Got an interesting letter from the RCMP today

[lilranch2001]

WHMIS is just an extension of the MSDS documentation.

AND MSD's can be found on the internet far and wide
Have you ever really looked at WHMIS info?
It is virtually useless, expensive, difficult and problematic, and from what I understand almost 50-60 % incorrect

Total waste of resources and operating capital in my mind

Also, most errors on it are similar to what may have happened with Everlast, mostly just human error, but still in error

 

[Mark @ Everlast]

Thanks Mark. I went to the wrong school (technical), so that logic would likely makes more sense if I had gone to Law School.

I was about to ponder.... "If all manufacturers have to meet the same standard, how is that favouritism ?".... but I suspect you refer to having somebody other than the govt having a monopoly on administering a standard.

I prefer to focus on getting the engineering/work done right (not a comment, one way or another, about Everlast), but not for the first time I'm reminded that govts are essentially run by lawyers, not geeks like me....

I'm getting tired this time of night, so perhaps that's what it is.... but seeing Canada as pro-privatization vs. the USA's perspective is a bit surreal at the moment.....

Is the logic:

Govt can't do this efficiently, AND, we don't want to hand over Standards control to a Private Company, THEREFORE we just won't bother regulating this ?

If that is the case, then you can create an environment where lawyers end up reacting to problems, instead of technical people preventing problems.... or do I have this all wrong ?

Rgds, D.

I took the unfinished sentence out that said, when I was editing because I did not complete my thought. I was saying that If I understood correctly, the units were tested/inspected by the CSA after the fact, when this issue was discovered, for the authorities involved in the investigation That's called the hand in the cookie jar, since the CSA was the one with the trademark infringement. (my opinion not Everlast)

What I was referring to is that Canada, or at least some provinces endorses/supports a singular private agency to develop and provide required standards for the whole country as I understand it. This leads to corruption traditionally speaking...sort of a separation of church and state issue. I don't know the exact case in Canada, but the potential is there.

The power of OSHA can dictate, without actual legislation through rule making that a private company adhere to certain standards of a private certifying agency, which are often referred to as a UL standard code, (UL is not a government agency...any more than Consumer Reports is) though this unifying code is shared by multiple certifying agencies. It still smacks of government endorsement.

What this boils down to (not the trademark issue per se...that's cut and dried in the sense it is a real issue) is that it does lead to a monopoly by a singular private agency. An idea would be for the government to have each certifying agency to develop competing standards based off a set of national guidelines of safety. That has it's own set of issues but makes more sense to me.

 

[3930dave]

Did the OP contact the company to give them a chance to make what he considered to be a reasonable response, or did he come here first?
He says that he got the letter "today" yet it appears that the letter is dated 24 April 2014.
If it arrived on the 5th, that would appear to show the RCMP sat on this letter for over a month. If so, is it a major safety concern like its been made out to be?

Aaron Z

I have no experience with how federal govt departments operate down your way, but up here, to lose a month is a rounding error, time wise.

RCMP's role (in this respect) is to investigate fraud, across all business sectors. As an example:

RCMP seize Canada Goose jacket with raccoon dog fur trim - Manitoba - CBC News

I post that, fully expecting to stir up more anti-Canadian South-Park flavoured comments like those already floated a few times here.....

While the RCMP have some narrowly focused technical expertise (ex. communications, IT, and security) they are not a technical certification organization per se.

Long way of saying..... I wouldn't spend too much time reading much into that delay.

Non-compliance issues may be trivial (inadequate "paperwork" submitted), or major (engineering and/or production faults, leading to safety consequences), or both. I wouldn't expect the RCMP to be spending the ergs they have on this, if it was only a matter of readily corrected "paperwork" submissions..... but govt never ceases to confound me re. logic....

Everlast seems to be supplying a popular product, at a good price point - that's my impression anyway. I hope that Mark and associates can resolve any customer complaints stirred up by these issues, and quickly resolve these regulatory disconnects.

Rgds, D.

 

[3930dave]

I took the unfinished sentence out that said, when I was editing because I did not complete my thought. I was saying that If I understood correctly, the units were tested/inspected by the CSA after the fact, when this issue was discovered, for the authorities involved in the investigation That's called the hand in the cookie jar, since the CSA was the one with the trademark infringement. (my opinion not Everlast)

What I was referring to is that Canada, or at least some provinces endorses/supports a singular private agency to develop and provide required standards for the whole country as I understand it. This leads to corruption traditionally speaking...sort of a separation of church and state issue.

The power of OSHA can dictate, without actual legislation through rule making that a private company adhere to certain standards of a private certifying agency, which are often referred to as a UL standard code, (UL is not a government agency...any more than Consumer Reports is) though this unifying code is shared by multiple certifying agencies. It still smacks of government endorsement.

I'm going to have to get back to this tomorrow...... I'm going in circles on the logic.....

One federal standard = BAD.

Rule making (not legislation based), selectively applied = GOOD.

The advantage I see to ONE uniform standard is a level playing field - all players deal with the same rules. If the rules are deficient, then the ENTIRE industry screams until they are corrected.

I'm not sure I understand your OSHA reference.... it seems pretty arbitrary as to how rulings would apply to a specific manufacturer - if that is the case, then it would seem to me that scenario would be more conducive to favouritism and corruption.

And..... I'm still fuzzy on when (if?) welding boxes need technical certs, south of the 49'th....

Till tomorrow....... Rgds, D.

 

[Rock knocker]

I took the unfinished sentence out that said, when I was editing because I did not complete my thought. I was saying that If I understood correctly, the units were tested/inspected by the CSA after the fact, when this issue was discovered, for the authorities involved in the investigation That's called the hand in the cookie jar, since the CSA was the one with the trademark infringement. (my opinion not Everlast)

What I was referring to is that Canada, or at least some provinces endorses/supports a singular private agency to develop and provide required standards for the whole country as I understand it. This leads to corruption traditionally speaking...sort of a separation of church and state issue. I don't know the exact case in Canada, but the potential is there.

The power of OSHA can dictate, without actual legislation through rule making that a private company adhere to certain standards of a private certifying agency, which are often referred to as a UL standard code, (UL is not a government agency...any more than Consumer Reports is) though this unifying code is shared by multiple certifying agencies. It still smacks of government endorsement.

What this boils down to (not the trademark issue per se...that's cut and dried in the sense it is a real issue) is that it does lead to a monopoly by a singular private agency. An idea would be for the government to have each certifying agency to develop competing standards based off a set of national guidelines of safety. That has it's own set of issues but makes more sense to me.

In the US, I can't think of a single building code that is not written by a private not-for-profit corporation. The NEC, NEMA, UBC, UPC, crane operator certs, the UL, ANSI, ASME, AWS etc etc etc.

Every single one of them.

 

[Looking4new]

How is a house connected to the grid then? The house isn't CSA

The building may not be CSA approved, but every electrical component within the house will be. We can start with the distribution panel (fuse box to you) and go from there right on down to your wifes' hair dryer.

 

[3930dave]

I took the unfinished sentence out that said, when I was editing because I did not complete my thought. I was saying that If I understood correctly, the units were tested/inspected by the CSA after the fact, when this issue was discovered, for the authorities involved in the investigation That's called the hand in the cookie jar, since the CSA was the one with the trademark infringement. (my opinion not Everlast)

What I was referring to is that Canada, or at least some provinces endorses/supports a singular private agency to develop and provide required standards for the whole country as I understand it. This leads to corruption traditionally speaking...sort of a separation of church and state issue. I don't know the exact case in Canada, but the potential is there.

The power of OSHA can dictate, without actual legislation through rule making that a private company adhere to certain standards of a private certifying agency, which are often referred to as a UL standard code, (UL is not a government agency...any more than Consumer Reports is) though this unifying code is shared by multiple certifying agencies. It still smacks of government endorsement.

What this boils down to (not the trademark issue per se...that's cut and dried in the sense it is a real issue) is that it does lead to a monopoly by a singular private agency. An idea would be for the government to have each certifying agency to develop competing standards based off a set of national guidelines of safety. That has it's own set of issues but makes more sense to me.

With the last paragraph you added Mark, I think I'm with you now.... (?)

OK.... a Free Market argument is where you're at.

The factors that I see at play:

1) Given a market that is typically at least 10x the size of a Canadian one, you may be able to realistically support the scenario you describe. Less easy to justify muliple cert bodies here. That said, I do see ETL certs here now.... I need to check to see if they are an allowed substitute cert for CSA (?).

2) My experience is that getting even a small group of people (let alone an entire industry) to understand and consistently comply with ONE single technical standard is challenging enough - mostly just due to human behaviour factors. Competing different technical standards is not something I'm a fan of, esp. in areas that are Safety Critical.

3) Not to say that I'm Pro-Monopoly and anti-competitive...... on that end of things there can be business efficiencies gained from a scenario where you have one Safety Standard, but companies have the choice of being certified by company ABC, DEF, JKL, or XYZ - to that one sole technical standard.

That scenario could also have some non-business advantages, as those competing companies would tend to keep each other on their toes, from a technical accuracy and consistency standpoint.

4. IMO, whether the regulatory oversight body is public vs. private, or centralized vs. distributed, corruption is something that has to be guarded against. I don't view any particular oversight configuration as being inherently immune to corruption.

If you have one technical standard that a whole industry has to comply with, IMO, it becomes more difficult to hide corruption. If everybody else has 1/8" of a certain class of electrical insulation in place, and Acme FlyAtNight only has 1/16" of the same class of insulation..... it is a pretty clear violation. I just made that example up - I have no idea what (if any) technical violations Everlast may possibly have, and I'm not inferring that there are any insulation issues in Everlast products.

5. Unknowns.... many people don't like uncertainty, esp. in technical matters. That is some of what is driving the emotional comments in this thread.

Car companies today are typically pretty quick to clearly define exactly what a Recall is about. Some of that is no doubt due to govt oversight, but I think it is also mindful of informed consumers.

If an automobile recall is because a sticker is missing that says "Don't sleep with your head or other body parts on this Air Bag !", that's one thing. If the recall is because it affects brake function, obviously a different response priority is in order.

The sooner the uncertainties around these Everlast products are fully defined publicly (and corrected if/as needed), the better for all involved.

Rgds, D.

 

[rjmack]

What I was referring to is that Canada, or at least some provinces endorses/supports a singular private agency to develop and provide required standards for the whole country as I understand it. This leads to corruption traditionally speaking...sort of a separation of church and state issue. I don't know the exact case in Canada, but the potential is there.

The power of OSHA can dictate, without actual legislation through rule making that a private company adhere to certain standards of a private certifying agency, which are often referred to as a UL standard code, (UL is not a government agency...any more than Consumer Reports is) though this unifying code is shared by multiple certifying agencies. It still smacks of government endorsement.

.

What you fail to acknowledge, indeed try your best to divert from, is that CSA is a NON-PROFIT entity. You keep trying to divert to a trademark issue when, in fact, this is a fraud issue. Everlast (you) claimed that your product was safe according to accepted (CSA) standards, when in fact it was not. You did NOT have the safety certification that you not only claimed, but demonstrated via a proven "COUNTERFEIT" label. Your inference that you would prefer there to be hundreds of different standards serves only to turn the clock back to the days where truly unsafe products were the standard, not the exception.

As far as @lilranch's attempt at attacking WHMIS & MSDS, he obviously doesn't even know what those standards refer to, otherwise he would not be using them to attack the regulation of welding machine manufacturers.

Again, Everlast is doing everything in it's power to prevent me from receiving a full refund for a product that the RCMP has concluded was substandard and sold under false pretenses.

Canadian Standards Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jaotguy]

I can buy a product from Europe that plugs directly into our electrical grid , is certified in Europe as safe , is safe and will operate correctly ... but it is illegal to do so because it does not have the CSA sticker.... the unit can be inspected ( and for a fee ) be certified to be in compliance with our standards ( without any modifications ).... proof that it was not unsafe or substandard.

the improper labeling may have been an oversight.... I can't say ....

but if you feel you have a case, file it with the courts and let them decide.

this thread has gone on with speculation on all sides ...

was there "INTENT to defraud" ?, I don't know and no one here can prove it either way with just letters and denials ... and that is what the COURT systems are all about .... a fair and proper airing of all details and facts.

 

[rjmack]

was there "INTENT to defraud" ?, I don't know and no one here can prove it either way with just letters and denials ... and that is what the COURT systems are all about .... a fair and proper airing of all details and facts.

Once again, and I quote from the RCMP "The investigation determined there were counterfeit CSA certification marks affixed to the above noted models of Everlast Welders."

And, again, the RCMP can be contacted at 1-800-461-9398 or via email at david.sutherland@rcmp-grc.gc.ca edit; btw, the file number is 2012-318462

If I was an American, I would be on the phone with the FBI or whatever the appropriate authorities are, to find out whether my USA sold Everlast welder was in compliance with advertised certifications or not.