<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal>Happy New Year All,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> I was just discussing some issues/concerns with my drywall
sub and in the process I asked if they had ever read or heard of the guide put
out by the Gypsum Association that covers the application and finishing of sheetrock
(gypsum). Of course the answer and look I got was the same one I always get
when I ask this question. “What book?” “There’s a
book that tells you how to do sheetrock work?” So, I’m wondering
why is it that subs like this are not required to read, understand, and
possibly even be tested on the guidelines that cover their trade before they
are “licensed” to perform work in this area? In the case of
drywall, this specifications manual is only 18 pages long so I would think that
most anyone should be able to pass a simple test on it. Yes, I realize this is
only a guide and is really not a “code” per se but it does have
some pretty good guide lines to go by that should help ensure a good job that
will stand the test of time. However, every time I bring it up to my drywall
subs that they get offended and act like I’m being too anal. I only pull
it out when I see them doing things like not using enough screws in the ceiling
or leaving excessive (e.g. ½”) gaps at joints. The response is always
the same; “I’ve been doing drywall for xx years and I don’t
need no book to tell me how to do things” or “don’t worry
about it, the mud will cover it up.” All these may be true but it’d
be nice to see some subs actually take pride in their work and try to do the
best job they can and not just get by. I use sheetrock guys in this example
but it seems to be the same with many of the other subs whose work doesn’t
get an official inspection and who are not required to be tested and
specifically licensed in their field of work. I’m not looking to
increase the bureaucracy but it sure would be nice to figure out a way to force
these other subs to become educated in their field and stay up with the latest
practices. I’m looking for more professionals instead of just amateur
hacks.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>I know the above was mostly whining/venting but just thought
I find out others thoughts on the subject.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Ken <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>