A couple of nights ago, the local news ran a piece about a sting operation which nabbed a couple of unlicensed appliance repair dudes.
The CA CSLB (Contractors State Licensing Board) periodically runs sting operations which always catches a handful of unlicensed folks who seem to get fined and then quickly resurface. These stories always paint the “contractors” as complete slime balls (and many of them are – lol), and the homeowners as wide-eyed innocent dupes who were putty in the hands of the bad guys (yeah, right!).
I’m wondering if any state has ever penalized a homeowner for hiring an unlicensed contractor.
Replies
Not to my knowledge. It's kind of like how they only prosecute the hookers, not the johns.
I always read the list of banned contractors in the CSLB mailer, too. Kind of amusing in a tragic way when you see all the infraction codes piling up on one job.
k (Licensed CA GC)
I don't think it's against the law to hire them. It's only against the law to be them.
C'mon C'mon and do..... The locomotion with me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3sCNRnn7GA
Unfortunately, I think that you're right. - lolThe news story got to me a little bit. Even though it was about appliance repair and not contracting, the story line was the same - low quality, hidden camera, video showing the perp getting busted, searched, and cuffed, followed by a homeowner relating how badly he/she had been shafted by some unlicensed hack because they "had no idea". PUH-LEEEEZE!!! - lolMy own experience is that customers start getting balky when the subject of permits and licenses comes up. They may not know the details, but they usually know that some rules apply. I've lost more than one job to some clown with a lowball price and a story about "licenses aren't needed for this", "I'm getting my license", etc.
I don't think it's against the law to hire them. It's only against the law to be them.
Actually, in my neck of the woods it is. A HO can pull their own permit, but anyone they hire must be licensed (althought I don't think they have ever fined a HO).
Just don't plan on getting appointed to the Secy of Commerce job.If a guy is not licensed and insured you are responsible for the insurance and taxes as "owner/builder"
"anyone they hire must be licensed (althought I don't think they have ever fined a HO)"This HO was found liable for medical payments."In the case of Mendoza v. Brodeur (2006), a private homeowner hired an unlicensed contractor to replace the roof of his home. When the roofer became injured during the job, he sued the homeowner, seeking compensation for his injuries. The homeowner claimed the no-fault workers' compensation coverage from his homeowner's insurance applied, and that he was not responsible for the costs of the roofer's injuries. The California Court of Appeals disagreed.Glenn Brodeur hired his neighbor Ernesto Mendoza, an unlicensed roofer, to replace the roof of his house. On his first day on the job, Mendoza fell from the roof, broke his leg and suffered other injuries. He then sued Brodeur, seeking compensation for his injuries."
There was a HO, in Las Vegas, who hired an unlicensed contractor with a small track loader to nock down the old house, (a 400-sf cinder-block with tin roof), and haul away the debris.
The "contractor" shows up drunk, and knocks down the place next door; 4200-sf with tile roof, two years old. The guy is nearly done with the demo, when the property owner shows up and calls the cops. The guy got in his pickup and left before they got there, and the equipment turned out to have been stolen off a mine site in Arizona. He disappeared into the sunset never to be seen again.
The HO who hired the guy ended up liable for damages to the neighbors place, because the unlicensed, unbonded "contractor", was in fact his "employee".
Here in Maryland there are so many laws on the books a sharp homeowner could really screw an unlicensed contractor and get away with it. Unfortunately it's usually the unlicensed hack that gets the homeowner and there is little the homeowner can do .... except look stupid.
Ya here in CA theres' a law that says if you are going to do any work over a certain value you have to be licensed-I think maybe the limit is 2 grand.
Anywho foundation guy was telling me about this well-to-do couple who enjoyed hiring unlicensed contractors and somehow structuring the contracts for a big payment at the end after sign-off. Well after the job is done and all cleaned up the couple would tell the poor slob nope not paying ya you arent licensed. The fake contractor has no legal recourse because what he was doing was against the law.
All the 'real' contractors wouldn't touch this couple but they had a steady stream of fakes to chew thru.
Some people just suck...
Daniel Neumansky
Restoring our second Victorian home this time in Alamdea CA. Check out the blog http://www.chezneumansky.blogspot.com/
Oakland CA
Crazy Homeowner-Victorian Restorer
$500 is the max an unlicensed guy can do in CA.
k
Hey- do you have earthquake insurance? I'm taking a poll in another thread.
I live in Alameda and had insurance until I remodeled, then canceled it. As I recall from the 89 quake, people were offered low interest FEMA loans to put their houses back together.
I recently looked over that earthquake insurance mailer that they have to send out. Wasn't too impressed with the limits of the policies. Mike
Small wheel turn by the fire and rod, big wheel turn by the grace of god.
That pretty much sums up my evaluation as well. It's a calculated risk either way. I'd rather put the $ into retrofitting or a savings account, personally, based on the cost and deductible. But I have plenty of respect for those that buy in, too.
In the other thread, someone in B.C. (fingersandtoes, I think, I'll check), said he was required to have eq insurance, but his entire policy was $375 a year, or something. Sometimes I think those Canadians have something figured out...
k
...after the job is done and all cleaned up the couple would tell the poor slob nope not paying ya you arent licensed.
I've never had that happen to me--in addition to being rather choosy about my clients, I have written my contract very carefully to prevent precisely that--but I know a few guys around here who've gotten stuck by a similar slime-ball. Good friend of mine actually took the creep to small claims over a $150 paint job, but got thrown out by the judge when he said he only had a verbal contract with the 'client.' (I guess that judge didn't take the contract law class where they teach ya that a contract is a meeting of the minds, not a piece of paper....)
The bastard's name and M.O. are well known around town by now, and he has to be very careful about where he parks his Lexus.
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
One of the couple was even supposed to be a lawyer and they would always write or rewrite the contracts in their favor. My source said they mostly preyed on fake contractors of the illegal alien variety. That way they knew they were never going to come after them cause 1. they are not licensed and 2. they were in the country illegally...
But they got some pretty good sized projects done this way I was told a bathroom remodel and a deck built were two examples I remember.
Daniel Neumansky
Restoring our second Victorian home this time in Alamdea CA. Check out the blog http://www.chezneumansky.blogspot.com/
Oakland CA
Crazy Homeowner-Victorian Restorer
One of the couple was even supposed to be a lawyer and they would always write or rewrite the contracts in their favor. My source said they mostly preyed on fake contractors of the illegal alien variety.
That kind of behaviour is ethically equivalent to mugging a little old lady for her handbag or swiping a toddler's tricycle. Under the Canons adopted by most Bar associations, the lawyer could (and should) be disbarred and have his license revoked.
Immoral or unethical behaviour isn't excusable just because it is 'legal'; by the same token illegal behaviour (such as beating the daylights out of a slimeball like this and emptying a Porta-John into his Beemer) won't be excused on the basis that it is perfectly ethical and/or moral. (Which in this case would be easy to prove.)
The sword cuts in both directions.
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
Contracts are 1 thing covered in Maryland law. Only a licensed contractor can write or enter into a valid contract for home improvements... Putting the homeowner at a clear advantage if they choose not to pay.
Only a licensed contractor can write or enter into a valid contract for home improvements...
My contract is always with the legal GC for the job...which, 99% of the time, is the HO himself. The contract names me his project manager (not a regulated or licensed job title) and any acts of hiring, firing, subcontracting, or whatever else I do on that job are done at his direction and on his behalf. This is all perfectly legal, but just to make sure there's 'full disclosure', the contract also specifically states that I do not hold any provincial licenses or trades 'competence cards'...so the HO can't later lie and say he didn't know.
At the end of the day, it's best not to have to test the language of any contract. This, IMO, is best done by exercising great care in choosing one's clients. The only ones who 'win' contract lawsuits are the lawyers.
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
It all depends on local laws and what does and doesn't fly. Like I said, here in Maryland.... if it's for home improvement, no matter what is written down, it ain't a contract without a license.... Hence contract law is not a factor, because it isn't a contract.
Hence contract law is not a factor, because it isn't a contract.
That's an interesting argument which opens up all kinds of other questions...among which would be the constitutional one of whether or not a restriction on the right of two individuals to make an agreement is valid, and if so, under what circumstances. I play golf occasionally with a senior partner at one of the big law firms in Montreal and this sort of thing is right up her alley. Have to remember to ask her what she thinks of that....
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
"That's an interesting argument which opens up all kinds of other questions...among which would be the constitutional one of whether or not a restriction on the right of two individuals to make an agreement is valid"
I'd be interested in the response... as there is a hooker that is threating to sue me for a verbal (could have said oral) contract...
:-)
Edited 2/21/2009 8:05 pm ET by sledgehammer
Was she licensed?
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
You raise some great points Dinosaur, which is what I was hoping for when I asked my question. As you've pointed out, it isn't a simple black and white, go or no-go, issue. Like everything else, there are many shades of grey.Personally, I believe in licensing as a way to demonstrate at least a minimum level of knowledge and proficiency in some professional endeavor. Yes, there are idiots holding licenses, as well as excellent craftsmen who can't (or won't) get theirs. At least, a license provides some level of assurance that the holder isn't a complete hack and that the work will meet some basic standards.Holding a license also commits me to financial burdens (insurance, bonds, taxes, etc) that the unlicensed can ignore. These burdens can (and do) put me at a competitive disadvantage when competing with them. Since the government requires these things from me, I feel justified in demanding that they make every effort to provide some protection against those who choose to ignore the rules.Your argument about the unlicensed being able to feed their kids falls on deaf ears with me. Call me a one-way, selfish, insensitive, jackass, if you wish, but my first obligation is to my family. I really have a problem with the idea that missing my mortgage payment would be ok because the unlicensed guy who beat me out of a job could make his. My generosity just doesn't go that far. - lol
Let me take your points one at a time (but not necessarily in order):
I believe in licensing as a way to demonstrate at least a minimum level of knowledge and proficiency
I disagree only in that licensing, where it exists, is compulsory and (as you and many others have pointed out) is not enforced or enforceable. I would suggest an alternative system which would accomplish what you want yet eliminate the enforcement problem.
Instead of mandatory licensing, either the government or some quasi-governmental commission should offer a voluntary classification or grading system that would offer tradesmen the opportunity to earn a 'rank' as to the quality of their work (by demonstrating it with real jobs already done). It could be something as simple as 'Class I' through 'Class VI' or whatever. Any tradesman would then, for a small (and I mean under $50, so everyone could afford it) administrative fee, have his work evaluated by an official, disinterested organisation...and once his ranking was assigned he would have the right to advertise that ranking. Homeowners could then ask potential contractors what their trade ranking is, and be fairly well assured of the quality of work each contractor is capable of performing.
Tradesmen could apply to have their ranking upped anytime they felt capable of demonstrating the next higher level of quality.
Tradesmen who choose not to earn a ranking would still be permitted to work at their trade, but they would be at a marketing disadvantage competing with ranked tradesmen.
Holding a license also commits me to financial burdens (insurance, bonds, taxes, etc) that the unlicensed can ignore.
That is true to some extent, however you are ignoring the unseen financial burdens unlicensed tradesmen carry at all times. It ain't all free bread and circuses on the 'dark side', you know.
For instance: Just because someone doesn't have a license does not mean he isn't paying taxes. On the contrary--without a license, you can't get a sales-tax number, so you have to pay full sales tax on all materials, and you don't get the interest on the 'float' of sales taxes you collect until they have to be paid over.
Also, in most places with licensing, one can't get contractor's insurance (or WC coverage) unless he has a license...which means that unlicensed contractors are self-insured. Sure, they don't have to pay the premiums...but if something goes wrong (tear-out on a $20K tile job because a heating mat blew out; a burst pipe causing $50,000 in damage; a man falls off the roof and can't work for a year; the jobsite burns down...), the unlicensed contractor has to cover the cost of the damages himself out of pocket.
Since the government requires these things from me, I feel justified in demanding that they make every effort to provide some protection against those who choose to ignore the rules.
Yes, I agree: You are justified in making that demand under those circumstances...but it's not going to do any good and we all know it. The laws are unenforceable. That being the case, you have a fairly solid ethical base for choosing to 'ignore the rules' yourself.
These burdens can (and do) put me at a competitive disadvantage when competing with them. ... I really have a problem with the idea that missing my mortgage payment would be ok because the unlicensed guy who beat me out of a job could make his.
Here you are back to your original assumption that the unlicensed contractors are competing directly with you and that if they were put out of business, you would harvest their jobs. Unless you are operating at a very low price level, I think you're fooling yourself, Dave. People who hire unlicensed tradesmen will not pay the rates charged by licensed contractors. If they can't find someone to do the job far below the rate you're charging, they will either do the job themselves on the weekend with help from the BIL, or they won't do it at all.
You will not make your mortage payment by preventing Johnny Pick-up Truck from making his. All you will make is some bad karma for yourself, and you don't need that.
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
IMHO...The only thing any licensing should do is protect a homeowner from someone trying to rip them off. When homeowners do business with bad contractors, by the time they realize it, they rarely have the resources or stamina to recover their losses.
".....by the time they realize it,....."I've run into a few customers who were truely ignorant of the difference between a licensed (can I say competent?) contractor and an unlicensed hack - and their ignorance cost them dearly. I've also run into a few who were totally aware of the difference and won't deal with anyone without a license. Many customers, however, ARE aware of the differences (to some extent, anyway) but have a real problem passing over the lowest bidder just to save a few bucks. Yes, they may pass on the job if it costs more than they want to spend, but I've salvaged a few jobs by showing them how to scale back on their wants - or phase it over a longer time frame.
"Many customers, however, ARE aware of the differences..."Exactly! That is a very good reason for licensing. For example, if I need electrical work done, I and many other homeowners will only hire a licensed electrician. Never would consider one without a license no matter the level of experience, and I am sure many unlicensed in all trades are very good. A GC may also feel the same way. Now, if the pro with a license screws up, he could lose his license and a lot of business. This has little to do w making the unlicensed guy do better work, but maintaining standards to those that hold a license.
Dinosaur -As much as I would like to respond to some of your points right here and now, I'm gonna have to try to do it in bits and pieces over the next couple of weeks. I just got home from a meeting with a customer and have a deposit check burning a hole in my pocket. It ain't much, but it will keep me off of the streets and out of pool rooms for a little while.Don't go away. When I read your posts, I see an intelligent, informed, and rational person who can debate without getting personal. I think that I'm gonna enjoy fencing with you. - lolP.S. Has everyone noticed that this thread hasn't been kicked into the Tavern? Maybe rational debate is acceptable in here, after all.
Edited 2/22/2009 8:12 pm by Dave45
One thing I've noticed about these recurring discussions on licensing is that they recurr whenever the economy tanks and HOs start sitting on their wallets. Like now. Nobody gets their knickers in a knot about Joe Handyman doing some siding or swapping out a gang of windows when there's so much work we have to beat clients off with a stick. The crying only starts when times get lean.
This leads me to believe that the true motive for this clammoring is not to protect the homeowner from 'shoddy' work, but to reduce or eliminate competition.
That's not how a free-enterprise system is supposed to work. Businesses are supposed to succeed or fail based on the value they deliver to consumers, not on how good they are at lobbying the government for protectionist laws. If one believes in free enterprise at all, one has to understand that competition is a healthy and necessary part of it, and that without competition, quality standards go down the tubes while prices rise out of sight. Everybody loses.
Anyway, glad to hear you got some work.
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
I agree. Licensing is usually pushed by a deep pocketed group to beat down competition. Why do you think that medical schools very tightly limit enrollment? To limit competition.
Perhaps the pro licensed segment should petition their congressmen to enact a new national law that would require a license in order to purchase any building materials. That way Joe homeowner could not go down to Lowes to buy a new toilet paper holder for his bathroom. He would have to contact a licensed contractor who would come out and give an estimate for installing the tp holder but of course he would have to charge say, 100.00, for the estimate that would be refunded if he was chosen for the job. Of course any reputable contractor would realize that the new tp holder is about 3 ounces heavier than the old one and may cause structural issues so to be on the safe and legal side a structural engineer should be hired to see if the house can stand this increased load.
If the engineer passes this structure then all appropriate permits should be obtained from any applicable local,state,and federal agencies. They are here to serve you and will protect the interests of the community.
All of you licensing and permit lovers rest easy. By the time Obama is finished you will need a permit to use the tp and even breathe. Thank God for the government. Without it the vast majority would not have enough common sense to breathe.
I think it would be better if we stayed away from references to any specific administration in this thread; so far this has remained a legitimate construction-business discussion, but if people start getting het-up about the Dems versus the Republicans, the whole thread's gonna wind up in the Tavern.
I think we can discuss the issue without getting political.
Thanx.
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
Good times or bad times I'll turn in an unlicensed contractor in a heart beat. I have in the past and will continue to do so.I have my license, insurance and pay taxes. I play by the rules in which the state that I reside. Unlicensed hacks give the whole profession a bad name. .View Image
Good times or bad times I'll turn in an unlicensed contractor in a heart beat. I have in the past and will continue to do so.
I see by your profile that you are an Andersen window rep/installer. Are you sure the guys building those windows in the factory all licensed carps? If not, are you going to turn them in? And BTW, does Maryland require a license to install windows and hang doors?
I have my license, insurance and pay taxes. I play by the rules in which the state that I reside. Unlicensed hacks give the whole profession a bad name.
That last statement is a wide and essentially valueless generalisation. What about unlicensed tradesmen who do high quality work? I'm one, and I know many, many more--quite a few of them on this board. And what about licensed hacks--of which there are plenty?
Surely you're not going to try to make anyone believe that the quality issue is completely one-sided? Sounds to me like what you're really saying is, 'I got mine, screw everybody else.'
Is that the kind of world you want to live in? Where you have to watch your back constantly?
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
Andersen employees are in Bayport Minnesota and employees of the company. They do not need a license....they are employees.Yes, Maryland requires a license to install windows and doors.....even to paint or landscape you need a license.I'm having difficulty responding to your last statement. I'll agree that there are licensed individuals that perform badly and unlicensed individuals that are gifted craftsmen. However, the laws are quite clear that in Maryland you need a MHIC license in order to contract, subcontract, or sell a home improvement. If you are licensed and perform poorly there is a system in place for homeowners to have recourse. If you are unlicensed, there is not. I'm a 'follow the rules' type of person. If I don't like what's going on, I'll email my congressman. Laws are not merely a suggestion, they are an integral part of being in a 'real' business. .
Edited 2/23/2009 8:17 pm ET by jocobe
I'm a 'follow the rules' type of person.
So am I, actually; but when the rules are so badly administered that following them does more harm than good, I do what I gotta do. As I mentioned earlier (or perhaps that was in another thread), 80% of residential new construction in this province is done by unlicensed tradesmen because of the long-standing corruption in the Commission de construction du Québec.
And the provincial parliament is well aware of it, too. But they're afraid to do anything about it: The Minister of Labour tabled a bill a number of years ago permitting un-carded, non-union tradesmen to do one-family residential, but the union sent a half-dozen goons to Quebec City to rough him up and threaten his family...and he pulled the bill. (PS--the goons were never prosecuted, either, even tho the incident was filmed by a TV news crew. That tell you something?)
So, sad to say, but I really doubt sending an e-mail to my provincial M.P. is gonna do any good.
The funny thing is, the QCC which, for 20+ years, had refused to grant apprentice cards to anyone whose father didn't have a card (literally) or who didn't slip the right amount of 'squeeze' into the right palm, suddenly found itself so short of manpower 5 years ago that they went on a recruiting campaign. But tradesmen in this province have long memories; they'd been shat on for too long by the QCC....
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
I can only call it fascinating, after noting the number of individuals who seem almost proud to admit they have no qualms about "turning in" unlicensed individuals. I must wonder if, more often than not, their focus is solely on those with whom they find themselves in competition (in law, they call that "selective prosecution"). I must also wonder if these same individuals ever acted to correct their own acts when they: - Cut a corners on a job;
- Pushed the limit on what was called a tax deduction;
- Took cash on a sale and did not claim/report it;
- Fudged on the sales tax of a vehicle, tool or other thing they bought or sold (hey kids, law requires you report every sale);
- Compromised their own ethics to placate the whims of a customer or boss;
- Used the benefit of their tax number to buy goods for themselves or friends
- Sold an item of questionable quality (e.g., tool, car, etc.) without disclosing known defects;
- Exceeded the speed limit, sped up for a yellow light, kept driving or otherwise broke driving laws;
- Inflated a bid, because the customer "could afford it";
- Accused the dog of spilling the paint on the carpet (grin-from a post elsewhere on these forums);
- Gave a low ball bid while anticipated you would be able to gouge the customer on a change order;
- Used customer materials on another job, including your own;How can one describe such individuals? Self righteous comes to mind, since I think it unlikely they are of the character associated with someone reputed to have walked on water.I have a couple of thoughts on the philosophy that man's laws must be adhered to: I grew up in a hunting family. We were pretty serious about it. However, several things were instilled in me and my brother by our father, as we set out to fill the family larder: 1) Hunting is not a sport. It's done out of necessity (of course, there is the fact that some of God's creatures taste pretty darn good next to the potatoes). At any rate, if you take pleasure in killing something, you have a problem; 2) The "law" requires a license to hunt, but some cannot afford even that. As such, there are times I didn't see a damn thing. On that and referring back to rule one, above, hunting is not just for those of means. To say someone should die of starvation because they cannot afford the costs associated with the joke they call forest management is ludicrous.Mindful of the foregoing, I offer the following additional thoughts: 1) It would be interesting to see how each on this forum got started. I suspect, if all were disclosed, we would learn many now having licenses and such, out of necessity, proceeded without them, at one time. Even after acquiring bonding and such, many acquired the [unfunded mandate] items demanded of them not to placate whims of a mob rule society, but to increase opportunity. 2) On getting started, not everyone has someone (e.g., parents, spouse, or a bank) to back, or support them. Acquiring licensing, bonding and insurance is not a "few bucks" issue. Add to this the consideration of geodata information, which reveals that geographic location much affects ability to move forward in a given profession. Meanwhile, there is another thread, which addresses many of these issues quite well. It can be found under the heading "Maybe we should double our rates......." at http://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages?msg=116367.271
Dejure,
I know for a fact that all posters on this site are pure as the driven snow. We are all of the highest , unreproachable standards and morals. The only thing that exceeds that is the quality of our work.
Yeah, but I just had to throw those thoughts to the saints, being a pot stirrer from way past........
Just a note to everybody--I asked JP to kick this thread back upstairs from the Tavern so everyone could participate in it, and he graciously agreed to do so.
That said, I think it's now our responsibility to keep this discussion on a high enough plane that we're not abusing JP's trust in us to do so.
Thanx.
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
You raised a lot of good points in your post, Dejure, but I think it could be summed up in that old phrase, 'Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.'
Nobody's perfect--least of all me--but I do believe that most of us try to get through life not doing anything to anyone else we wouldn't want done to us. More to the point, there's no need for us to go after each other in this business.
I return to my original point, which was that the construction/remodeling market is not unified, but stratified, and that there is a separate stratum of potential clients for each stratum of contractors and tradesman. In general, those strata do not compete directly with each other for business.
There are guys out there working out of the trunk of a K-car with a few Crapsman tools. They charge one third or one half what I do, and they will take jobs I'd run away from no matter how hungry I was. I don't compete with them; the jobs they take I wouldn't touch on a bet: I have learned over the years that--with the investment in tools and vehicles and equipment I have made, I cannot make a profit working for that type of client. Maybe 15 years ago I could have...but not now.
I also know enough not to try to go after jobs that are so large and complex that they require a GC with a five- or six-digit cash flow just to keep them moving. Yeah, I might dream of landing a $750,000 contract...but I'm not equipped to handle one, and (like most other unlicensed guys at my level) I'm smart enough to know it. So I am not competing with GCs who can, and the jobs I bid--$5-15k for the most part--won't interest them for the same reason the $500-1K jobs the K-car Kid bids don't interest me: they can't make a profit on them.
The marketplace is segmented, or stratified, by financial brackets. It always will be. We each have our own piece of the total market, and we do each other no harm by co-existing.
I for one would like to see the bloody governments realise this and re-write the laws in cognizance thereof.
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
Too late, we are now in the tavern!
Too late, we are now in the tavern!
Yeah, dammit; I noticed that. I'm not quite sure why as there was only that one 'blip' of partisan politics but maybe the 'geek squad' (as JP lovingly refers to the in-house ferrets at Taunton) runs a daily search on the whole forum using keywords like 'Obama' or 'Rush Wambaugh' (sp?) or whoever, and kicks any thread containing the keyword downstairs.
Do you think it's worth asking JP to put it back in the Business Folder? I could ask him.
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
I think the whole tenor was starting to get a little much. I think the one fellow was a little out of it.
Try, but can't guarentee
I don't mind asking. I don't think it'll cost me too many credibility coupons, LOL....
Hey JP--You awake over there, buddy?
What do you think? Can we kick this one back upstairs to the Business Folder? The discussion has been staying quite civilised in spite of differing opinions. Both licensed and unlicensed sides think it's an important enough topic that it shouldn't be hidden in the Tavern....
Thanx....
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
It's not so much that the unlicensed can't enter into a contract, as that the courts will refuse to enforce it.
This puts the unlicensed person in a bad position ... as they are still liable for any damages or warranty work, but cannot sue and expect to collect.
That's the typical ploy of many who seek out unlicensed contractors .... they front money for materials, maybe part with some gas money, then string the guy along. Ultimately, the "contractor" learns he won't be paid. "Go ahead, sue me" he's told.
It seems too often we hear about the homeowner being the victim, while it's often the other way around.It doesn't hurt my feelings to think dirt bags like the ones you describe might, one day, take a big hit. It's possible they could, one day, be stung by their own game. For example, if someone promotes himself as "for hire," a homeowner could be held responsible for failing to withhold unemployment, income and Labor and Industries taxes. Things that could alter this likelihood would be whether or not the home owner provided tools, if the person was being paid an hourly rate, versus a bid amount, and so forth.
Guy I know (licensed in MD) did some work in Chevy Chase, right over the DC line. Lady stopped payment on the check. Whne he called to inquire, she said "Oh no, your work is fine, but my lawyer told me that since you aren't licensed in DC, I don't have to pay you..." And she didnt.
MD, DC and VA all require different licenses. Tough area to work.
116908.19 in reply to 116908.18
MD, DC and VA all require different licenses. Tough area to work
I'm up in the North East corner of the Peoples Republic of Md. Don't forget about Pa. and Delaware license issues as well.
I'm in Harford county and have seen an influx of the unlicensed from PA lately.
Where in Harford? I did a lot of work in Harford County while working for a company called D&D Scarborough out of Stewartstown, PA.
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
Jarrettsville area, not far from Stewartstown.
I'm over in Rising Sun. Seen all these Amishmen coming down our way? I call the BI office everytime I see a bunch of 12 year olds on a roof.
I drove through Jarrettsville on a daily basis for about 9 months. It's a nice area.I certainly prefer the traffic there to that of the DC area.
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
Maryland's laws are ridiculous. All they care about is how much money you have.
I lived in White Hall for about 10 years, and ran a pretty successful business (yes, outlaw) out of my house for most of that time.
Even built 2 complete homes while I was working for other people. Oddly, for new homes, all I needed was a $17.50 business licence from the county courthouse!
Took my MHIC test, passed it easily, and when it came time for my (now ex) wife to sign, she told me to go pound sand....... "You mean I have to sign over my house?!?! What if you screw up and we get sued? I'll lose my home!!"
The fact that I was already doing a great business didn't sway her, and that my existing customers were always happy didn't mean a thing to her, nor did it occur to her that doing things the way I had been made it more likely that I'd wind up in trouble.
One of the reasons that I'm no longer married to her and that I'm licensed, legal, and living in Connecticut now.
Screw her and Maryland.
Edited 2/21/2009 5:04 pm ET by Tomrocks21212
WHat do you mean "...came time for your ex to sign..."? My wife never signed anything when I got my MHIC license. I had to pay for a credit check at the initial application and pay into the guarantee fund at every renewel. I set up a llc instead of a sole prop, so theoretically the business gets sued, not me personally. Course talented lawyer could proabably tear right through the "corporate barrier".MD sucks for a lot of reasons, MHIC is a long way from the top of that list...
At the time, I was required to put up cash, a bond, or property in the amount $50k or something like that. And if it was property, all co-owners needed to sign, hence the problem. This was either before the credit report stuff, or just at its inception, I don't remember which. The bonding companies I talked to said, "Sure, all we need is property collateral worth twice the bond value".
Back to square one.
Yes, Maryland does suck for a lot of reasons. Maybe the MHIC is way down on most peoples' list, but the fact that is was limiting my ability to make a better living put it up near the top for me.
Ok, since I started this thread, I'll take the liberty of hijacking it to a new direction.Is it OK to drop a dime on the unlicensed contractors?Personally, I've always just let it slide figuring that the HO and/or "contractor" would eventually get their just reward. Yeah, I lost some jobs, but there was plenty of work out there so I wasn't hurt that much.Now, of course, losing a job probably means no income for who knows how long. The government's stimulus package is gonna have me subsidizing people who played fast and loose with the system, and - as much as I dislike it - I can accept the need for it. Is it wrong for me (all of us?) to "push back" and get the government to enforce their own rules so I'm not punished for trying to follow them?Whaddya think?
I'd drop a dime in a minute but there has to be proof something illegal is happening. Again all I have is my state to go on but if someone is operating unlicensed and his customers are happy there is nothing the state can do. We have the Maryland Home Improvement Commission and even if the homeowner is getting screwed by an unlicensed there is little to nothing they can do, system is geared to police the licensed.
The only law we have they will enforce is you can't advertise without it including your license number and yes... I turn people in all the time for that, and they just stop advertising.
Edited 2/21/2009 10:43 am ET by sledgehammer
system is geared to police the licensed
One of my past employers found someone advertising with his license #. He called the state contractor's board. Their response: the guy isn't licensed, so we can't do anything. But boy, if he ever tries to get licensed we're gonna fine him big time. Yeah, right. Thanks for nothing."...craftsmanship is first & foremost an expression of the human spirit." - P. Korn
bakersfieldremodel.com
CA law is quite a bit different. Unlicensed contractors are limited to jobs under $500 - and that's inclusive. Once upon a time, a big job could be broken down into pieces which were <$500, but that loophole was closed several years ago.Licensing is by specialty and falls under the CSLB (Contractors State Licensing Board) which is part of the state Department of Consumer Affairs. There is a long list of specific licenses and obtaining one requires documenting that you have the minimum amounts of training and experience - and passing a test. In addition to the license(s), we're required to have liability insurance and post a $10k bond.Enforcement, however, is pretty much a joke. You'll occasionally see some job red tagged, but that's almost always the city or county enforcing permit requirements. AFAIK, the JHA's limit their interest to permits and never get into the license status of the contractor.The CSLB claims that they deal harshly with non-licensed contractors, but their efforts seem to bring a whole new meaning to the word "stealth". - lolLast year, the SF Bay Area Craigslist began requiring that contractors list our license number in our ads. Just for fun, I occasionally cruise the ads and am astounded at what shows up as a "license" number. CA licenses are six digits preceeded by a letter which designates the speciality ("A" = Engineering Contractor, "B" = General Contractor, etc.). On Craigslist, it's common to see random numbers and letters, business license numbers, etc. Some of the more ballsy guys actually say that they're unlicensed then describe their 20 years experience doing whole house remodels, additions, new construction, etc. Sure looks to me like the CSLB could generate a weeks worth of leads just by cruising Craigslist while they have their morning coffee. - lol
Maryland is actually fairly rigorous. I had a "non-performance" issue with a roofer who turned out not to have a license. I filed a complaint with the Maryland HIC and he was arrested. I eventually got my money back (along with a few other people who filed complaints). I did have to go to court a few times.But you are correct, if the HO doesn't complain, then nothing is done.
In Illinois, contractor licenses are not required except in the city of Chicago. Most towns and villages in the state require registration (proof of insurance and a fee). What they have cracked down on is, they are tracking down contractors and companies that pay true employees as subcontractors. If someone turns in a company not playing by the rules concerning employee staus, there are huge "whistle blower" rewards possible (thousands of $). As work leads have slowed, buddies of mine have joked that it would be more lucrative to get out of the business and make a living turning the cheaters in, LOL. I don't actually know anyone who has done this but I'm sure it is going to happen. In fact, a HO , hiring a company that doesn't play by the rules could be eligible for all the employee taxes and big fines also. I could easily see a legitimate contractor frustrated from loosing a job to a cheating contractor, turning in the general contractor, HO, and subcontractor. So around here "dropping a dime" may be more like "dropping a Franklin".
Bob
One Doctor I worked with would not pay his bills, and brag about it. Lisenced or not he knew that he had the luxury of time and the money to foil any legal attempt to get payment.He had a new driveway poured and wouldn't pay. the contractor came to rip it out and he called the cops and the cops said you can't do that. The Doc told the cops that the finish was not to his liking and was not going to pay. Also boasting about his upcoming holiday!When he got back there was a new driveway that was about 8 inches thick and held the garage door firmly in place. He flipped and tried to sue the contractor. but no luck. Also could not find anyone to remove about 16 inches of diveway. The word got out this guy was and #### and no one would touch him.
I said I would hire a crew and remove it for $6.000.00 up front cash only and leave it ready to pour. He again flipped your just a Nurse not a contracter I explained I did consrtruction for years before taking nursing and you don't need a lisence to run a jack hammer an drive to the landfill. I never knew the out come but I did here that some one cemented his rear axle to the ground, crazy glued every lock on his house/cars.
I suppose it's all a matter of scale.
A neighbor hires a vagrant to rake leaves, I'm not going to lose any sleep.
When a guy drops in on a commercial business, offering to redo the roof, calls himself a contractor, and isn't licensed .... he needs to be shut down.
There are several reasons for this. Even assuming the guy is a crackerjack tradesman, you have to ask "why is he working outside the law?"
Besides the obvious ethical issues - side workers screwing their boss, unfair advantage, liability, etc - here are some of the folks I've caught presenting themselves as "contractors:"
"J" was a ten year fugitive child molester.
"T" had outstanding warrants in another state.
"A" was here illegally, and had already been deported several times.
"B" used his 'contracting' efforts as a cover for his drug business, and other petty crimes.
"M" quite happily lived on the 'margins' of society, simply because he was determined not to contribute to the support of his wife and children - despite several court orders to do so.
"C" had a few friends ... he would scout places, the friends would come by later if the pickings were good.
I still don't know why "S" has no contractors' license .... but he claims to operate a remodeling business, and offers to do both electrical work and plumbing - tasks that require specialty licenses here. He seeks licensed contractors to provide him with cover. He makes a fine presentation, and might even be a good salesman; investigation so far has revealed his prior experience (in another state) as a used car salesman. Maybe he's like the next guy:
"G" has a genius for starting up contracting firms with brilliant names and superb marketing. Alas, he is wanted by several states for fraud, not completing work, absconding with deposits, etc. He has had several license granted over the years - only to have them revoked later. I have pictures of one of his trucks, with different license numbers on different sides of the vehicle. He's currently looking for naive struggling real contractors, who will let him work under their license ("renting" your license out is illegal).
Keep in mind that an unlicensed contractor does not have access to professional supply houses, or will pay the full retail price. He does not have access to credit lines. He does not have workmans' comp coverage - putting the customer at risk.
As for the various government employees ... I have this silly idea that they work for ME. Since I'm paying them, I expect some results. Having 'hired' some to enforce contracting laws, it's my job to keep them busy, to provide them with work.
I fail to understand the perverse "ethic" that considers catching criminals to be 'ratting,' as if that were a bad thing. Such an attitude can only help the criminals, and hurt the law abiding.
If the laws are bad ... well, that's another discussion. I started this post listing several floks who spoke quite eloquently about the evils of government regulation, etc ... when it turned out that they had very real reasons to be hiding from the law.
Is it OK to drop a dime on the unlicensed contractors?
Personally, I've always just let it slide figuring that the HO and/or "contractor" would eventually get their just reward. Yeah, I lost some jobs, but there was plenty of work out there so I wasn't hurt that much.
Now, of course, losing a job probably means no income for who knows how long. Is it wrong for me (all of us?) to "push back" and get the government to enforce their own rules so I'm not punished for trying to follow them?
There's a flawed assumption in that reasoning which I'd like to point out. However, I'd like to avoid having this thread veer off into yet another argument about quality of work of licensed versus unlicensed contractors, as that is a very different question. We all know there are licensed contractors out there doing ghastly work, and there are also unlicensed tradesmen doing stuff worthy of appearing in the pages of FHB or FWW. And we all know that the reverse is also true. But we aren't going to answer this question arguing about that. So....
Your argument about dropping the dime assumes there's an uneven playing field as to price, with licensed guys (who have higher administrative overhead and have to cover that) and unlicensed guys (who don't, and charge correspondingly lower hourly rates) competing for the same jobs. In my experience, that's not usually the case. There is not one playing field, there are in fact several; and it is very rare that players from one try to jump into the game on another.
In other words, if they can't find someone to do the work at a low enough rate, they simply won't have the work done. So the licensed, higher-priced contractors haven't lost a potential job; as far as they are concerned, that job never really existed. Remember, new construction and home improvement work (with the exception of essential repairs) are luxury expenditures, not necessities. That's why work slows down for us all when money gets tight.
Beyond that: Within each category, there are echelons: The rates for licensed trades and GCs in this area range from $60 to $100+ per hour; for unlicensed tradesmen the range is from $10 to $50. YMMV regionally, but that's the story around here. Obviously, the guy who is charging $10 or $20 isn't competing with me (he can't do what I can do) and I don't try to compete with him on price. (If I did, I'd shoot myself in the foot.)
By the same token, the high-end licensed contractors do not compete with those who charge 40% less. My bud Jim charges $100/hour, but his market is the $1,000,000+ house. Another GC I know well charges only $60--he builds $100k bungalows and starter-homes...stuff Jim knows he can't make money building, so he doesn't try.
So the real question is, what, exactly, are you going to gain by 'dropping the dime' on somebody just because he isn't licensed? It's not going to get you his job unless you're willing to cut your price to his level (and I assume you're not going to do that): the HO will either find someone else in the same price range, or he'll just forget the whole job. Either way, you gain nothing.
Isn't this really just about spite and anger because things are getting tight and we're all afraid? Remember--they're not just getting tight for you, they're getting tight for everyone. That poor schlub who charges $10 an hour to do handyman repairs is feeling the pinch just as much as you are. And his kids have to eat, too.
Does anyone really think getting him arrested for replacing a few shingles on some guy's garden shed is gonna feed their kids?
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
All good points.But what good is a law if it is not enforced?
...what good is a law if it is not enforced?
A very astute question, Doc. I'd say the answer is, no good. (But enforcing a bad law doesn't make it good, either.)
In most professions, the marketplace can and does sort the practitioners pretty effectively into market segments according to price and quality...and the real incompetents are weeded out. If there is no overriding reason for the government to step in, it should not.
But whether or not there is an overriding reason depends on one's perspective, and, too often, that perspective is narrow and the reasoning behind it circular. (Should the perspective of a licensed widget-maker be the determinant on whether widget-makers should be licensed? Hmmm....)
The theory used to justify licensing in an otherwise 'free' society rests on protecting the people from incompetent practitioners where such incompetence is (a) not easily discernable up front, and (b) could have consequences judged too serious for the state to allow. However, that begs several questions, including 'what level of damage meets this test?' Annoyance or inconvenience? Monetary loss? Damage to one's reputation? Emotional traumatisation? Physical injury? Death?
One basic test in constitutional law is whether the potential damage to the individual caused by removing the restriction exceeds the actual damage to the people's freedoms that is caused by maintaining it.
In the case of medical practitioners, it's always been considered pretty clear-cut because the ultimate downside of medical malpractice is death. Hard to argue against licensing doctors. But nurses? Pharmacists? Paramedics? Rescue techs? First-aiders? Where to draw the line...?
I don't think it's that clear-cut for most of the other licensed professions, however:
But the problem with justifying licensing for those last two categories strictly based on potential damage is that the market for those professionals is quite restricted: Not many individuals hire engineers to design bridges or skyscrapers--that's done by the state itself or by large construction companies who, one could argue, should be able to certify the qualifications of the engineer themselves. Same thing goes for shipmasters; I don't know any shipping company that's going to give command of a $300-million-dollar ship to somebody who doesn't know how to run it.
Carpenters? Plumbers? Electricians? Welders? Excavators? Masons? Sure: all touch things that, under a worst case scenario could conceivably cause death. But what is the probability of that damage actually occurring? And at what level of probability is it permissible for the State to restrict these professions? And how much responsibility for verifying the competence of any of those practitions should the State transfer to the individual? What is reasonable for an individual to be required to know about such trades before hiring a tradesman, and is that sufficient to prevent deadly-dangerous practitions getting hired?
So many questions, so little time to answer them all....
Finally, back on a practical note, by instituting a licensing requirement for tradesmen, the government is creating an artificial distinction between 'licensed' and 'unlicensed' tradesmen. For as you pointed out: the law can't be enforced and there will always be unlicensed tradesmen. All the licensing scheme actually does is provide another revenue stream to the government, and oblige those with licenses to charge their clients higher rates to pay for it.
Not, IMO, a Good Thing.
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
That was a well-reasoned response.
My opinion: there are too many laws, with thousands more being generated each year, many conflicting with other laws. You can always find a notorious example of how someone did something that requires a new law to prevent that from happening again. Try running a family like that. Junior comes home late with the car. New law: Junior does not get to use the car again. What has been accomplished? Mom and dad have proved themselves to be intolerant and draconian and Junior is looking for other options that may be more undesirable.
More laws = more lawyers! Everyone knows we already have too many of that species.
You can't legislate quality in, and you can't license it in either.
You can't legislate shoddy work out, and you can't license it out either.
I think the following illustration, in a totally different area, offers some similarities which support my point.
An unfortunate woman just increased her brood to 14 by having octuplets in spite of no visible means of support. She was living in the 3-bedroom home of her parents with her six children, two of which were receiving assistance for disabilities. The home was in foreclosure at the time of her sensational delivery. She had no job and was living off of a legal settlement. Although this has nothing to do with my argument, I will mention it for humor: She wants to get a master's degree in counseling!
Bottom line: Authorities are looking at new laws to prevent this type of thing from happening again.
Too many laws!
I know these comments should belong in the tavern; however, I think this type of subject should have been in the tavern in the first place. After all, the subject of this thread is not something you would talk about on the job. It is more likely to be discussed after hours over a brew, or online.How can you understand God if you can't understand people? How can you understand people if you can't understand yourself?
My two bits:
Bravo in response to 908.36--you put perfectly my sentiments on the whole subject. I can't relate to all the folks on here getting themselves all in a lather over unlicensed/licensed or legal/illegal.
Does anyone really believe that licensing makes anyone a better craftsman OR businessman? It's just a government money grab. You all know that there's plenty of unlicensed "hacks" out there who can work circles around Mr. Legal and Licensed In Business For 25 Years.
A driver's license doesn't make you a good driver and firearm license doesn't make you a good shot. In Arizona when you get your contractor's license the ROC sends you a bumper sticker that says: "Licensed Contractors Build Confidence". I just have to shake my head in disgust everytime I see one of those and think of all the people who believe it.
When you're hiring a licensed contractor you're not assured of anything except higher prices--that's the reality. I am a licensed general contractor and I don't see how I gain anything by except it allays the fears of the naive. What it does mean though is that I am forced to charge far more than the job is worth just to pay THE MAN. That hurts me, my customers--the whole industry.
What a joke!
"Does anyone really believe that licensing makes anyone a better craftsman OR businessman? It's just a government money grab. You all know that there's plenty of unlicensed "hacks" out there who can work circles around Mr. Legal and Licensed In Business For 25 Years."
amen!
"Does anyone really believe that licensing makes anyone a better craftsman OR businessman? It's just a government money grab."
It also turns the business of building into a paper game and that often excludes the type of hands on workers that have a passion for building things but are weak on paperwork.
I got my first license in 82 and remember saying "the only reason they give you a license is so they can threaten to take it away." Back then, in MI, the director of the licensing and regulation board was recommending that the state eliminate license for 90% of the current categories. I agreed with him then and agree now, more than ever.
There are too many layers of consumer protection and this bureuacratic mess only adds layers of cost and wasted time. Do we really need a license, then permits and inspections, then a court system for those that are delivered shoddy goods a place to sue and collect damages? Why wouldn't the ability to sue and collect damages be sufficient?
If I were king, I'd allow anyone to build anything without a license or permit. I'd also allow folks to voluntarily get licenses and permits. My only rule would be that the unlicensed and unpermitted work be clearly explained and advertised.
This country was founded on the principle of freedom but we are moving away from that ieal in a dangerous rapid way. The goal of absolute safety for every product we buy is naive at best and the resulting loss of freedom costs far more than we'll ever know. The value cannot be measured.
Contractor licensing laws are twofold. First, they are a revenue measure. Second, they are a regulatory measure.Arizona's lien laws state that there are two ways which labor and materials may come on to a job site. First, at the instance of the property owner or second, at the instance of the property owner's agent. It then states that all contractors and subcontractors are agents of the property owner. So, it is only these agents or property owners who are licensed. Labor, the tradesmen who actually perform the work, are not agents. The state Registrar of Contractors has no authority over mechanics.So how does the state make money if the workmen are not licensed? Any person who reads and comprehends Arizona's licensing scheme will understand. The state has specialty licenses for plumbing, painting, carpentry, electrical and so forth. Section 32-1122, subsection F, requires that the person who qualifies for a specialty license have 4 years' experience as a trade mechanic or as a trade contractor. The statute itself uses the terms "practical or management trade experience'. Section 32-1127 requires that the person who qualifies for the license supervise all the licensee's projects. So the state makes a distinction between management and labor. Management is licensed. Labor is not. Supervisor and manager are used as synonymous terms.How does this create revenue and act as a regulatory measure. The theory is that the supervisor who qualified for the license will be able to detect bad work and see to it that it is corrected. The state chose this measure rather than testing and licensing those who actually do the work. That is the regulatory part. The revenue part is a function of the regulatory part. By requiring the supervisor to be on site means that one licensed entity will not have multiple jobs in scattered locations. This produces revenue by virtue of increased numbers of licensee's. To understand, would the state make more revenue by allowing one licensed entity to have 40 unsupervised jobs in scattered locations, or would the state make more revenue if each project required a separate licensed entity? I know that many people are not good at mathematics but if you multiply the license fee by 40 you will see that it is more than the license fee multiplied by 1. So the regulatory license is simultaneously a revenue license. On top of that, all licensee's must pay an additional license tax for revenue.
I don't think the government is ever going to enforce the rules to my liking.
They are just to hit and miss to me.
I'm an Engineer, and not a contractor. But the licensing law I work under, (at least in in one state), requires that I report work by unlicensed professionals and contractors to the relevant board within one business day. Same clause is in the statutes for Architects, and Contractors. We are all supposed to report substandard work to the relevant boards, and the AHJ also.
The statutes covering Contractors require that they have their license number clearly presented on all of their trucks and equipment, as well as business cards, advertising, and contracts.
I'm a PE too and decided to omit that datum from this thread to avoid clouding the issue any more than it already is. - lolYeah, the rules for PE's are quite a bt different.
The laws for PEs are pretty consistent across the jurisdictions. But the ones for Contractors vary greatly from one state to another.
My first license is in Nevada. The three statutes that cover Engineers, Contractors, and Architects, are all pretty close to the same, and have interlocking references. For example: Anything that requires an "A" contractors license is designed and sealed by an Engineer; anything that requires a "B" license is designed and sealed by an Architect; the "C" license specialty trades, (high rise structures, fire systems, 3-phase electrical, medium and high voltage electrical, mining and tunneling. etc.), also require specialty licensure for the design professional.
I moved to Idaho, a few years ago. The codes for Engineers and Architects, didn't vary much, if at all. Contractors don't have any kind of license requirements, unless they want to work on publicly funded projects, for which they have to get a license, and bonds. For the typical owner, it's still owner beware.
Which makes no sense to me, as all the public works projects require, by statute that the designer be licensed, and a licensed professional manage and oversee payment for the project. So, the public entities need protection from incompetent contractors, because they don't have the skill set to hire and manage unlicensed contractors, but the public doesn't.
I'm pretty confident, that I have a lot better skill set for dealing with an unlicensed contractor than most of my neighbors, but they don't need protected. Only the state does. There are still areas that don't require building permits, or inspections, so it really is "buyer beware".
Sometimes, you have to wonder what thought process the legislature uses to come to their decisions.
"There are still areas that don't require building permits, or inspections, so it really is "buyer beware"
Are the houses falling apart where ther is no law enforced? I think not. Therefor, the scheme to license contractors in my opionon is a scheme for gov. to collect money.
I beg to disagree, Frammer. While there's little doubt in my (alleged) mind that many of the regulations primarily serve to generate revenue (Pull a permit to strap a water heater!!??), much of it (and more than you might think) actually does protect the health and safety of the general public.A few examples from my own experience -1. The room addition that was wired with zipcord!?
2. The 36" door between a kitchen and garage that supported one end of the header on the door jamb?!
3. The sagging kitchen ceiling caused by some numbskull cutting away parts of roof trusses to expand a bedroom!?There are more, but you should get my drift.
Are the buildings still standing?
Remember, natural selection is at work!!!
Yes they are, but I'm betting that it's because I (we) fixed the problems before catastrophe struck rather rhan "If it ain't actually broke, it must be just fine".
As a person that lives in a state without licensing laws, I can tell you that the only licensing laws I have seen are just a legislators scheme to make money. You have BI that are to make sure the code is followed, and building permits, to make sure the homeowner is protected with insurance.
Why have licensing laws? They are not enforced. Cal. which has some of the strictest laws concernig contractors, don' or can't enforce there laws. This means, without enforcement the only reason for the license is for the state to raise money!
Its a mixed bag, and there's times I feel the same. But like traffic laws, there are an unenforceable number of law breakers, but at the same time it seems like traffic flow and traffic safety would be worse without them."...craftsmanship is first & foremost an expression of the human spirit." - P. Korn
bakersfieldremodel.com
If you have never seen the movie "tin men" with Richard Dreyfuss and Danny DeVito, it's is about the birth of the Maryland Home Improvement Commision, and the push to clean up the aluminum siding industry.
My nine year old daughter, and her fourteen year old big brother can build structures that stand up. They are quite good at snagging materials I have around, and constructing things. They watch and pay attention when I work on things, and ask lots of questions.
Will their structures sustain the snow load over winter? Some have.
Will they stay up in strong winds? Some have.
Are they weather tight? Kind of.
The fact that a structure stands upright doesn't mean it is well built. It means it hasn't failed. But the real question is will the structure still be there when it has actually been put to the test of time and the elements.
Engineers and Architects, have to prove they have a certain base level of knowledge and experience to design things. Why is it such a stretch, to believe that those who build the things they design should also have to prove some base level of competence to execute those designs.
I want contractors licensed so I can quit trying to explain to unlicensed contractors how to read a set of drawings, or vibrate concrete. Or other things I consider basic construction skills, and have known since I was in my early teens.
I've had union "journeymen", who can't layout a set of concrete forms to match the drawings, or layout stairs. Trim/Finish carpenters who have no idea how to cope a joint, or perhaps even what a coped joint is.
It probably hasn't occurred to you. But California may be remiss in enforcement of their licensing laws, because they have been through so many budget cuts, they are drastically understaffed. "Boots on the ground", isn't just applicable to the military.
If nothing else, licensing laws prevent "contractors" from pretending the guys working for them are independent subs, and force them to actually pay unemployment and workman's comp. insurance.
Why is that the general societies concern? If a guy gets hurt on the job and goes to the ER uninsured, who pays the medical bills? WE do. If he is hurt so badly he can't work anymore who pays for his disability? WE do. If he is unemployed, and can't make the bills because he has no unemployment who feeds his kids? WE do.
"If nothing else, licensing laws prevent "contractors" from pretending the guys working for them are independent subs, and force them to actually pay unemployment and workman's comp. insurance."
Not even close. The only way to make sure of that is a combination of homeowner and proof when permits are pulled, other than that it is an unenforced law. I go on many contractor forums, and they all complain about the same thing, better to not worry about the "competition" and get on on with business.
116908.52 in reply to 116908.51
"There are still areas that don't require building permits, or inspections, so it really is "buyer beware"
Are the houses falling apart where ther is no law enforced? I think not. Therefor, the scheme to license contractors in my opionon is a scheme for gov. to collect money.
Let me tell you about my sister, a lawyer, and her husband. They recently had a big new mcmansion built in a county that has no permit requirements. The reputable builder with loads of recomendations built them a pretty good house. Unfortunatly he also wired and plumbed it. The wiring is horrible and a lot of rock is going to have to be removed. The plumbing is a little better and hopefully only a little rock will have to be torn out.
When I viewed their home at the 80% complete stage, I was horrified. I told my sister to report him to the state lincensing board. Turns out he wasn't required to be lincensed in either plumbing or electric. But he did have a GC lincense.
There were the usual hassles between the clients and the builder, but this was totally unneccasary and could have been easily avoided with either lincensing or permitting regulations.
Like I said, my sister is a lawyer, but the builder simply wore down her resolve to get a safe and nice house built. As she said " ya got to choose your fights". She did deduct I think about 5 grand from the final bill, but I think it should have been really around 20 grand backcharge.
Lincensing and permitting are simply a form of consumer protection.
"Lincensing and permitting are simply a form of consumer protection."
Licensing is a scheme to raise money, nit any insurance of a quality house. Look at your own example. The state required GC's to be licensed, did absolutely nothing in reguards to quality.
What you and others seem to be missing, is that I do not believe in not haveing a strong permiting process. This is down at a local level and much easier to police. By having to prove w/c at the time of pulling a permit, and the oversite by BI, a lot of the "problems" disappear.
Licensing is a scheme to raise money, nit any insurance of a quality house. Look at your own example. The state required GC's to be licensed, did absolutely nothing in reguards to quality.
Yes the state (Iowa) as far as I know did require a GC to be lincensed, but nobody required any sort of lincense for either plumbing or electrical. I think the state dropped the ball and endangered my sister.Furtermore with no permiting, which usually comes with inspections, the contractor was allowed to do very unsafe and poor work.
The limited amount of knowledge I have towards lincensing leads me to believe that the lincensing programs are more or less breakeven in most states and not a cash cow.
What you and others seem to be missing, is that I do not believe in not haveing a strong permiting process.
I agree with you, permitting is very important. But you have to agree that a state lincensing agency granting a GC a lincense leads a client to beleive that he can produce a safe and complete house. Most GCs would readily admit they would be lousey plumbers and electricans. Apparently my sisters bozo of a GC never got the memo. So who should she blame? Apparently even with her being a lawyer she felt the courts wern't the answer.
By the way I am not a electrican or a plumber, but even I noticed what crappy work he did in those fields. And yes I do get into the NEC and UPC on occasion, just like all good GCs should. I am sure the idiot my sister had owns no code books.
So I guess in the particular county the house was built in, it's just "buyer beware". No permits and lax lincensing. Do you agree?
"So I guess in the particular county the house was built in, it's just "buyer beware". No permits and lax lincensing. Do you agree?"
That is the problem, if instead of wasting time on licensing contractors, the local, town, county or city, would be required to have a competint building dept., the state would be better off.
By the way, around here, a seperate electrical inspection is required before the power co can turn the power on.
Don't the counties have health dept. or such that are in charge of septics? Or don't the locals inspect before hooking up the plumbing?
That is the problem, if instead of wasting time on licensing contractors, the local, town, county or city, would be required to have a competint building dept., the state would be better off.
But if the state lincensed particular trades woulnd't that negate or at least lessen the need of inspections? Granted the need for inspections is still there, but if things go way wrong consumers could possibly have a tradesmans lincense pulled or a good spanking. It looks like the county isn't interested in permitting for whatever political reason, so shouldn't the state care?
By the way, around here, a seperate electrical inspection is required before the power co can turn the power on.
Very common to do it that way, but the electric utility only looks at the meter base only, not the interior wiring.
Don't the counties have health dept. or such that are in charge of septics? Or don't the locals inspect before hooking up the plumbing?
Not sure what my sister went through, but my experince with health Dept inspections is they are only concerned with the septic system and it's leech field, not the interior plumbing in a building.
Really don't want to get into a pizzing match with you. Jusst wanted to point some of the attributes of lincensing in this particular instance. I am sure you and I could come up with a lot (ok, maybe a few) of instances where lincensing really served no one well and possibly hurt some people.
Edited 2/22/2009 10:24 pm ET by bobtim
"
"Very common to do it that way, but the electric utility only looks at the meter base only, not the interior wiring."
not around her.
"But if the state lincensed particular trades woulnd't that negate or at least lessen the need of inspections"
Are you kidding me? There is no where that I know off that trust a contractor just because they are licensed.
There are no good attibute of licensing, unless somone wants to enforce the laws. If they are not enforced, it is a scheme to raise money.
"
"That is the problem, if instead of wasting time on licensing contractors, the local, town, county or city, would be required to have a competint building dept., the state would be better off."Not financially better off. You are proposing government inspection of every aspect of every small piddling job, an overwhelming, budget busting proposition. The concept of licensing shifts the burden from government approval/oversight to placing the responsibility of standards on the professional doing the work. Shoddy work means no license = no more work.
Not financially better off. You are proposing government inspection of every aspect of every small piddling job, an overwhelming, budget busting proposition
You don't get it. The cost of the permit, covers the cost of the inspections. Not a hard concept.
"The concept of licensing shifts the burden from government approval/oversight to placing the responsibility of standards on the professional doing the work. Shoddy work means no license = no more work."
That is the theory, unfortunatly, I haven't seen anywhere where that works. It would just be better for everyone if the enforcement was at the local level, close to the actual work.
Contracting law seems to work both ways. I mean, jhow do you size up the folks you work with?
For example, I've been approached to do a job, as a contractor. Seems the prebious sub had a falling out with the GC. GC wants to pay me journeymans' rate, in cash, and buy all the materials himself. Where the permit is, or even IF there is a permit, is something I haven't received a straight answer to yet.
Gee, you think there might be something shady going on here? Just trying to keep costs down? Yea, right.
Skirting the law is one way to spot a scoundrel - before you become a victim.
Problem is, when you talk of scoundrels, are you talking of those in public office, someone [else] ripping off a customer, or someone just flying under the radar for an extra buck? (grin)Our "public representatives" have a long and well documented history (it's called the public record) of skirting law. However, in such instances, we often find a perfect example of "do as I say, not as I do," with regard to following the latest lobbying result, err, law. On public servants, the majority just parrot what they were told. An example would be applicability of the laws affecting your ability to work for yourself, or another. To work for yourself, you are told you must obtain a license (a tax). To work for another, you are told you must obtain a Social Security Number. On the latter, there is no such law. No law compels you to obtain a federal identifier to work in one of the several countries united and out of which formed the United States of America.Mere presence in a public position, or and attempt to enforce some interpretation of a code, or law does not guarantee the individual is operating with sound knowledge, or good faith. Take judges as an example. Yesterday he/she was another ill informed attorney unable to keep up with the over four hundred million (not an exaggeration) laws (e.g., statutes, codes, regulations, etc.) on the books. Today, based solely on promotion to an unknowing public, he/she is allowed to don a robe and is, thereby, presumed knowledgeable in law. However, a casual reading of case law makes it abundantly clear such a presumption is, as often as not, erroneous.For sale, one used soapbox.
I'm not about to go off on a tangent discussing matters political. I know, there's sure to be some folks who can't eat a bowl of cereal without getting into politics ... for them I have but pity.
The fact is, we have laws, and those who do not follow them are either ignorant or deliberately chose to be criminal.
As I've already explaint - twice in this thread - I've heard all the 'bad law' arguments before. Perhaps it was only coincidence, but every such advocate that I've encountered has turned out to have a serious criminal issue that they were concealing.
I'm not falling for that red herring.
Well I'm glad to see this out of the Tavern as I don't go there.
And no one has explained the benifits of breaking the law as a business model.
My advice to the law breakers, if you don't like them... or you think there are too many for you to understand... or they are just to tough for the average guy to follow...
Get out of construction and get them changed. I'm sure the masses agree with you and will support your political career... I mean what homeowner in their right mind wouldn't want to have someone operating an illegal enterprise work in their house?
Love it or leave it... is that what you are implying?
I heard that before.How can you understand God if you can't understand people? How can you understand people if you can't understand yourself?
Love it or leave it is not even close.
How about if you love it enough.... fight for it tooth and nail ..... get the laws changed. Till then either operate within the law or be forever refered to and known as a hack.
Being a law abiding citizen has never been much trouble for me.... but apparently I'm the exception.
I hear where you're coming from, and it's not a bad place. Most of the time, I live there, too.
The only real objection I have to your post is that I don't believe 'unlicensed' automatically equals 'hack'. (I also don't believe you really believe it, either.) Life ain't that simplistic, and we both know it.
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
There are too many unnecessary laws. You can't get them all changed. You really have to put out an extraordinary effort to get one changed. Meanwhile, another thousand laws get made.
One consequence of too many laws is that everyone who reads this is a lawbreaker. This includes you and me. We don't even know all the laws. How can you obey what you don't know? If you feel that you are always operating within the law, I think you might examine your own activities more closely. Did you ever drive above the speed limit? Or does that not count? Did you ever slip through a stop sign on a country road where there was no traffic in sight? Did you ever have enough to drink to get just over the line and then drive a vehicle? Did you ever make an income tax call that was maybe a little iffy? Did you ever see someone do something that was probably criminal and fail to report it? I am not saying that you personally have done anything wrong, so please take this at face value. None of us are perfect. We couldn't comply with all the laws even if we made that our reason for life. I happen to think that good laws should be strictly obeyed.
If you want to have a black-and-white view of the world and not look too closely, I guess your view makes sense. The world I see is a bit more complex than that.
Finally, you don't have to look too far into the lives of those who actually make the laws to see that even they cannot comply with all the laws all the time. There are examples in the paper every day.How can you understand God if you can't understand people? How can you understand people if you can't understand yourself?
I’m having more than a little difficulty fathoming your reference to red herrings, since my post was an obvious response to your boast about playing citizen cop and "turning in unlicenced contractors."
Further, and regarding your statement about politics and law, it would help me much to have you make clear what, in my post, you were defining as political, what you were defining as law, or if you were classifying my entire response to your post as political. My experiences over the last two decades have afforded me more than mere inklings of what law is, and of what politics are. From that, I would assert calling them separable, each from the other, not a claim I could comfortably make. First, your posts could be construed as political, in that they seem to influence laws accepted by some. Second, what many call law is not. For example, many agencies impose what is nothing more than an agent's interpretation of what a given legislative enactment means. However, and regardless of which state/country whereat you claim residence or domicile, agencies cannot make law. Rather, they can only implement it and are not empowered to read into law what is not there.To those who assert they have no trouble abiding by the law, even claiming uniqueness in that aspect, I must wonder if they considered the context of my earlier post? Though not a comprehensive list of possible common transgressions, those disclosed suggest my surmising that question their spotlessness be not folly.Too, I would say to those who claim such, first learn the law. Too many are ignorant of but minute portions of it and know not what kind of government we have. For example, they talk of democracy, ignorant of its place as one of the most sophisticated forms of communism known to men. They are unaware ours is a republic, out of which individual liberties stand before mob. Nor do they understand the wisdom, or import of such.It is a common, accepted practice to challenge law by act, or omission, such that one operates contrary to administrative, or legislative decision, to create challenge, thereby forcing the entity to defend its often arbitrary rule? Or do we do as some suggest and offer blind compliance, as was done in the past, when neighbor turned in neighbors, knowing they faced certain death?With regard to the things some call law to which some have set themselves, nary a day goes by without a judicial decision voiding, nunc pro tunc (then for now), some enactment, whether administrative, or other. As such, the voided law was no law at all. This is what is called "case law." Were I inclined to gamble, I would, whenever possible, focus on only the "sure bet." Consistent therewith, I would wager an examination of the affairs of licensed individuals would reveal none having adhered so closely to law they could not be charged with either a misdemeanor or felony on some matter. The learned are aware even "government" has shown itself, repeatedly unable to comply with all the laws, codes and rules imposed on it.
It was about thirty years ago when it was first said one could not exist in New York for five minutes without violating some law. The number of laws on the books of New York and other places have not diminished in the years since. Mindful of that, and since, in law, "ignorance excuses no one," when shall we see men, including those complaining loudest of others’ alleged wrongs, submit themselves to account for their acts and omissions?On a final note, I, again, hear the "my country, right or wrong" shout. Upon contemplation of the matter, such rantings disappoint me. To make my point, consider that I saved years to buy my first quality cabinet saw. A fine tool it was, and remains to this day. Nonetheless, I never saluted it. Nor did I pledge my allegiance to it (that is reserved for my God). Rather, as with any important tool, I respected it, cared for it, protected it, AND repaired it. Had I not done so, it is unlikely it would have ever been worthy of my defense of it. If so many making such claims would expend the energy they put into defending our tools known as governments, they might then deserve our defense.
Dejure,
I am afraid that you are wasting your time here. The vast majority here have neither the desire or capacity to understand your insight. Our founding fathers would be appalled at the freedoms modern sheeple have so easily given away.
From:
Griffin12 <!----><!---->
10:38 am
To:
dejure <!----><!---->
Dejure,
I am afraid that you are wasting your time here. The vast majority here have neither the desire or capacity to understand your insight.
Griffin, I disagree strenuously with that assessment. We haven't enough people on board with Dejure's depth of knowledge, and I'd like to encourage him to stick around, lurk less and post more, and try to beat some sense into our heads.
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
I made no such boast. When I report a criminal, I am meerly performing my duty as a citizen.
Otherwise, I have no interest in bandying words. Dictionart definition is enough for me: those who break laws are 'law breakers.' They are not heros, role models, or anything else.
Go ahead and protest all you want .... if you were on a job site, I'd be wondering what crimes you were really hiding - for that has been the history so far. That is, those operating illegally have invariably turned out to also be felons, fugitives, and more.
Regarding my statement about you reporting others you believe do not have licenses and your responses thereto, you have, certainly, put me in my place. For convenience, I quoted your past posts below: “I made no such boast. When I report a criminal, I am meerly performing my duty as a citizen.” “As for the various government employees ... I have this silly idea that they work for ME. Since I'm paying them, I expect some results. Having 'hired' some to enforce contracting laws, it's my job to keep them busy, to provide them with work.” “Good times or bad times I'll turn in an unlicensed contractor in a heart beat. I have in the past and will continue to do so.” “To help illustrate the point, I recently did some work at the local prison. It was like 'old home week;' I personally knew far to many of the population ..... and had helped put them there!” To others, such as those wiped out paying child support (e.g., child support, loss of family home and car, necessitating replacement, daycare costs, insurance and medical expenses and so forth), which is often as much as 100% of the amount a custodial parent receives from public assist to support herself and the children), you should note that government, at all levels, cannot go off on fishing expeditions to look for evidence of a crime (reference, for example, the fourth and fifth amendments to the Constitution FOR the United States, or article one, sections seven and nine of the Washington Constitution). Agents must have witnessed the crime, or someone must file a complaint, which places them accountable, should their allegation be false. Agents of a government agency are considered, in case law, to be police officers and are subject to ALL laws relative (cite available on request). As such, they cannot go searching for evidence of a crime on the mere oral promotion of some disgruntled individual. One made the subject of an agency’s attention can compel it to reveal the source of the complaint. If the complaint was a mere oral statement, the agency can be called to account for failing to obtain a formal complaint, such as a sworn complaint. The logic for this is simple. There are many who would file false allegations, if they could do so with impunity. However, a written complaint accompanied by a declaration, or sworn statement, if proven false or made without actual knowledge can subject the complainant to criminal charges. Even absent a written formal complaint, most states have well defined public records acts through which one could ascertain if a given individual has a pattern of making unsworn complaints on which agencies act. For example, in Washington, the state, you can access agency phone records, memos and so forth pursuant to chapter 42.56 RCW. If the individual has made complaints, pursuant to RCW 9A,72.080, if he does not know the statements to be true, he can be charged with a crime, sued civilly or both. Mean while, there is no crime in seeking employment, such as by running ads to let the public know you are for hire. You are not, in your ad required to disclose that the hiring individual or person that they will be liable for withholding and such. That can be addressed in the "interview." However, you would be well advised to insure that your “employment” does not require you to act in the capacity. For example, the hiring entity may have to provide the tools (whether rented or purchased), dictate the details of the job and pay by the hour, rather than bid. The laws in your state may vary, but to those who hold themselves out as compliant with all laws, these are laws too.
Next you'll be debating the meaning of the word "is."
First, the examples I cited were all matters of record, not opinion. The scofflaws were either already convicted of violating specific laws, or actively attempting to avoid complying with court orders. Due process had already been completed, and judgement rendered. Generally speaking, it's not for me to attempt to second-guess the court; such is the path to chaos.
An unlicensed contractor is not meerly 'advertising that he's available for hire.' You are most dishonest in suggestiong so. Rather, he is presenting himself as qualified to do work - work that, by definition, he is not qualified to do. If it's your intention to broaden this discussion into a debate about the legitimacy of various licensing laws ... that's a separate topic alltogether. Licensing laws are real, and are enforced by real courts and penalties corrected. Like it or not, that's a fact, and not open to debate.
As others have pointed out, there are various places that have fewer restrictions on operating a business. I have no quarrel with someone in compliance with his local laws. I suggest that others, desiring to live under those laws, consider relocation.
Unless, of course, they have other reasons for chosing to be criminals ... a very real possibility, considering the sundry criminals I've found posing as contractors.
I am kind of insulted at your additude. I am you of those unlisenced hacks. Why because I don't need one. I am a wood worker. period. But people know that I understand codes, from many trades. I have worked with one "legal" plumber and his work is garbage. He dosn't have a sniff about anything beyound plumbing and gas fitting.
His last stunt was said just move this wall 3 inches. No that is a hallway with a minimum width. That's ok put the stackable washer and dryer there. So no access to electric panel.The GC who will pour a footing over disturbed soil etc. So report my for working out of my chev truck. My liecence to make orthopeadic footwear was shuffled out from underneath a bunch of us. I developed the exam for ### sakes and now I have to serve 6.000 hours under some one who Fites shoes sends his orthotic's to a lab. Go pound sand to the liecense police.I also was an RN but could not keep enough hours, so they want $7.700 tuition for on online upgrade course. My original tuition was $ 1.000.00 a year for 2 years. And they wonder why they a crying for nurses. I do not "nurse" anymore but the phone rings from friends and family, checking out things. I would love to go back to Nursing but have to be a criminal hack loser to make the cash. So If I am a Professional liscened nurse and make a set of cabinets on the weekend am I a hardcore criminal?
I have built 2 houses and renoed many more for me. inspections were ok with very few changes to be made. This house, I had to move a light switch as to close to a shower inspite of GFIC and the inspector was pleased to see the grommets in the steel studs were the elecrtical was ran.
I know were to look for information. I know what I can do and can't do, I have great problem solving skills. Come on report me as your duty as a citizen. I could not get the police to get the bullies off my daughters ####. She ended up in the psych ward. I could not press charges as to a manager that was using my wife's alarm # to enter a government building, while I was accused of "causing trouble". As said your view of the word is black and white. no shades of gray. Working at the prison you say you saw some of these folks you know. I say guilt by association and you should be in jail also. McCarthey at it's best.
Hope you can raise from the dead, to ask if your mortician has his paper's, as your wife may save a buck on planting you.
Welp it seems many here have swallowed a dictionary and can use every word in a single post.... and the rest can dance around the issue without ever adressing it.
Bottom line it's easy to be licensed, all it takes is meeting the basic requirements. If you can't... you're clearly a hack (this isn't like spending 10 years in medical school)... and all I can hope is one day you run into a homeowner hell bent on screwing you for making a bad choice... A risk I'm not willing to take.
If you are obeying the laws in your area, I have no trouble with your business. If you are breaking them, you are a criminal. Personally, I;m not too concerned as to whether I am popular with criminals.
As for the incompetence of others ... I fail to see how two wrongs make a right. What does anothers' performance have to do with whether or not you choose to be a criminal? I fail to follow the reasoning.
Did you ever break a law?
Did you ever tell a lie?
Have you ever done anything wrong?
It sounds like your are perfect!
Good luck with that.How can you understand God if you can't understand people? How can you understand people if you can't understand yourself?
Reno lives and works in Nevada. <!----><!----><!---->
He as a licensed contractor has the legal obligation to report unlicensed contractors to the state board. This is not debatable, nor is it an ethical or moral choice. To fail to do so puts his license at risk. <!----><!---->
Nevada has an active Contractors Board, which has teeth. It investigates and prosecutes unlicensed contractors on a continuous basis. They also do quite a bit of public outreach and education. It is easy to tell if a contractor is licensed: They are required to display their license number, and the name of the company on all of their vehicles and equipment. Contract / Construction Managers must be licensed as Contractors, Engineers, or Architects. The only exception is for owner/builders; and after a casino executive decided that he was qualified to build a large tower, they tightened up on the limits that an owner/builder can construct. (Said tower has a visible misalignment in one of the exterior support columns.) <!----><!---->
Having lived and worked in Nevada which has fairly strict requirements for licensing, coupled with active enforcement; and in Idaho, where anyone who wants to can be a contractor; I know which area has the better constructed housing. I am frequently amazed at what I find when working on things. <!----><!---->
Based on my own experience, I am very much a proponent of contractor licensing, and active efforts to identify, and prosecute scofflaws.
Someone once asked me what I thought the difference between government and us was. The following was my response: "We The People may do anything not proscribed us by law.
Conversely, our representative government may only do those
things prescribed by law." A favorite story of mine is of a professor not familiar with American law. After hearing the term several times, he asked, "[w]hat are these loopholes you students keep talking about?" The term was described, or defined for him. He then responded as follows: "Oh, those are the rights your government leaves you."
I made no such claims. Feel free to assume that I am the greatest sinner of all time.
Whatever my shortcomings may be, they are irrelevant to the illegal activity of others. More important, ignoring their illegal, predatory behavior places me in lint to become their next victim.
I make no bones about it: I am protecting myself when I help protect you from a criminal.
For crime to flourish, the criminal needs three things: the tolerance of others, the ability to hide among the innocent, and a safe refuge. I do what I can to prevent the criminal from having those.
We're not talking about parking tickets here. The "unlicensed contractor" is meerly camoflage, allowing the criminal to blend in, to be inconspicuous, as he seeks out his next victim - or, at the very least, elude law enforcement ... who have already heard from his last victim.
Crime: Not on my crew, not in my company, not on my jobs. That's where it all starts.
"I have worked with one "legal" plumber and his work is garbage. He dosn't have a sniff about anything beyound plumbing and gas fitting.
His last stunt was said just move this wall 3 inches. No that is a hallway with a minimum width. That's ok put the stackable washer and dryer there. So no access to electric panel."
I hate to say this, but your anecdote is in support of licensing. The plumber, who is licensed as a plumber, can do plumbing and gas fitting. When he starts to operate outside of the scope of his license, he does not follow code.
Now, I don't think that getting a license magically makes one a better tradesman. However, I find it interesting that you criticize the plumber for his unlicensed work, yet you use that as support for your argument against licensing.
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
I think you missed some of the point. He was not asked to do anything but plumbing. But not having a tiny understanding of codes of the other trades, is proof that licensing does not make a good tradesman. Should they know if you have a mechanical room, with almost every trade working in that room. You should know that you can't put anything in front of an electrical panel. 36 inch minimum when I wired my house. with permits and inspections.Reading the national building code book one buys for about $90.00, tells you that hallways need to be this wide. Barrier free access, truss spans, beam spans, how long a siding nail should be. Bo If I want to know this it it easy knowledge to obtain. How does one get a license with out having an idea of how things are built, residential and commercial?During some part of training the national code book should be mandatory once read.As A nurse I could not do x-rays, but sure had to understand what they need for total client care. Understood the role of the ortho technicians, so I could assist client and revisit nursing plan for other shift's. So why do the trades think they work in isolation, not part of a team that is "building some thing".I should go write year one exam for carpentry and see if I can pass. I mentioned this to the sparky and he said I should and he could provable get it too.Do you need a ticket to demolish residential property? Don't think so but I could be corrected. So to be a good demolisher, one would expect know how it went together ?
or you would be in the ER. or dead.
If you need a wire cut off you call the pro's, same with gas lines, water, waste, asbestos heaven forbid. A license should have a certain amount of common sense/knowledge built in to it.Why do I see BI at sites full of licensed trades, getting written up for not being tied off, hard hats, no training for scissor lift.If they had a "General trade" person I would take it.A friend of mine was looking at the locksmithing field. No training available in Western Canada. 2 courses under review, start date undetermined. So what would be reasonable distance to go for the training? With all the new security systems are more complex, the need is rising! So who is going to make this available Union's, Federal/provincial/state governments, industry?I do not disapprove with licsencing but that should show a professional, attitude with best intentions, needing inspections on work I agree with! but why if all these trades are supposed to so good, why the need for inspections? I don't fear them.But I don't care if the truck has a permit number on it. My doctor doctors not have to. their surgeries are not inspected, The nurses pass medication with out inspection, Lawyers don't get inspections on every real estate transaction. These professionals are responsible to their clients, if they make mistakes they can be help liable for there actions, in many ways.
Calling someone a criminal is a blanket statement. If fellow hanging a door or fixing some drywall is equal to that of the guy that steals your truck and tools, I don't get it.There is no designation as a furniture maker. That is what I like to do, so is bolting a cabinet to a wall a crime? Who would you call with a ticket to hang a mirror or coat rack? Who would want a pity little job like that? would you drive across town or even return a phone call for such a request? Would you charge a poor senior $100.00 to plane a sticky door?
An unlicensed contractor is not meerly 'advertising that he's available for hire.' .... Rather, he is presenting himself as qualified to do work - work that, by definition, he is not qualified to do.
By whose definition? Yours?
If it's your intention to broaden this discussion into a debate about the legitimacy of various licensing laws ... that's a separate topic alltogether.
No, it is not. That is the topic. And you are avoiding it by throwing out red herrings about criminals you claim to have put in jail.
The question was asked, 'Is it okay to rat out an unlicensed contractor?' That question poses an ethical problem, not a legal one. To wit: If the licensing laws are not legitimate, then axiomatically reporting an unlicensed contractor in the hope that he will be arrested is also not legitimate.
Many good, solid arguments have been advanced here by various people as to the lack of legitimacy of this type of licensing. You have not responded substantively to any of them, but instead continue to insist that all unlicensed tradesmen are felons, hacks, child-support evaders, tax-cheats, illegal immigrants, and tool thieves. (You forgot child-abusers, polygamists, pimps, white-slavers, dope-pushers, and gun-runners.)
You take refuge from your critics in the hackneyed defense that 'I'm only doing my duty', yet you seem to have forgotten that every Näzi war criminal prosecuted at Nuremburg after World War II said exactly the same thing. And you also failed to answer my direct question about what duty is.
Licensing laws are real, and are enforced by real courts and penalties corrected. Like it or not, that's a fact, and not open to debate.
No, again. One of the biggest arguments against the licensing laws is that they are not enforced with any regularity, mostly because as written they are unenforceable. Many posts have stated that this is the case in many different jurisdictions. Your 'fact' is not a fact...and in any case, it is most certainly open to debate.
Whatever my shortcomings may be, they are irrelevant to the illegal activity of others.
'Do as I say, not as I do'?
Personally, I;m not too concerned as to whether I am popular with criminals.
No comment.
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
Edited 2/28/2009 11:40 pm ET by Dinosaur
When I report a criminal, I am meerly performing my duty as a citizen.
That is a legitimate point of view, Reno, and one of the bases for maintaining a society of laws (as opposed to a society based on force majeur) but I think you are cheating yourself a bit by taking a limited view of 'duty'.
Just like about everything else, there are different levels of duty, and sometimes they come into conflict with each other. Let's take a look at a few ordinary, personal examples:
You could say those are personal duties, and obviously, they're interrelated. Now let's look at a few collective duties:
Nothing mysterious about either of those, I think. But now let's put some of these duties into conflict, and ask how Joe resolves the problem:
What should Joe do? Which of his duties gets top priority?
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
I finally found/made time to read this entire thread. I, like you stated in post .35, do project management. I had a MD MHIC license as well as a DC license for over 20 years. My company is called Construction Management Services and I stay busy.This thread has been all over the road but I do believe that CM is the best system. All of the contractors I recommend to the owner are licensed and insured.Here is my typical letter of engagement. I also attach my current insurrance certificate.CMS will provide construction management services for miscellaneous projects at 3xxx5 College Avenue, Columbus GA.
Assist owner with the following:
1 Create specifications and secure bids from contractors (paint, floor, roof,
miscellaneous metals, and any other trade required).
2 Trades contracts will be between the owner and the contractor.
3 CMS will be present to supervise contractors and inspect work.
4 CMS will provide progress reports to owner via e-mail.
5 Contactors to submit invoices to owner via CMS. CMS will review all invoices and
verify work is completed in the specified manner. Owner will make payments
directly to contractor .
6 Warranties will be between the contractor and owner.
7 CMS will create a schedule of work and phasing of work with owner's approval.
8 Services provided by CMS will be performed on a time and materiel basis rated at
xx.xx per man hour.
9 CMS will invoice owner on a bi-weekly basis and include copies of materials receipts.
Invoices are due upon receipt.
During renovation or remodeling work on any building there is always a significant risk of uncovering hidden problems.
CMS will advise owner of any concealed decay or deterioration.
I/We agree to the above conditions of engagement. Chuck Slive, work, build, ...better with wood
One thing your contract points out is that the HO using a project management company instead of a GC assumes the legal responsibility for his own project. That, in turn, saves him some money.
I'm of the opinion that as long as the HO understands this difference clearly, it's perfectly ethical. My contract specifically names the HO as the General Contractor (as that designation creates the legal basis for the contract under our provincial laws). But that's not to say I won't go to bat for the HO if a sub screws up; I look at that as part of my job, even if the contract doesn't make it my legal obligation.
I've eaten a few bills from subs over the years. Most recently, I ate 35% of a painting sub's billed hours and then did the job over myself. Not fun, but in the long run it's the best way to keep credibility with clients.
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
On permits and such, maybe this would help: Thurston County Rental Owners Association v. Thurston County, 931 P.2d 208, 85 Wash.App. 171 (Wash.App.Div.2 02/21/1997) "Samis Land Company v. City of Soap Lake, 96 Wn.App. 819 (7/27/99) - In this case, Division III of the Court of Appeals invalidated the City of Soap Lake's ordinance which allowed the City to assess a $60 per year per lot fee as a "standby charge" against vacant, unimproved land which abutted lines providing water or sewer service but which were unconnected. The court applied the three factors set out in Covell v. City of Seattle in determining that the charge imposed by the City was an invalid nonuniform property tax rather than a valid regulatory fee."This case laid out that the money collected for a permit must go back to what it was charged for, or the permit fee became a tax, and an unlawful use of the entities' police powers.
Without going back and rereading the entire thread, has anyone come up with a good reason to not have a licenses, if one is required?
What are the upsides of operating an illegal business?
You can charge less... and get away with substandard work. You don't need to deal with pesky liability insurance policies.When customers have asked, I tell them that it really isn't much to get a MHIC license, so if they don't there is probably a good reason to stay away.
Geezzz... what happened to the advocates for the unlicensed?
What are the upsides of operating an illegal business?
I'll take exception to the use of the term 'illegal' because the connotations of that word are all negative and defamatory. I think there is an important ethical difference between breaking a 'good' law and ignoring a bad one. (Think of Martin Luther King, for example. He ignored many, many bad laws, but would you want to characterise his behaviour as 'illegal'?)
Since most of us are more or less in agreement that the current licensing laws are no good because they are unenforced and unenforceable, I'd suggest we use the term 'extra-legal' instead (meaning 'outside the legal framework'), as an acknowledgement that the laws currently on the books don't work.
That said, I can think of some benefits to operating in an extra-legal fashion, but each one is paired with a matching disadvantage. For instance:
For the long haul, I would say any tradesman intending to work full-time in the business--and who is capable of performing work of a high enough calibre--would probably be better off getting a license unless the jurisdiction in which he works has such a corrupt licensing system that he can't get (or afford the bribes to get) one. For people who have a 'day job' and work at this evenings and weekends, or for only part of the year, or for a brief, temporary period to cover some unforseen expenses (vehicle, illness in the family, whatever), working without a license makes more sense.
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
Who's to determine the difference between a 'good' or 'bad' law? The lawbreaker? If a contractor doesn't like the laws in the state in which they operate, they should campaign to change them......or move, or get a job at McDonalds.Either you're breaking the law, or you're not.......View Image
Who's to determine the difference between a 'good' or 'bad' law?
That's a legitimate question. Ultimately, the answer is, 'History'.
Bad laws stay on the books until so many people are ignoring them that they essentially implode, or melt away like the Wicked Witch of the West. Again: Think of MLK and the black civil rights movement in the 60s. Each individual who ignored such bad laws during their 'lifetime' made himself subject to the sactions provided for in the law, but in so doing exercised his duty to object. That's very important, unless you wish to live in a state that can admit no wrong.
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
Edited 2/23/2009 8:07 pm ET by Dinosaur
"Think of MLK and the black civil rights movement in the 60s. Each individual who ignored such bad laws during their 'lifetime' made himself subject to the sactions provided for in the law, but in so doing exercised his duty to object."
I'm not a big PC guy, but don't you think it's quite a leap to jump from MLK and his civil disobedience of laws that oppressed an entire race to a carpenter who doesn't want to pay to have a license?
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
It should be pointed out that MLK, and friends, were actually seeking to enforce the civil rights laws that were passed under Reconstruction, guaranteeing equal rights to the freed slaves.
In other words, the sundry Jim Crow and Segregation laws were blatant violations of existing law - and those laws were not being enforced.
This is a bit different from the assertion that a law need not be followed, simply because it inconveniences someone.
As I posted earlier .... an awful lot of the 'righteous' opposition I have seen directed at various laws has come from folks with other agendas, who seek only to divert you from such little 'details' such as fugitive warrants.
Edited 2/24/2009 11:23 am ET by renosteinke
....and tax evasion, building permit evasion. building inspection evasion, license fee evasion, insurance evasion, etc. etc..View Image
If those were the ONLY issues, I might be more sympathetic to the unlicensed. However, I have been witness to many, many situations where the unlicensed 'contractor' was simply an outlaw ... where unlicensed contracting was but a tiny part of their criminal lifestyle.
To help illustrate the point, I recently did some work at the local prison. It was like 'old home week;' I personally knew far to many of the population ..... and had helped put them there!
I'm not a big PC guy, but don't you think it's quite a leap to jump from MLK and his civil disobedience of laws that oppressed an entire race to a carpenter who doesn't want to pay to have a license?
LOL. Thanks, Jon--I was waiting for someone to call me on that one, and I'm just as glad it was you.
The answer is, yes and no.
I do not wish to belittle the fight of Dr. King and his followers by likening them to carps being denied the free right to work, but I do see some very interesting parallels in the two cases.
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
We're back in the "Business" folder. I figured this thread got pushed to the Tavern as I couldn't see it (I opted out a while back).All I will say is that I'm glad that I haven't been put in situations where I have to do something illegal to do something else in a legal manner. If what you say is true, a contractor seeking a license would seemingly have to commit some type of crime (bribery, fraud, etc.) to get a license. That's just not right. As far as I can remember, I've never had to make that choice and I'm thankful for it.As far as limiting competition, I'm sure the license board has some thoughts about that, but I cannot say that I see too many areas where real limits of competition are really in play. Of course, this only applies to my state, others can and are very different. I think the rules that a licensed contractor must follow in this state are more of the "lets impose some rules that generate tax revenue" stripe vs. the "lets impose some rules so we can have a quasi-monopoly".We'll see what the future holds...
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
Now if we can keep it here>G<
You continually elude to a mysterious evasion of sales tax? Here in MD the only way around it is either by purchasing under someone elses tax exempt # (like a church) and recieve no mark up on materials or pass it along at an inflated number for the customer to pay.
Where is it you work that sales tax can be totally avoided?
Where is it you work that sales tax can be totally avoided?
Read his profile, he lives in Canada with the high sales tax and GST, both schemes to provide that "free" health care!
You continually elude to a mysterious evasion of sales tax? Here in MD the only way around it is either by purchasing under someone elses tax exempt # (like a church) and recieve no mark up on materials or pass it along at an inflated number for the customer to pay.
I think you must have misunderstood what I was saying. Unlicensed tradesmen and contractors don't evade the sales tax, they have to pay it themselves instead of being able to purchase materials untaxed using a QST/GST re-sale number. Licensed contractors billing more than $30,000 per year can apply for and get a tax registration number and can provide it to their suppliers so they don't have to pay the sales taxes (fed + provincial) to their suppliers...but they do have to charge and collect those taxes from their clients, and then pass the money on to the province and the feds.
Anyone--licensed or not--billing under 30 grand per annum doesn't qualify for a tax number.
The law states that a client shall pay the tax on labour directly to the tax authority when the contractor or tradesman does not qualify to have his own tax registration number. My invoices all state this in black and white at the bottom of every page. I cannot, however, force the client to comply.
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
I knew a lawyer that told me the courts don't hand down justice.
They hand down decisions.
It depends on what side of the decision you are on.
Most people think primarily of their own interests.
Even when someone says they were wrong, they probably have a glimmer of leniency in mind when they say it.
So they say it not because it is right, but in their own interest.