← Risk register SOC 49-9011 · reviewed 2026-08-11

Mechanical Door Repairers

27,120 US workers · median $55,720/yr · Trades

SAFE

The work is diagnosing and fixing overhead, automatic, and revolving doors in situ — replacing torsion springs, aligning tracks, adjusting sensors and closers, rewiring operators, and cutting and hanging hardware in buildings that are never built the same way twice. None of that is text or screen work, and today's robotics cannot get a 200-pound sectional door off a bent track in a cramped commercial vestibule. AI compresses the paperwork around the job — quoting, scheduling, parts lookup, service write-ups — not the job itself.

10-year outlook: Demand holds or grows with commercial building stock and ADA enforcement; the change over ten years is that quoting, scheduling, and diagnostics prompts get software-driven while the wrench work and the inspection signature stay human.

US employment, 2019–2025+17.7%
23,05027,120 workers

Headcount grew steadily across the period.

Median pay $41,570 → $55,720 +7.2% in real terms (nominal +34.0%, less ~25% US inflation over the period)

The job count is not the verdict

This line is counted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics — the one figure on this page that isn't a judgement of ours. Headcount moves on demand, offshoring, demographics and the business cycle, and automation is one term among several, often not the loudest.

So a falling line is not evidence that AI did it, and a rising one is not evidence that it won't. Both happen in this register: some occupations resist automation and shrink anyway, others are highly automatable and keep growing. The marked year is 2020.

BLS projection, 2024–2034

+11.4% 28,400 → 31,700 on the projections basis

Hard to automate, and growing

The work resists current AI and the BLS projects +11.4% more of these jobs by 2034. Note that safe does not mean well paid — several of the fastest-growing resistant occupations are among the lowest paid on the register.

Different clocks. The score is what current AI could do to this work today. The projection is how many of these jobs will exist in 2034. Everything between the two — how fast employers actually adopt, whether demand grows in the meantime — is why they can point opposite ways without either being wrong.

~2,700 openings a year on average, including replacing people who leave.

One email if this score changes. Watch as many occupations as you like from the same address — no account, and nothing is sent on a schedule, only when a verdict actually moves.

Also known as — 24 job titles this covers

Titles reported by people doing this work, from the US Department of Labor's O*NET survey. If your job title is here, this page is about your work even though the name doesn't match.

RepairmanDoor InstallerDoor RepairmanService PersonDock TechnicianDoor ServicemanDoor TechnicianService TechnicianCommercial InstallerDoor Closer MechanicCommercial TechnicianGarage Door InstallerResidential InstallerGarage Door TechnicianAutomatic Door MechanicExterior Door InstallerInstallation TechnicianOverhead Door InstallerMechanical Door RepairerOverhead Door TechnicianAutomatic Door TechnicianCommercial Door InstallerResidential Door InstallerGarage Door Opener Installer

Score — 67/100 resistance

Holding it up: embodiment (19/20). Weakest point: liability shield (7/20).

Five dimensions, 0–20 each, summed. Higher means more protected. The arithmetic is shown so you can check it: 17 + 19 + 7 + 12 + 12 = 67. · Scored 2026-08-11, and re-examined when evidence accumulates rather than on a schedule.

Task resistance 17/20

Tasks largely resist digitisation Winding a torsion spring to the right turns on a door whose original hardware nobody documented, then shimming a jamb that settled three inches out of plumb, is trial-and-adjust physical judgment with no digitizable intermediate — the only tasks a model touches are the parts lookup and the invoice, which is why this lands at 17 and not a full 20.

Embodiment 19/20

Hands-on in uncontrolled environments Ladders, cramped vestibules, live 120V operators, overhead loads under lethal spring tension, freezing loading docks and active traffic doorways in occupied buildings — 19 reflects that every billable minute happens at the door itself, in a space configured by someone else decades ago.

Liability shield 7/20

Certification preferred, not legally required There is no door-technician licence in most states; you may hold an electrical or low-voltage card, IDA/AAADM certification for automatic pedestrian doors, and you sign the annual AAADM inspection label — real paperwork, but the building owner and GC carry the exposure, which caps this at 7 rather than the 12+ an electrician's licence would earn.

Trust premium 12/20

Some relationship component Property managers and facility directors call the tech who already knows which of their forty dock doors has the bad photo-eye and who will come at 6am before the store opens — the repeat service contract is sticky, but the door still gets fixed if a different van shows up, so 12 not 16.

Judgment & accountability 12/20

Meaningful discretion Deciding whether a fire-rated rolling door needs a drop test or full replacement, whether a cracked cable and worn drum means shut the bay down now, and calling a sensor a life-safety failure on a door thousands of people walk through daily is genuine discretion — but ANSI/DASMA and AAADM procedures and manufacturer specs frame most of those calls, holding this at 12.

Scored twice. An independent second run returned 67/100 — SAFE, agreeing with the verdict above.

This score sits on a verdict boundary. At 67/100 it is one point from EXPOSED. Re-scoring moves results by a point or two, so here the score is more informative than the label.

Confidence: high · reviewed 2026-08-11 · how scoring works

What this job involves — and which parts are yours

The verdict above describes this occupation as a whole. Almost nobody does the typical version of a job — tick what's actually in your week and see how your own mix sits.

AI already does these at usable quality

These still need a person

Active moats on the surviving side: embodiment, physical-presence, trust

How to future-proof this job

Where to go deeper on what this job runs on: Coursera — critical thinking and logic, audit free free to audit · Coursera — quality control and inspection courses, auditable free free to audit · Khan Academy — reading and vocabulary, all levels, free free · Coursera — active listening and communication skills free to audit · Toastmasters — public speaking practice at local clubs worldwide low · Apprenticeship.gov — electrical, HVAC, plumbing and fitting programs that pay while you learn paid to train

All 35 skills ranked by how many jobs they open →

What would move this back up — beyond any one person

The moves above are yours to make. This is the other half: what would have to change in the world for the occupation itself to score higher. None of it is in any one person's gift, but it is where the floor actually comes from. Scores here are not a one-way ratchet. Only two of the five dimensions — task resistance and embodiment — track what machines can do. The other three track law, what buyers will pay for, and who is answerable, and those move in both directions, often in response to the same pressure AI creates. If every lever below landed, this occupation would score around 84/100, still SAFE.

5 specific changes that would raise this score
  • already happening liability shield +4

    Insurer requirement: commercial general-liability carriers conditioning coverage for automatic-entrance premises injury claims on documented annual inspection by a named certified technician — already common practice for elevators and fire doors (NFPA 80 requires annual fire-door inspection by a 'qualified person' with a written record). Extension of an NFPA-80-style qualified-person record requirement to all powered pedestrian doors would attach named-human accountability to routine service.

  • already happening trust premium +2

    Modest route only: torsion-spring injuries and entrapment lawsuits sustain buyer preference for a named, insured, certified technician over an app-dispatched gig installer. IDA (International Door Association) certification marketing and manufacturer authorized-dealer programs are the visible mechanism. No route to a large premium — buyers mostly price-shop.

  • plausible liability shield +5

    State/municipal adoption of mandatory certification for automatic door inspection and repair — e.g. AAADM (American Association of Automatic Door Manufacturers) annual safety inspection already requires a certified inspector's signed sticker, and ANSI/BHMA A156.10/A156.19 compliance is increasingly written into building codes. If a state (Ohio and Washington have floated door-safety licensure after pedestrian entrapment injuries) makes the AAADM certificate a legal precondition for the annual inspection sign-off, with personal liability attaching to the signer, this rises materially.

  • plausible judgment accountability +4

    If code or carrier rules make the technician the person who decides whether a door stays in service — authority to red-tag and lock out an entrance that fails sensor or force testing, as elevator inspectors can — the role owns a consequential, contested call against a building owner who wants the door open.

  • plausible task resistance +2

    Task-mix shift as low-end work leaves: residential garage-door spring-and-opener swaps are commoditizing toward install-only crews and DIY kits, while the remaining commercial tier is retrofit integration — tying door operators into access control, fire alarm interfaces, and ADA force compliance in buildings with no as-built drawings. Genuine two-tier occupation; if the residential tier is absorbed by lower-skill labor, the surviving job is the diagnostic tier.

The limit. Already 67 with embodiment near max; the realistic headroom is almost entirely in liability/accountability via door-safety code and insurer inspection regimes. Capability dimensions cannot rise much further and will not fall soon either — the binding risk to this occupation is not AI but door designs with fewer serviceable parts and manufacturer-locked diagnostics that route work to authorized dealers, shrinking the independent trade without automating it.

These are conditions, not forecasts — what would have to happen, not what will. Specific rules, cases and bills are named so you can go and check whether they exist and where they stand; verify before relying on any of them. Nothing here is legal or financial advice.

Where this work is, and what it pays there

BLS metro figures for 76 areas. The verdict above does not change by city — the rubric judges what the work involves, not where it happens — but pay and headcount do, and the national median hides a very wide range.

Most of these jobs

New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ 1,770 $66,890 +20%
Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler, AZ 1,260 $54,330 -2%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 770 $60,780 +9%
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 740 $50,850 -9%
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA 540 $58,330 +5%
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 500 $40,880 -27%
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL 490 $58,110 +4%
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 480 $56,480 +1%

Best paid

Trenton-Princeton, NJ 70 $67,090 +20%
New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ 1,770 $66,890 +20%
South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI 50 $64,640 +16%

Percentages are against this occupation's national median of $55,720. Counts are jobs in that metro, not vacancies. Metros where the BLS suppressed the cell are absent rather than shown as zero.

Who is actually doing this — nobody, on the record

We have no reported case of a named organisation automating this occupation. Not one deployment, not one announcement.

That is worth saying out loud next to a score of 67. The verdict above is about what the work exposes — what current AI could do to these tasks. It is not a claim that anyone has done it. For this occupation those two things have come apart completely: the capability argument is on this page, and the evidence column is empty.

Read that as a gap in the reporting we can see, not proof of absence — the dispatch runs on English-language feeds and misses plenty. If you know of a case, tell us, or add a field report from inside the job.

Quick take — do you do this job?

Has AI actually changed your work? One tap, anonymous, and the running tally is public. Nothing else is asked of you.

Self-reported and unverified — a sentiment signal, not a survey. One response per person per occupation; you can change your answer.

Field reports — what people say has changed

No field reports yet. A written account takes a paragraph rather than a tap, goes to an editor before it appears, and is the one thing on this page the rubric cannot produce on its own.

File a field report

Concrete beats general: a tool that arrived, a task that moved, a headcount decision you watched happen. Don't include anything that identifies you or your employer if that would put you at risk.

Watch this verdict
Kept current

Rather than check back: get the digest and we'll tell you what changed — or watch a single occupation from its own page.