Rick, I agree completely and Kevin, I respectfully disagree - to me, the end (a small marketing gimmick) does not justify the means (levels of membership)
True, no one is forcing any designation on anyone. But it is not the place of the association to endorse new designations that will create a new stratus of members.
The 2.5 years, 250 inspections plus some cash, a class and a test threshold is laughably low for a “Master”. It equates to exactly what is required simply to be considered a full member of ASHI.
It strikes me that the similarity between those qualifications is not by accident. (It may be to prevent some NACHI experienced members from jumping to ASHI.) What will be thought of those who have 2.5 years but do not have the designation. (Can’t pass the test?)
There are a variety or more vigorous and well-respected designations that one can achieve if one so desires (ICC certification and the like). So, why is this one needed?
It equates to mothing more than a marketing gimmick.
What is the most effective way to market such a certification? By using it as a feature that sets you above the rest. This is done by advertising that you are a “Master Inspector” and others are dangerous, clueless rookies.
Now, of course others already advertise their credentials, experience, etc. But those credentials were earned independantly of NACHI, not as a direct result of some artifical designation that was dreamt up and endorsed by NACHI.
It is not the place for this (or any) association to create designations that label some members as better than others. The only reason trade unions did this was to protect the income and work status of the more experienced inspectors, and controlling membership - is that what we’re all about?
It just sits very poorly with me and I can no longer draw any distinction between us and ASHI, except that they require this of full Members and ours will be “voluntary” but those without it will appear to be poorly qualified in teh face of effective marketing by CMI holders.