A
connection between the neutral (black coloured) and any line
will give 240V, but if you connect to two lines you get
415V! Brilliant!
4/ Study the layout of the old decrepit premises to see if
there are unused water, compressed-air and steam lines.
These may be stuffed with cables the inspector will not see.
(Earth 'em though.). Any boy starting out can to well to
peppercorn-rent a dump and gradually do it up. If the
girlfriend demurres - dump her!
5/ Again, auctions will have all sorts of goodies, such as
old motors (seem to last forever), fuse boxes and fuses,
relays, contactors. Remember that components can be too
small, but rarely are they too big. Old aluminium power
cables are available and can be useful because they're
light.
news:8ej6p5Fo43U1@mid.individual.net...
Heavens! In my early days I could never afford an
electrician and their lazy apprentices. I soon learned the
basic tricks:
1/ When buying electrical switches, relays etc always pump
the man behind the counter for all the info you need. Ask
for the regulations book on cable sizes and installations.
2/ Go to auctions to buy cabling; it's 1/10th the price.
Remember if the cable is too small it can be doubled up
inside a conduit. Similarly it can be lengthened if too
short, though this is best done with solder. A good trick
with cabling of the old yellow colour (verboten) is to hide
it inside conduit.
3/ Lose your fear of switchboards and substations. A
connection between the neutral (black coloured) and any line
will give 240V, but if you connect to two lines you get
415V! Brilliant!
4/ Study the layout of the old decrepit premises to see if
there are unused water, compressed-air and steam lines.
These may be stuffed with cables the inspector will not see.
(Earth 'em though.). Any boy starting out can to well to
peppercorn-rent a dump and gradually do it up. If the
girlfriend demurres - dump her!
5/ Again, auctions will have all sorts of goodies, such as
old motors (seem to last forever), fuse boxes and fuses,
relays, contactors. Remember that components can be too
small, but rarely are they too big. Old aluminium power
cables are available and can be useful because they're
light.
S
Sylvia Else
Guest
On 6/09/2010 4:11 PM, Epsilon wrote:
makes little sense.
Sylvia.
14(2) unless you construe "where" in 14(2)(a) so narrowly that 14(2)(b)
makes little sense.
Sylvia.
K
kreed
Guest
On Sep 6, 4:28 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
That too. Could save a lot of inconvenience
S
Sylvia Else
Guest
On 6/09/2010 4:32 PM, Peter Jason wrote:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/hbr2004219/s11.html
and the associated sections of the act, that on a proper construction,
one cannot even change/clean the dust filter in one's airconditiong
system, but must call in a tech to do it.
Now, anywhere but Australia, one would question whether that was really
the intent, but these days, Australians seem to be prohibited from doing
pretty much anything they're not expressly permitted to do, so a
prohibition against doing something to the dust filter seems entirely
plausible. Unlicensed breathing is still legal, for the time being.
Also note the uncertainty regarding whether a typical split system is in
a building.
Sylvia.
Just for good measure, and in the same vein, it appears from this definition
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/hbr2004219/s11.html
and the associated sections of the act, that on a proper construction,
one cannot even change/clean the dust filter in one's airconditiong
system, but must call in a tech to do it.
Now, anywhere but Australia, one would question whether that was really
the intent, but these days, Australians seem to be prohibited from doing
pretty much anything they're not expressly permitted to do, so a
prohibition against doing something to the dust filter seems entirely
plausible. Unlicensed breathing is still legal, for the time being.
Also note the uncertainty regarding whether a typical split system is in
a building.
Sylvia.
G
Grant
Guest
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 13:51:00 +1000, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote:
bit, thought I'd be supervising the sparky at the time, but he was twice
my age, thus called the shots -- besides, he held the key to the OFF switch
padlock Yes sir, no sir...
Grant.
Well I'm 'Mexican' and my info is decades old, I have done the industrial
bit, thought I'd be supervising the sparky at the time, but he was twice
my age, thus called the shots -- besides, he held the key to the OFF switch
padlock
Yes sir, no sir...Grant.
E
Epsilon
Guest
Sylvia Else wrote:
directions to employees, but that is not the factual context. I don't see
how subsection 14(2) can apply in this factual situation, and I imagine that
a court would be very reluctant to give section 14 a broader construction
contrary to what the legislation is about.
Employees don't give "directions" to employers. Employers do give
directions to employees, but that is not the factual context. I don't see
how subsection 14(2) can apply in this factual situation, and I imagine that
a court would be very reluctant to give section 14 a broader construction
contrary to what the legislation is about.
S
Sylvia Else
Guest
On 6/09/2010 10:48 PM, Epsilon wrote:
relationship in the normal sense, such that the employer can give
directions to the employee. The relationship in question would be that
of an person contracting to perform a particular service for another. If
the nature of that service includes performing the function of a
supervisor for the purposes of the act, then I can't see any difficulty
with that.
The legislation is generally about ensuring that work is competently
done, mainly in the interests of safety, and it seeks to achieve that
goal by requiring that persons qualified to perform the work are
involved in it. Yet section 14 clearly envisages that some of the work
will be performed by persons who are not qualified to do it completely
on their own. Further, that section envisages two levels of supervision,
depending on whether the person doing the work has a trade certificate
or not. The greatest level of supervision is required when the person
doing the work is essentially a layman, but even there it does not, in
my view, require that the supervisor be close enough to the work to
watch while each and every element is performed. Indeed, such a
requirement would make a nonsense of the sentence in brackets in 14(4)(a).
Sylvia.
The electrician and the person would not be in an employer/employee
relationship in the normal sense, such that the employer can give
directions to the employee. The relationship in question would be that
of an person contracting to perform a particular service for another. If
the nature of that service includes performing the function of a
supervisor for the purposes of the act, then I can't see any difficulty
with that.
The legislation is generally about ensuring that work is competently
done, mainly in the interests of safety, and it seeks to achieve that
goal by requiring that persons qualified to perform the work are
involved in it. Yet section 14 clearly envisages that some of the work
will be performed by persons who are not qualified to do it completely
on their own. Further, that section envisages two levels of supervision,
depending on whether the person doing the work has a trade certificate
or not. The greatest level of supervision is required when the person
doing the work is essentially a layman, but even there it does not, in
my view, require that the supervisor be close enough to the work to
watch while each and every element is performed. Indeed, such a
requirement would make a nonsense of the sentence in brackets in 14(4)(a).
Sylvia.
E
Epsilon
Guest
Sylvia Else wrote:
is about a relationship where the supervisor can and does give directions.
A sparky does not give directions to the person on whose site the sparky is
working, and a construction that pretends that it does run counter to your
own views about this the controlling nature of this legislation.
provision. That is, someone who can be given directions, and where the
relationship between the supervisor and the person doing the work is such
that the work is controlled appropriately by the supervisor.
It distorts section 14 for the quite different relationships contemplated to
be recognised. That might be regarded as unfortunate, but the remedy is to
change the law. I doubt if the law would be changed to recognise that case.
Subsection 14(2) is not about that provision of services relationship. It
is about a relationship where the supervisor can and does give directions.
A sparky does not give directions to the person on whose site the sparky is
working, and a construction that pretends that it does run counter to your
own views about this the controlling nature of this legislation.
That is simply not true regarding subserction 14(2).
Not a layman, but an apprentice.
Oh, yes it, does - see paragraph 14(4)(c).
It's not a layman, but someone like an apprentice, being contemplated by the
provision. That is, someone who can be given directions, and where the
relationship between the supervisor and the person doing the work is such
that the work is controlled appropriately by the supervisor.
It distorts section 14 for the quite different relationships contemplated to
be recognised. That might be regarded as unfortunate, but the remedy is to
change the law. I doubt if the law would be changed to recognise that case.
G
Grant
Guest
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 20:11:29 +1000, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote:
You remind me of another silly new law, that I'm no longer allowed to make
my own ethernet cables? Or something? Since deciding that I had to buy
the tool to reterminate faulty storebought cable, I'm certainly not going
to buy cables that are worse quality than ones I can do myself. Though
my localnet's been shrinking down from eight to five machines, lots of spare
cable running around. But then, I'm renting, so none of it is permanent
wiring.
I know I can do what I like this side of the power plug, too. Or did that
change?
Grant.
Crazy -- and there's no guarantee the tech will do a proper job either.
We still allowed to run a vacuum cleaner?
You remind me of another silly new law, that I'm no longer allowed to make
my own ethernet cables? Or something? Since deciding that I had to buy
the tool to reterminate faulty storebought cable, I'm certainly not going
to buy cables that are worse quality than ones I can do myself. Though
my localnet's been shrinking down from eight to five machines, lots of spare
cable running around. But then, I'm renting, so none of it is permanent
wiring.
I know I can do what I like this side of the power plug, too. Or did that
change?
Grant.
S
Sylvia Else
Guest
On 6/09/2010 11:42 PM, Epsilon wrote:
holds a trade certificate, but 14(3)(b) notably excludes the requirement
that the supervisor be present. It makes no sense to give the words in
14(3)(b) and 14(4)(c) the construction you propose.
contemplated where that relationship is not inherently necessary. Nor
that a court would construe the subsection so narrowly, and thus
criminalise conduct that is on its face authorised by the words of the
subsection.
individual is an apprentice, it would say so. It just says "individual"
(defined in the Interpretation Act to mean a natural person). I see no
problem with the supervisor giving directions to the person he's
contracted to provide a service to. Doctors do it all the time.
Sylvia.
Exactly the same words are used in 14(3)(b) in relation to a person who
holds a trade certificate, but 14(3)(b) notably excludes the requirement
that the supervisor be present. It makes no sense to give the words in
14(3)(b) and 14(4)(c) the construction you propose.
I don't see how you can assert that a particular relationship is
contemplated where that relationship is not inherently necessary. Nor
that a court would construe the subsection so narrowly, and thus
criminalise conduct that is on its face authorised by the words of the
subsection.
If the intent were to restrict the section to the situation where the
individual is an apprentice, it would say so. It just says "individual"
(defined in the Interpretation Act to mean a natural person). I see no
problem with the supervisor giving directions to the person he's
contracted to provide a service to. Doctors do it all the time.
Sylvia.