I”m building a 24 x 16 patio cover, HO has 3 dogs and agrees to keep them locked up while I’m there. On Fri. I go to lunch, HO sees I’m not there and lets the dogs out. One proceeds to chew through the belt on my $90 Alta bags, destroy 2 chalkboxes, 6 pencils, and gnaw the leather wrapped handle on my framing gun.
I told the HO I’m going to have to add $120 to the bid because this was an unforeseen expense, and his fault.
HO says no way, accidents happen, he’s not paying for it. While we’re talking dogs are jumping everywhere, one manages to fire framegun with no safety and shoot second dog in the leg.
After $343 trip to the vet HO wants me to pay . As much as I want to I don’t even say “accidents happen”, I just say let’s call it a wash. HO refuses and say vet bill will come out of my payment. I have a signed contract, when I explain about the possibility of a lien he tells me he just bought the house 2 years ago and isn’t going anywhere.
Suggestions?
Replies
HO Sounds like a really unreasonable person.
If that is the case then there is probably no way to salvage this situation in my opinion.
Document everything, communications, timeline of events and take photos of work done to date and surrounding area.
Inform the HO in writing of your intentions.
Keep everything in writing.
Then file the lien.
The lien will stick like glue to the HO's home and will stick in his craw as well.
And get that framegun with no safety off site pronto.
And try to remove the work permit if it is in your name.
For the future,for clients with critters, write into your contracts a clause about pets and that it is the HO's responsibility to keep them out of the construction zone.
Good luck!
Tom
You Don't Want to Know.
You Aren't Going to Know.
Hope you hit the trifecta. You asked client to keep animals tied up and away from dangerous work areas. But dogs are let in, damage your equipment and cause a gun to propel a nail into the other offender's leg. He owes you everything for the dog damaged and you owe him nothing for his dog's injury. The dog didn't belong there. The HO put him in harm's way.Tie this guy up in liens from here to tomorrow. What a dips##t.
In my opinion the homeowner is responsible for both the cost of the vet bill and the loss of your tools.
I don't suppose you had it in writing that the dogs weren't allowed in the back yard while your working?
If you can't appeal to his common sense I'd forgo the lien and take him to small claims once the job is complete.
Edited 8/20/2006 6:50 pm ET by CAGIV
Question about liens to anyone who knows.
how does a lien affect the ability to re-finance your house
Incumberances against the property are taken in the order inwhich they are filed (Property taxes are an exception, and maybe IRS liens, but I don't think so).Assume that they have a mortgage that would be first. And maybe it was 5/15/80 deal so that there is a 2nd mortage for the 15%.Next would be any liens in the order in which they are filed.So if the property was foreclosed on any proceeds received would go to the first mortage holder upto the amount they are due, then any remaining to the 2nd mortage holder upto the amount that they are due, then any remainder to the first lien holder up to the amount that they are due, etc, etc, and any remaindeer to the home owner.But if a mortgage was refi'd then the first one is paid off and the new one is recorded and they are at the end of the list. So, in general they won't do it unless then end up first. That means that all other liens need to be cleared up during the refi.It also means that the mechnics lien typically won't try to foreclose because they there has to be bids for the property enough to pay off all of those in front of them and then leave some for them.But a lien is not the only way to collect.You can still sue and in a case like this it would be small claims court. Then if you get a judgement you can collect by attaching bank accounts and wages in additon to liening the property.Also a lien needs to be perfected. Basically filing a lien just gives notice that there is a dispute.And within a certain time period you have to perfect it. I believe that is basically a law suite unless the HO does not respond and then you can get it by default. But I am really not sure of the process.
Thanks for the explanation
That pretty much covers it. In this county I can file a lien for $35. It stays on record for 8 months at which time it disappears, unless I take action by filing a lawsuit seeking to perfect the lien. If payment of the lien is ordered then either the owner pays or my attorney asks the judge to order the sheriff to sell the property on the courthouse steps. Mortgages, tax bills, etc., get paid first, then the lien if any money is left.
If your contract is well-written it should allow you to recover most or all of the cost of hiring an attorney, filing suit, etc... but there's no guarantee of that.
No, just my standard contract with job specifics.
I've been told that in TX, with a lien I can foreclose if I'm willing to pay enough to get it done.
But, I've also had a lien on another house since 1997 that still hasn't gotten me my money.
Edited 8/20/2006 7:07 pm ET by mctex
what about small claims court?
the home owner is resposible... got a copy of the movie....
amazing.. accidents happen to everybody else but not to him...
I think this is just an eye opener to what's to come...
time to find a way out...
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming
WOW!!! What a Ride!
Forget the primal scream, just ROAR!!!
wanna guess where Snert is living now...
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming
WOW!!! What a Ride!
Forget the primal scream, just ROAR!!!
Sure sounds like snert."Citius, Altius, Fortius"
mc,
File a claim against his homeowners insurance for the damage the dogs did and see how he reacts to that. If he insists on the vet bill thing ... call your insurance company, thats what you have them for.
Bill Koustenis
Advanced Automotive Machine
Waldorf Md
A claim on your own CGL for $343 for injury to a pet by a nailgun with no safety... I cannot imagine a worse idea. They may pay, but they'll probably raise your rates and/or cancel you, and they'll definitely bill you for the deductible. Forget it...
I missed the part about no safety on the nail gun :) Lousy situation all around.Bill Koustenis
Advanced Automotive Machine
Waldorf Md
You're gonna lose the $120 and the $343. You could possibly have collected the $120 but now that your possibly-illegal nail gun injured his dog you'll be lucky if that's all you lose.
$463 is not enough to fool around over. I know it's not chump change, but the time lost on a small claim will be more than that. $463 is definitely not enough to file a lien over, because you will need to hire a lawyer and file suit to close the lien and win a judgement. The first two hours of the lawyer's time will be more than that. Start thinking lien when it's $10K or more.
Here's a clause from my contract:
5.6 Cooperation and Non-Interference. In order that the Contractor can complete the Work on schedule without unnecessary interruptions, during the Contractor’s prosecution of the Work, the Owner agrees that neither the Owner nor any other party, including other contractors, will perform any work on the premises, unless the Contractor and Owner otherwise agree in writing. Owner shall fully cooperate with Contractor and others engaged in the Work on the project. Owner shall not interfere with the performance of such Work, nor permit others so to interfere, and shall cause to be removed from the Work site any factors deemed by the Contractor to be interference, including but not limited to pets and children. Owner shall coordinate with Contractor so that the Work of the entire project may be performed with the utmost speed consistent with good practice. In the case of conflict or other reasons for coordination, Contractor may direct the necessary coordination or the performance of certain Work. All tools, equipment, materials, supplies, debris receptacles, and other items brought to the project site by Contractor are for Contractor’s use only, and Owner shall not use or disturb nor permit others to use or disturb such items.
That clause makes a lot of sense, looks like I'm going to have to rethink my contract some.
This is the first major issue I've had with a HO in almost 10 years. I work almost exclusively by referrals, don't competitively bid, and if I don't get a good feeling from the HO I either walk away or add in a PITA factor in my bid and put them 3 months down the road on my schedule and see how they deal with it.
Unfortunately, he was out of town when I signed contract with the wife, she seemed a little more reasonable. I'll find out Mon. I guess.
The real problem at this point is that I have already paid for the material,and framed and decked it. Only lacking soffit and shingles, so we're talking a little more than $463.
I think he owes you the lot. And you should find a way to depart before it gets worse. I dont care if the gun had a safety or not. Since when did you become a pet sitter? Even if it isn't in the contract, that is such a basic common sense thing to keep kids and pets away from construction, I mean, what kind of a dolt are you dealing with anyway? A court is going to say well what would a reasonable person do, and the answer is keep their pets away. If the dog didnt find the gun, it'd have found something else. One way or the other, this needs a resolution before you spend one more minute on that job.
"Sometimes when I consider what tremendous consequences come from little things, I am tempted to think -- there are no little things" - Bruce Barton
I'm going to take a slightly different opinion than some expressed here... it was reasonable for the HO to let the dogs out while you were gone -- they need a chance to empty their bladders and get some fresh air. Since you weren't there at the time it was a good opportunity for them to exercise, so long as they were back in the house when you finished lunch.
But it was not reasonable for them to use your tools as chew toys, so the HO should pay for the damage. As for the nail gun... well I didn't say I had ALL the answers.
Edited 8/20/2006 10:57 pm ET by ZooGuy
I think the law would side with the homeowner. The contractor is a professional who is supposed to handle the job safely and efficiently in all ways. The fact that tools were laying around and got eaten is not going to impress the judge, especially when he learns that one dog was shot. It's the contractor's role to take care of every aspect of the jobsite, especially anything hazardous.
We've been working on a real PITA job for about 6 weeks. It's a house that has a wraparound porch. All three doors from the house open onto this porch, and there are three different stairs down off of the porch. Our job has been to replace the entire floor of the porch and all of the stairs.
It has been a daily challenge to demo and replace flooring and stairs while maintaining safe egress from the house at all times, AND safe egress from the house out every door and down every stair each night after work. I am quite sure that if my elderly client were to come out one of his doors and fall thru the joists, or somehow become trapped in a house fire because the flooring was missing, I'd be jailed for life with a couple of really big, ugly guys. Keeping the guy from getting hurt or pissed during this job is #1. Replacing the floor is almost an afterthought, something we're doing while trying to keep the place clean and safe.
>>The contractor is a professional who is supposed to handle the job safely and efficiently in all ways.<<He did that, he asked that the dogs be confined. Perhaps you'd have him go the extra mile and roll out cyclone fence, topped with spools of razorwire.
Run your jobs however you please. A gun laying on the floor that will fire if someone kicks it is stupid. He's lucky it was just the dog.
I think HO should be responsible for the first damage to tools, but The second shopuld have never happened. When we leave a job. tools are unplugged and locked down or placed where it is jnot possible for the HO or his guests, etc to hurt themselves. If necessary, there are barriers erected. That dog getting nailed would not havve happened if the gun had simply been un corked. There should not be a disabled safety either. That one is on the contractor
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
if you had stayed for my lecture, you would know the answer. ;-)
as for the rest of the "legal" advice here, the OP got what he paid for, and it's worth every penny.
SHGFor every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-H.L. Mencken
Ooooh, I know the "right" answer--he shoulda hired a lawyer and paid a handsome retainer! :)Couldn't be in NY to hear the lecture, and not a contractor so I won't encounter this specific situation. Just curious what the answer is, if you can say so in a way that doesn't violate any legal ethics.
Not likely. He likes to hint at the possible right answer while denigrating the comments of anyone else who decided to do something besides law school.
Frankly, I'm startled by the number of indignant tradesmen here who seem to think that the gun was OK and it's the HO's fault. As far as I'm concerned that shows a major lack of real-world understanding of what will happen if the HO decides to sue and the contractor hands it off to his insurance. $463 will just be the beginning.
Good thing we all just play lawyers on the internet.
Not likely. He likes to hint at the possible right answer while denigrating the comments of anyone else who decided to do something besides law school.
not true at all. I only denigrate people who pretend to know something when they're utterly clueless. Too bad you didn't come to tipifest. Everyone missed you terribly.
SHGFor every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-H.L. Mencken
I only denigrate people who pretend to know something when they're utterly clueless
Hmmmmmmmmm. Let me think........ where have I seen that sort of behavior before? View Image
>>Too bad you didn't come to tipifest. Everyone missed you terribly.
Yeah, I doubt that. Seriously, I have so many overdue family obligations it would be really hard to justify. There's kith and kin spread out all over the place and they all seem to think I never visit. That does NOT change the fact that I want to see who the hell all you guys are! Have one out west or even halfway next time and I'll git there.
That does NOT change the fact that I want to see who the hell all you guys are! Have one out west or even halfway next time and I'll git there.
Don't go and start threatening us now! We know you don't ever leave Gillian's Island or whatever you call that place you live......
Bob
Hey man, we don't leave here and we don't let no one else come here either. Except Blodgett, he can come up if he wants.
I can't remember exactly, but there was a map of BT'ers a ways back, and us left coasters were outnumbered, but not too badly. Someone within a thousand miles of here speak up and have one. I'd do it but y'all would never come here, even if I tell the guys to let your boat into the harbor.
Boss Hog, the Blodgetts and I were having a conversation regarding a West Coast Fest over lunch on Saturday. Jim seems up for it, and I know I'd be there (who needs anyone else, right?). I'll keep workin' him over the next few months.....
Bob
More hijack!
Northwest fest! East coasters would love the rock! Make it local, and more of the west coasters will show up. Heck Luka could make it in his Bronco/blazer what ever it is he's driving. I'd break away for a weekend to put faces to all these names.
by the way did Barry insulation work out for you!
Rob
Hey, if you guys can get here I'll provide beer for several hundred, and floor sleeping spots too.
>>by the way did Barry insulation work out for you!
Man... sore subject... got the shell complete but we're so outta money right now the interior is on hold. I might sell a kidney to get some money for romex, then I'll call Barry. Still have his number.
Hey! Northwestcoast fest? I'll be there!
Whereinheck is ROY, Wa.?Quality repairs for your home.
AaronR ConstructionVancouver, Canada
Yeah, this east coast focus has got me feeling all left out. Some of us westerners need to get together. Maybe some of you will be going to JLC in Seattle?
I'd really like to - especially since I have cousins and friends there. My only problem would the Saturday sessions, me being Orthodox Jewish.Quality repairs for your home.
AaronR ConstructionVancouver, Canada
I do believe ROY is east of Olympia, and south of Tacoma. I'd try to make the time to meet the faces and names of this place. JLC in Seattle? It's definatly a thought, sounds like David Meiland is going, any other northwesters? When and where?
Rob
http://www.jlclive.com/
legal ethics
sorry, don't know anyone by that name.
What I don't do here is try to give specific legal advice. Too many variables for it to be accurate, and bad advice is really, really unhelpful (plus there's too much competition giving bad advice here).
But my short answer is that HO is liable for the tool damage and there's a 75/27 split of liability for doggy damage. Bigger problem is the argument they are having over the toold before the doggy got nailed. Sounds like a communication failure that led to a big argument over a small problem. And the doggy got the worst of it.
SHGFor every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-H.L. Mencken
>>legal ethics
>sorry, don't know anyone by that name. At least you didn't suggest they were redundant. :)>What I don't do here is try to give specific legal advice.I know, and I wasn't asking that. Just trying to get beyond the "I know, and the rest of youse don't, and I ain't saying". I was already curious and that made me curiouser and it woulda been aggravating to have no answer at all. Thanks for your answer...satisfied my curiosity.
sorry to bring this back, but I just wanted to explain a bit. it's a little different for me to answer then it is for other people. In fact, at tipi Don and I were talking about this, since we're both lawyers and litigators, and the difficulty in having half a story, not knowing the local laws and practices, and not being able to ask questions that could make the answer turn around 180 degrees. It means that anything we say could be totally wrong, Our training and ethics prevent us from doing this.
What we do see are responses that are facially wrong, often using legal terms or concepts that are simply misapplied or misunderstood. So, we are put in a position of knowing that someone is being told the wrong thing, without being able to give them the correct advice.
On the other hand, we keep wondering why somone seeking legal advice asks a bunch of contractors. You wouldn't go to a lawyer board to ask how to build trusses, would you?
So we're not just being smart-azz know it alls. We're just trying to prevent someone from acting on bad advice. We may not be able to give them the right advice, but can say something to stop them from relying on wrong advice. It's the best we can do to help under the circumstances.
SHGFor every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-H.L. Mencken
>we keep wondering why somone seeking legal advice asks a bunch of contractors.9 times out of 10 they're just looking for someone to commiserate with, or agree with them. Equally curious is why a bunch of contractors would OFFER legal opinions when asked, when it is clear what most think about a layperson, or god forbid a lawyer, offering construction advice!fwiw, in a case like this posting, it is interesting, if an atty is lurking, to, if not get a legal opinion, at least learn some of the factors that might influence its disposition. To just learn something about the proper way to frame the situation. I get smarter here from people reflecting on non-construction matters as much as construction. But I certainly understand why you wouldn't offer specific advice. An engineer friend won't participate in forums for comparable reasons.
the problem isn't about posting some of the general concepts that are involved, but that there have been a dozen posts before you see the OP that seem like the poster is very knowledgable about something but in reality go off half cocked and are wrong.
So you start out in the position of disagreeing with some carp's view of the law, and then they want to argue the point. And you can't explain why they are totally off based because they don't know anything and you have to back to the beginning of time and explain everything, and still they're going to disagree. It's just a waste of time and energy, and it still doesn't get you anywhere. BTW, this happens in real life all the time, with clients telling me what some unknown fat lady on the street corner told them, and I'm expected to explain why the fat lady is right or wrong. I tell them that if they want the fat lady to be their lawyer, why are they coming to me. You spend 25 years having to explain why the fat lady is wrong and see how much patience you have left.
Right now, there's a thread in the tavern about speeding. One regular here posted a very authoritative statement as to the general rule about reciprocity. There is no such thing, but I really don't want to spend my time arguing the point so I leave it alone.
ScottFor every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-H.L. Mencken
>You spend 25 years having to explain why the lady is wrong and see how much patience you have left.I hear that. I've spent 49 years explaining why I'm right, and made little headway. What's wrong with other people?
<<there's a thread in the tavern about speeding. One regular here posted a very authoritative statement as to the general rule about reciprocity. There is no such thing>>That was my query, and if i made the "very authoritative statement" that was incorrect, i would absolutely enjoy being set straight[er]. I am currently laboring under so many false assumptions, one less would barely make a dent, but it all helps.
sorry, but it wasn't you.
Asking to be set straight is pretty much the problem. How many people told you how many different things? I have no doubt that someone who is familiar with the particulars of the state, municipality and local practice could give you a useful response, though probably not an "answer". Instead, you get "general rules" that are neither general nor rules. And that, unfortunately, is what the law is all about.
SHGFor every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-H.L. Mencken
<<How many people told you how many different things?>>True enough, but i get a range of opinion on every query i've posed on a housing issue, too; legal issues are not special in that, otherwise you wouldn't need lawyers for both plaintiff and defendant. The element of judgment is the absolutely crucial part of the process, not the adversarial opinions, thus it's the OP's job to distinguish whic advice, if any, is useful. Given that i have a budget that allows for winnowing wheat from chaff but not interstate legal representation on a minor traffic violation, it is reasonable to ask questions here instead of an attorney's office. From my thread i gleaned the principle of deferment, which i had not encountered in my online research, so i consider i got excellent value for money. Consonant with that, if an attorney had chimed in on that thread, i would certainly weight his or her opinion more heavily than that of someone whose expertise lay elsewhere.It was asked if someone should go to an attorney for building advice, and the consensus appears to be not. However, this isn't comparable to asking for legal advice here in that almost all of us have had dealings with the law - many of which run counter to our gut instincts, as this thread aptly illustrates - while few lawyers are intimately involved with the construction process.Not trying to be confrontational...merely adversarial. <G>
ah, you're on a slippery slope. Financial limitations don't make the advice received here any more or less valid. Just cheaper.
And you express perfectly why a lawyer from some other state would be reluctant to respond by saying that you would give them greater weight. I have never been in a traffic court in Washington State, and I have no clue what they do there, either in general or in the particular court where your ticket would be returnable. So while I could chime in, and you might be inclined to take my advice more seriously, I would be remiss because I am unable to give you meaningful advice. The difference is that I know it and take seriously my ethical obligation not to mislead anyone.
As for your being able to wade through the advice given and decide what to credit and what to ignore, it's along the lines of asking in some foreign language you don't speak. Without any way of distinguishing the good from the bad, the right from the wrong, it's totally arbitrary and utterly unhelpful. But hey, at least you didn't have to pay for it up front.
SHGFor every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-H.L. Mencken
Yet there are general principles, or specific statutes which may be imperfectly applicable in a specific case, of which one may not be aware, but which may yet be useful. It is useful to know about 'switching in the black' despite what the code in Tumwater says about the required number of ground rods, and this is how we successfully walk a HO through replacing a switch instead of telling them to hire a master electrician. If a little knowledge is dangerous, an absolute ignoramus attempting to negotiate with the legal system or a main panel is suicidal. Regardless of whether money SHOULD be a deciding factor for legal representation, it certainly is for many of us. Re your "foreign language" analogy, one can prepare for Lisbon by consulting Lonely Planet or booking the Orient Express. If one doesn't need one's bags carried, the former is quite useful for getting where you're going at vastly reduced cost. Not every problem is as complex as the one you cite in your tagline by Mencken. I suspect many of us have experienced that the legal profession oftentimes unnecessarily "complexifies" problems when it isn't warranted. I gather you've garnered some animosity by separating your profession from others in regard to its effect or your impact, but is practicing law intrinsically special? You are free to regard your profession as you wish, but i wonder if you aren't laboring under the illusion that readers here will regard your posts as gospel instead of well-founded and welcome opinions, the same as any other poster, professional or not. I would be inclined to take your legal advice more seriously, not bec i think you're infallible, but bec it is your trade and bec you practice good spelling, even when posting completely wrong-headed opinions about Israel.
whatever. You miss the point, but that's okay. The mention of the speeding thread here had nothing to do with you, and you apparently have decided to take it personally, even to the point of bringing Israel into it. You're really way off base, but it doesn't change anything, so it doesn't matter. Enjoy.
SHGFor every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-H.L. Mencken
I didn't miss a point; i simply don't see things your way, and am making a good argument against your vision, something i though a lawyer might enjoy. Since you mentioned the speeding ticket thread first, it must have been relevant at some point to you. I've tried to argue principles, not my own situation, which you were content to do with others before me when it suited you.The mention of Israel was just to see the effect of anger on your cognitive processes. I was on the verge of adding a smilie, but decided against it to see what would happen. I hope you aren't that easily distracted in court.Thanks, it was interesting!
Glad you enjoyed it. I'm here to please.
hey, at least they liked me at tipifest. 77582.401 And nobody there advocated the elimination of Israel as the solution to war in the middle east. It's more fun when you know the people you're talking to.
Edited 8/26/2006 7:54 pm ET by SHG
Scott, i like you, too. Moreover, i respect your brain, which is why i thought we might have a friendly tug of war...over a pit of boiling oil.As to not having to talk about Israel at the fest, i would argue it is better to deal with one's issues rationally rather than avoid them or react emotionally. If not for this, people making centerpieces of dead animals wouldn't invite me to their parties.Curiously, what is the difference being willing to give a lecture at the fest compared to expounding here? Is there a liability that doesn't apply there that would apply here?
Curiously, what is the difference being willing to give a lecture at the fest compared to expounding here? Is there a liability that doesn't apply there that would apply here?
no liability really, but accuracy and ethics. to me, giving bad advice is worse then no advice. A lecture deals with a topic, not a specific issue. Addressing a specific issue involves different issues, and can lead a person to specific actions that can be harmful if the advice is wrong. To me, bad advice is worse than no advice.
SHGFor every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-H.L. Mencken
Logically, you're saying you can be more accurate at the fest than you can be on BT. Perhaps it's simply a matter of drinking more before sitting down to the keyboard, man! I shall look forward to your lecture next year. I hope you encourage questions from the audience. ;^)<bows out>
"I didn't miss a point; i simply don't see things your way, and am making a good argument against your vision, something i though a lawyer might enjoy"I think you did miss his point, which was that he doesn't enjoy wasting time arguing simply for the sake of argument, especially when he does not have the definitive answer.You tried to get him to give a definitive answer and then tried to bait him into argument.I remember in your speeding thread that someone else did mention reciprocity early on, before you did. I believe you mentioned that phrase or word there after Scott made mention of it here as an example.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
No, i did not miss his point. SHG maintained general rules were of no use in specific instances. I disagreed, ging my reasons and examples from my thread, and he disagreed and gave his reasons. I was not looking for a defintive answer, as you state, bec there isn't one. There was, however, room for debate and just maybe a meeting of the minds. I don't understand what importance you attach to who mentioned reciprocity when, as that has no effect on the principle of whether general information can be usefully applied in a specific instance.I also don't understand why you are referree-ing this after the fact.
No, i did not miss his point. SHG maintained general rules were of no use in specific instances.
boy, do I know I'm gonna regret this, but...no, that wasn't my point. My point was that people propound their individual experiences as "general rules" when they aren't. It's an example of inductive reasoning. "What happened to me is what happens to everyone, and hence my experience has general application."
Speeding was used as an example because it is a singularly local issue. Variations in treatment and practice differ from state to state, county to county, village to village. It was used as example here because it applied to the discussion here. It was not used in your thread because you asked the question and, by virtue of asking, sought the answers you received. I don't begrudge you your decision to seek advice here, no matter whether I think it's a good idea or not. It's your life, your ticket and your choice.
But Piffin understood one thing that totally flew over your head. Just because I'm a lawyer doesn't mean I like to engage in debate with all comers. Some arguments are worthwhile. Other are not. This was a silly one (from my perspective) and just not worth the time. You obviously disagreed, but it takes two to tango and I didn't want to spend my time arguing the point or pointing out the errors of your reasoning. I'm here for fun, not a busman's holiday, and I don't have to argue with every person who decides they want to argue with me.
If you want to understand the context of my reference to the speeding thread, then you should go back and read the full discussion. If not, then that's your choice too. No skin off my nose either way. And if you disagree with me about all of this, that's also fine. Nobody said you can't disagree with anything you want. Maybe I'm dead wrong (I've certainly been wrong about plenty of things in my life) and you're absolutely right. But I still don't have enough interest to argue the point any further. The irony (and I do so love ironies) is that people who don't get your point ALWAYS insist they do and you don't get theirs. Rarely does an opportunity arise where they restate the point they think you're making and clearly show that they did not get it.
SHGFor every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-H.L. Mencken
The beginning of this was your statement that there is no general rule of reciprocity re traffic tix, as you inferred another poster had stated as a general rule.
How general is general? When i heard the term, for the first time, i looked into it and there is a principle of reciprocity that affects the majority of the states. How useful was the information? Not as gospel, but as a piece of very useful information, of which i was previously ignorant, to track down within the context of my specific case.
In this you are correct in my mistake made in our debate: I personally would never have started with the assumption that a Tavern poster has an expectation that his experience and opinions will be taken as gospel, as you appear to have assumed. Perhaps this is due to my greater faith in our abilities to think for ourselves than you have in your fellow man, but that is admittedly pure conjecture. However, inductive reasoning has its place, as you well know.
Also, for a guy who won't argue with just any old bozo...congratulations, i'm not just any old bozo.
see. I told you I would regret it, and I do. look back. read at length. I never said anything about reciprocity or any other particular aspect of your speeding thread. Either you're confusing me with some good looking, erudite poster, or you're on a shroom binge. So, I think you need to figure out who it is that was talking about reciprocity, or sold you them shrooms, and go after him.
Perhaps this is due to my greater faith in our abilities to think for ourselves than you have in your fellow man, but that is admittedly pure conjecture.
Keep the faith, baby. I feel the same way about cold fusion.
However, inductive reasoning has its place, as you well know.
Nope to both. Inductive reasoning has no place, and you can rest assured that I don't know it well.
SHGFor every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-H.L. Mencken
With regrets of my own, I'm off to a meeting.
She's all your'n!;)
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
"
With regrets of my own, I'm off to a meeting. She's all your'n!"
Probably more accurate if you say,
"She's all urine!"
I never said anything about reciprocity or any other particular aspect of your speeding thread. Either you're confusing me with some good looking, erudite poster, or you're on a shroom binge. So, I think you need to figure out who it is that was talking about reciprocity, or sold you them shrooms, and go after him.
Oh?
Please read again your Post #60...or here, i'll quote it for everyone's benefit:
We shall, in ladylike manner, avert our eyes while you pick up your pants from around your ankles. Nice knees, by the way...
Sorry, Scott, but assuming i'm 'shrooming is not even valid inductive reasoning but a wild #### guess, not to mention an embarrassingly weak response while i'm cleaning your clock here. The part of your post i find utterly convincing is that you don't know how to inductively reason very well.
Incidentally, it occurs to me that your lecture at the Fest was better appreciated than the one you are giving me here on account of being better lubricated. Perhaps a couple of Moose Drools and you would start making sense even to me!!!
Nice knees, by the way...
thank you. one of my best features. It was so inconsequential to my point that I completely forgot it was there. You are clearly more focused on it than I am, and I bow to your exceptional memory.
however, you're still giving yourself a lot more credit then anyone else is giving you. if your argument is persuasive, then it's best to let someone else toot yer horn.
not to mention an embarrassingly weak response while i'm cleaning your clock here.
if you says so. :-)
it occurs to me that your lecture at the Fest was better appreciated than the one you are giving me here
no lecture from me. you came here to stir things up. I showed you the courtesy of a response. my bad.
Still, I figure that I'll survive the humiliating defeat I've suffered from your razor sharp wit and mind. Let me go lick my wounds now.
SHG
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-H.L. Mencken
You've got a guy who thinks my menstrual cycle is a cogent feature of the debate as your cheering section. I haven't such a valiant defender, so i have to DIY the thang. *sigh*
BTW I didn't come here to stir anything up. I come to learn and trade ideas, and am able to do so without an argumentum ad hominem, which truly is a logical fallacy, albeit one you seem prepared to embrace.
Band-aid?
and am able to do so without an argumentum ad hominem, which truly is a logical fallacy, albeit one you seem prepared to embrace.
now why do you feel the need to take things too far? Nobody called you names, yet you are now the victim of an ad hominem attack, which truly is a logical fallacy (huh?), albeit one you seem prepared to embrace (double huh?).
you're kinda going way, way off the deep end here, and I know you're a good person so I'm trying to pull you back from the edge but you're making it really difficult.
Come have a nice Orange Blossom with me. It's the perfect breakfast beer. And smile. Life is good, which is no logical fallacy, albeit one I am prepared to embrace.
SHGFor every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-H.L. Mencken
I consider observations about drug use (your shrooms), menstrual cycles (Piffin's "PMS wolverine"), and urine to be ad hominem attacks, yes. My posting in the Business section of the forum reminds me of the first time ever i landed at BT and y'all were used to the wimmin stopping in with cookies instead of [hot] air nailers. I find the choosing up of sides and the rallying to support you here rather nostalgic. *sniff*
Orange Blossom sounds yummy, but for breakfast? Does this mean you're staying the night???
It's been fun, and i admire your tenacity, but i HAVE to get a closet (No wisecracks!!!) framed and SR'd today.
Sometimes somebody just don't get it.
This is one - so it calls for time to drop it.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Piffin
I dont partake the Tavern experiences anymore and its doubtful that things have changed for the better but I was wondering if this line works in there!
so it calls for time to drop it.
I'd be in favor of it being a rule but somehow I think I'd be in the minority! :)
Doug
It was dropped, but then you resurrected this. Or...what part of my writing <bows out> from Post #106 did you not understand?
If you don't like it, the remedy is not to read it.
Since Scott has confirmned that you didn't get his point at all and that I was correct in my interpretation, all I can do now is enjoy watching your lips flutter, precious poet, even when the words mean nothing.but I admire the tenacity of the PMS wolverine in you!
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
are responses that are facially wrong, often using legal terms or concepts that are simply misapplied or misunderstood
Uhm, since this poor thread is being bounced around all over everywhere, I'm just going to have to ask the question?
"Facially wrong"? I've heard allegations that folk can have more than one fascia; there are both more and less pleasant facsia out there--but this is the first I've ever heard of an 'incorrect' face.
Might it be accurate to surmise that spellcheck might have chosen to correct a word entirely accurately, and also entirely inaptly? Or, perhaps, prima facie evidence of typing not quite so fast as thoughts are constructed. I hestitate to suggest that, cigar-like, factum and facie might have transmogrified into an inapt amalgam . . . Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
An argument that, on the face of it, is wrong
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Quite <g>. The primary, or initial face of it. Versus what I was reading, which looked like some form of peccoare facie, wrong-faced. No doubt our author will correct me if he was leaning toward iniuriae, an injust condition of face (or of fact, if fact was spell-checked into face).Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
think of it as using OSB to fabricate exterior trim. it would be facially wrong.
SHGFor every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-H.L. Mencken
Dang it! Now, I've got to go looking for that thread on speeding.
"It's always better to have regrets for things you've done than for things you wish you had done..........."ponytl
using OSB to fabricate exterior trim. it would be facially wrong
(ouch, don't say that around TB or the like, they get the craziest of ideas . . .)
Hmm, sounds as if it would be fascia primae peccoare, which might be construed as mercatum corrupto, prima facie <g> . . . Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Everything I say is 100% accurate.
in my world :-)
"Sometimes when I consider what tremendous consequences come from little things, I am tempted to think -- there are no little things" - Bruce Barton
In addition to that, I am pleased to say that I have 100% confidence that your advice is worth everything I've paid you for it.
Absolutely. You know, realistically, I think I still have my son convinced that I'm basically always right, but my wife . . . I've been working on that for years and getting nowhere with it.
Sooner or later junior is going to have the lightbulb kick on and say heyyyyyyyyyyywaitasecondthere"Sometimes when I consider what tremendous consequences come from little things, I am tempted to think -- there are no little things" - Bruce Barton
"What we do see are responses that are facially wrong, often using legal terms or concepts that are simply misapplied or misunderstood. So, we are put in a position of knowing that someone is being told the wrong thing, without being able to give them the correct advice."Facially....is that a new legal term of art?....;-)
you got here too late for that party.
and there's a 75/27 split of liability
That sounds like lawyer math.
"When asked if you can do something, tell'em "Why certainly I can", then get busy and find a way to do it." T. Roosevelt
The tour wasn't worth missing your wonderful wit and good looks while waiting for the evening eats, but I did catch the summation.
If I remember rightly, it was something like, "Find a local lawyer you trust, first, last, and always..."I really enjoyed meeting you as much as I have enjoyed our discussions here over the years.On the subject of finding a lawyer you can trust...
One of my life rules I have learned through the years
is to never trust a man who has no sense of humouryou definitely pass the first test!LOL
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
It was great, wasn't it. Man, we laughed our butts off.
Let me know where you are and I'll see if I can find a good buddy for you. In the meantime, I'm betting you don't need much help anyway given how well you get along with your customers.
ScottFor every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-H.L. Mencken
Hijack.......Hey Scott - All my info is available on my website link below. Sorry I didn't have any cards with me, but I didn't think I'd need to pass any out so far from home. Great meeting you, but I'm glad the fest is over. My sides are sore from laughing so much.
I need a valet.
http://grantlogan.net/
Thanks Grant. Got it. It was great but it was exhausting.
From: Piffin - " I think HO should be responsible for the first damage to tools, but The second shopuld have never happened. When we leave a job. tools are unplugged and locked down or placed where it is jnot possible for the HO or his guests, etc to hurt themselves. If necessary, there are barriers erected. That dog getting nailed would not havve happened if the gun had simply been un corked. There should not be a disabled safety either. That one is on the contractor."
SHG - " if you had stayed for my lecture, you would know the answer. ;-)"
That is LOL funny! That is exactly what I thought when I read Piffen's reply.
View Image
I dont know enough about the law regarding this situation but for Gods sake, get that damn gun fixed, what if the dog had shot the gun and it hit the HO.... bad example, how about a kid! You'd be looking at more then $343.
Doug
The gun is fixed exactly the way I like it. No one else but me uses it, and I've never shot anyone but myself. It hurts less than hitting a finger with a framing hammer.
The gun is fixed exactly the way I like it. No one else but me uses it,
I'm not going to get in a pizzing match with you here but your statement is false.
You forgot the one instance where the dog fired the gun!
Just as easily it could have shot the HO,(and in this case that may or may not have been a good thing) or worse yet a child.
I'm not the guy to give you lectures on safety, hell I break all the rules but I dont indanger others, ever.
Leaving that gun pluged in while you were not there was irresponsible.
Doug
Leaving that gun pluged in while you were not there was irresponsible.
He said that the dog tripped the gun while he was standing there talking with the HO. If he had left the property, then the hose should have been popped off. But during a break in the action just to talk with the HO?
I do agree that no safety is not smart.
"When asked if you can do something, tell'em "Why certainly I can", then get busy and find a way to do it." T. Roosevelt
He said that the dog tripped the gun while he was standing there talking with the HO.
My bad, I didnt see that, something that I do quite often!
Doug
He said that the dog tripped the gun while he was standing there talking with the HO.
That's some valuable dog, or is the HO Dr. Doolittle?
What is the advantage of having the safety taken off of a framing gun?? I can see it for a trim gun, but why a framing gun? Just curious. Live by the sword, die by the sword....choose your sword wisely.
It doesn't seem to work very well with those delicate Hitachi guns, but I use Duo-Fast that can double as a sledge in a pinch.
You can pretty much put a nail exactly where you want it, which is important when trying to toenail through the gangnail on trusses. I can set the depth just by holding the gun off the wood if the nail is being overdriven, tack things together with the head exposed for easy removal later, or reach just that little bit farther without having to worry about depressing the safety.
Every frame crew I know of here in Austin that uses Duo-Fast guns have the safeties wired back, and those crews are always faster than the crews that use Hitachi.
I personally have framed a 1600 sq. ft. 3 br 2ba. single story with roof trusses with a six man crew in 8 hours. If I think it makes me faster, doesn't it make me faster?
If you are careless enough to shoot yourself, the gun is almost never pressed tight to your body, embedding the nail deep.
I don't mind shooting myself as long as I've got the big dykes or a pair of vise grips handy, or maybe my buddy is there with a crowbar.
NOT!
I don't mind shooting myself as long as I've got the big dykes or a pair of vise grips handy, or maybe my buddy is there with a crowbar.
...and a couple of aspirins!
View Image"...never charged nothing for his preaching, and it was worth it, too" - Mark Twain
Every frame crew I know of here in Austin that uses Duo-Fast guns have the safeties wired back, and those crews are always faster than the crews that use Hitachi.
Let me go get my boots on cuz the BS is starting to stack up pretty deep.
"Everybody's doing it" wasn't even a legitimate excuse when I was 10 years old....now you're trying to pull it over on us?
There is absolutely no reason to wire a safety back on a framing nailer. They don't fire any faster that way. A freakin' Hitachi framing nailer will literally fire as fast as you can possibly move it around. What the heck would you need to make it faster than your own hands for?
You want a good reason why not to wire the safety back? Here's one..... because you customer's f'in dog might step on it and shoot a nail into his buddy!!!! You gotta be kidding me. You started a thread detailing an accident that occured as a DIRECT result of a framing nailer with no safety..... and now you're trying to defend the concept as harmless?!?!?!? Take a deep breath and listen to yourself for a minute, would ya?
Why is it that every framer is so thoroughly convinced that he and the framers he knows personally are the fastest framers in the country? It's so predictable that it's laughable. And every crew that uses Duo-fast guns is faster than every crew that uses Hitachi guns, right?
Get a clue.View Image
You Hitachi guys are so sensitive... <g>
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
I don't care what brand he uses.... blanket statements are just stupid. The guys in So Cal are convinced that they're the fastest in the world. And now somebody from Texas is here disputing them. But everybody knows it's those Boston kids that can really throw the sticks up. :)View Image
I'm originally from Taunton, MA
Edited 8/26/2006 12:45 am ET by mctex
Why is it that every framer is so thoroughly convinced that he and the framers he knows personally are the fastest framers in the country?
well, this is actually the result of a very thorough and scientific study conducted over a period of many years. They asked each framers wife, and they found 100% responded that framers were the fastest.
SHGFor every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-H.L. Mencken
LOL, are you sure that arguement isn't a bit premature?
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
I'm going to try a different approach to this one. I personally know the SLOWEST framers in the country. No one, anywhere, is slower.
did we we meet???
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming<!----><!----><!---->
WOW!!! What a Ride!<!----><!---->
Forget the primal scream, just ROAR!!!
No I I don't think so
well then...
so much fer you thinking you knew the slowest framers..
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming<!----><!----><!---->
WOW!!! What a Ride!<!----><!---->
Forget the primal scream, just ROAR!!!
Edited 8/25/2006 6:19 pm by IMERC
Naw, see, you're just claiming to be the slowest when in actuality that title goes to another... who exactly I'm not ready to reveal but suffice it to say I am very well acquainted with this individual's lack of framing speed.
Are you complaining about your dog again?
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
naw, the dog got shot with a framing gun and died
"Sometimes when I consider what tremendous consequences come from little things, I am tempted to think -- there are no little things" - Bruce Barton
no way....
6 and half years and I haven't finished framing the floor to my 10x12 shed...
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming<!----><!----><!---->
WOW!!! What a Ride!<!----><!---->
Forget the primal scream, just ROAR!!!
LOL.... I guess I take it all back then.View Image
I think your going to need more than boots here.
Im really having a hard timebelieving that someone would actually wire back the safety on a framing gun. So far mctex hasnt given what I consider a valid reason. If he wants speed, get a lighter gun. Ive got one of those duo-fast's and it aint light.
And how are you going to "bump fire" if your safety is wired back????? :)Live by the sword, die by the sword....choose your sword wisely.
Do you really bump fire when your're framing a wall? The less recoil the closer to the plate the faster you can pull the trigger again.
I didn't say I do it because everyone else does it, I do it because it works.
When we're framing walls my crew with 3 frame guns fire 4k to 5k nails per day, and it makes a difference.
I've got one man on my crew who uses his own Hitachi, with a safety, I pay for the nails, he's not slow, but he uses less than 1/4 of the nails per week. Empirical evidence suggests no safety is faster.
I don't want to turn this into safety vs. no safety, Hitachi vs. Duo-Fast, evryone has their own way, but the last time someone buried a nail in their foot made me wire them all back. Could it happen with no safety, sure, but you'd have to be pretty stupid to put it against your foot and pull the trigger.
BTW I have all the guards on my circular saws wired up also.
mc.. my wife is from Taunton also..
BTW:
<<<
I don't want to turn this into safety vs. no safety, Hitachi vs. Duo-Fast, evryone has their own way, but the last time someone buried a nail in their foot made me wire them all back. Could it happen with no safety, sure, but you'd have to be pretty stupid to put it against your foot and pull the trigger.
BTW I have all the guards on my circular saws wired up also>>>
it would certainly tend to turn it into a safety vs. no safety
i've been called out on BT about safety we were neglecting.. i took it for what it was .. good advice... and attempted to correct the situation
your speed = reduced safety is not a good equation...
one serious injury will wipe out any savingsMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Plus, there has already been an accident. It's not like after a future accident he can say "who coulda foreseen it?" He probably doesn't put the rubber safety cap on his claw hammer, either. :)
Mike
You gotta remember, were in TX, you dont have to carry any workmans comp on your guys so safetys really not a concern.
Doug
Doug, I'm sure if you've been here long enough you know what Austin is like. I learned to frame in MA, Wasn't allowed to touch a gun for six months on the job.
I was an employee, with taxes taken out. When I started the next least experienced man had 3 yrs. with the co. the most 12 yrs.
Here, when I was doing production framing(tract shacks), I went through 60 men a year to keep an 11 man crew.
With payroll alone running around 6k per week, 1 million$ in general liability, 1k a month in nails, tools, and administrative overhead that I didn't have time to do , $2.50 a sq. ft. for frame and cornice didn't leave a lot of room for error.
In order to compete everyone I hire is an independant contractor responsible fo their own taxes. I can't afford workmans comp, but I do carry a gen. liability policy. BTW, my fourth carrier in 11 years, becuase of three claims from 3 men with a grand total of 6 weeks employment.
I'm not crying, I love what I do, but I didn't set the rules here, and until I can figure out how to make it work my way, I have to play by them.
mctex
I've only been here 3 1/2 years and thats comming to and end soon. Headed back to Iowa.
I'm also lucky in that I dont have to contend with the problems that you incounter, I do cabinetry work, mainly custom work. I worked for a cabinet shop down in south Austin for a while, none of us were covered for anything. Osha is a joke here, same as work conditions in these cabinet shops. Thats the reason that I left the shop, not the reason for leaving TX, I like it here but its not home.
I've been very lucky, in the 3 1/2 years here I've been in some of the biggest fancyist(sp?) houses in Austin, wouldnt trade any of that. I also dont have the risk that you do and I really dont know how you do it, seriously!
This state could use some revamping of its rules but I dont think I'm the guy to get that done!
I do think you need to take the wire off your safety but thats just my opinion, take it for what it cost ya.
Doug
Osha is a joke here, same as work conditions in these cabinet shops
Austin is bad that way, was a time, oh, about 10 years ago when there'd be what seemed like two 3-4 hand. family-run cabinet shops on every corner. Shop conditions matched very closely to what the business condition was, a fancier, slightly larger version of the family garage made into a shop.
Prime territory for "too fancy for us" mentality.
The osha people, well, there's a whole separate debate there, but, they could have dedicated themselves to jsut mill & case work shops and still not be done . . .
I'm wanting to remember that, for a while, they were not "going after" anybody with less than $3-4 million ins sales (with which ever jaded, cynical, or both, opinions as to why that is that a person could apply). The joint I worked for, siin as we broke $5 mill in sales, it was quarterly visits. Got "dinged" for not having an MSDS for the gasoline in the mower in the shed on the conrer of the property, too. (Gas was secure, in marked can, stored to spec--just no MSDS on file, and no inclusion for gas in mower tank, either.)Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
>>I do carry a gen. liability policy. BTW, my fourth carrier in 11 years, becuase of three claims from 3 men with a grand total of 6 weeks employment.
Just curious, how does an employee/sub working for you make a claim against your liability policy? Was it for injury on the job?
Yes, anyone injured on my jobsite can make a claim against my policy.
In order to compete everyone I hire is an independant contractor responsible fo their own taxes. I can't afford workmans comp, but I do carry a gen. liability policy.
Whoooa. Wait a second. Now you're treading on thin ice. Employee versus Independent has nothing to do with whether you can afford it, and you've got huge exposure all over the place for this. Not only to the men, to your customers, but to the tax man and the attorney general. You cannot simply decide to call them ICs and that eliminates your obligation to comply with the law.
Do you tell your men when to come to work and when to leave? Do you tell them what to do on the job? Do you have any jobsite rules? Do you monitor the quality of their work? If you maintain the power to direct them, then they are employees, and you simply don't pay taxes. And workers comp is a cost of doing business, not a luxury that you get if you feel like it.
Add this to the disabled safety. Add this to the forseeability that a pet, or better yet, a child of a customer, may touch your gun and cause it to fire unintentionally. You are playing Russian Roulette here. Why? Would it kill you to do things right?
SHGFor every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-H.L. Mencken
Of course they're employees, they work for me full time. They make more than 70% of their income from me. I'm sure that 95% of them also throw the 1099 I give them directly in the trash.
I've already had the IRS tell me I'm responsible for several of my subs unpaid taxes. I walked away from that owing nothing.
Under the definitions, every sub a GC hires could be called an employee. I think I should have the right to monitor quality and direct their work. Should I pay for an inferior job, or be there and make sure it's done right the first time?
Doing things right wouldn't kill me, but it might kill my business. I do high end work for high end prices. I'm already too expensive for 75% of the res. market. If I had to raise my price by 30% or more to cover WC I could still find work. Enough of it? I don't know, and I don't want to have to try.
Right now on my schedule I have 4 patio covers, 5 decks, 2 arbors, 1 addition, 1 detached garage, and a 900 sq ft outdoor kitchen.
I doubt I would have gotten most of those jobsif I had to cover WC. I would love to have the security of WC, but I don't believe I can and remain a viable business.
Doing things right wouldn't kill me, but it might kill my business. I do high end work for high end prices. I'm already too expensive for 75% of the res. market. If I had to raise my price by 30% or more to cover WC I could still find work. Enough of it? I don't know, and I don't want to have to try.
Just so you know, your attitude is an affront to those of us who don't consider it an option to place unfair risks on our employees and customers just because we don't feel like "trying".
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
I take the same exact risks every day, try collecting if you injure yourself, everyones covered but me.
It may not have come across in writing, but I am extremely frustrated by the situation. I would love to carry WC, but the market here absolutely will not support it.
Of the ~100 framers and contractors I personally have dealt with I know of three that have employees and withhold taxes. I don't know any residential carpenters that carry WC.
That may be going to change because of a recent legal decision, where an injured employee of a sub with wc sued the GC who had none. When everyone has to have it and the playing field is level, then questions of cost go out the window.
When and if it becomes a requirement, I'll be first in line. I'm not holding out much hope though, in TX, there are no requirements to call yourself a contractor. No license, no insurance, no knowledge. All you need is a business card, and a good line of bull. I've been cleaning up after them for 10 yrs.
I too live and work in Austin and your assessment of the typical GC is correct. My company is fully insured and has employees. This has become a marketing point for the company. On the high end, most clients appreciate the fact you the contractor have the fiscal wherewithal (sp?) to manage problems without them getting involved. It demonstrates to them that you are a professional in a state that only requires registration fee and a felony check before you are qualified to do residential construction.
As someone who is looking for employees, being a fully insured professional company makes working for me more attractive than the guy who 1099's everybody with no insurance and is not willing to pay beyond regular wages even though everyone is 1099'd.
Lastly, you stated in the previous posting, you "take the same risks that everyone else takes"...I would argue you take greater risks and you should consider how you are protected. WC for me is 13.45% of payroll. Based on the numbers you have thrown out, that is about $800 per week for WC. That translate to about $40k per year. Alot of money.
One major injury to your employee, GL says we're not covering it, employee finds a mediocre lawyer on the back of the yellow pages, Travis County judges always rule for employee (based on my one experience and my Insurer's attorney 25 years of experience).
ER visit $20-40K
long term disability $10-$15K or more
Legal fees $20K or more
Other damages $ whatever you are worth.
I know how expensive it is. I know how the market is here in Austin. I feel it is my personal obligation to protect my employees and also protect my business and protect my family. With WC they are given the medical attention and beneifits as needed. With WC my clients cannot be sued. With WC an employee cannot sue my company or me. They have to sue the insurance company.
Protect your business, protect your clients and protect your employees get the WC insurance. All it takes is one bad accident and we all know they happen all the time.
Use it a marketing tool. Let your client know you are fully insured and will get them a certificate of insurance so they are protected.
Good luck
Bruce
Edited 8/27/2006 6:53 pm by Hiker
Bruce
I have no doubt that you carry insurance on your employees and that you do all the things that you say you do.
But; Your the only guy I know in Austin that does all that! I'm sure there are others as I've only been around here for 3 1/2 years so I didn't get to meet all the contractors. <G>
I've worked on/in M. Dells house, K. Rollins(CEO of Dell), 1/2 dozen other higher up Dell exec's, Summers compound, and maybe 20 other places that are well known around this town and all the while I was never covered by WC, nor was anybody else that I knew of. That's a sad state of affairs that we have here in what is probably the most advanced or progressive area in the state of Texas. What the hell is going on outside the greater Austin area!
I'm glad, and moderately reassured, that someone is doing something right around here.
Oh BTW, on another unrelated note, I think that I have my house sold to the guy that I mentioned in the other thread, I might need to buy some advice/services from you, or your wife!
Doug
I know I am in the minority around here when it comes to WC. The questions arose about whether or not one could be competitive while having it. I will still argue that you can. And from a liability perspective, how can any successful business person leave it all hanging out like that. My attorney would freak out if he knew I was not protecting my hard earned assets and I cannot could in good conscience know that the guys I have working with me were not protected.
I quit going to NARI meetings locally because the local HBA rep was adamant that licensure and insurance requirements would kill the home building industry. I argued that if everyone had to do it, it would effect everyone the same and would have less than a 5% impact in total cost of any house. His response was he did not want the government running his business. I translate that to "it is difficult to get illegal workers licensed and covered under insurance". That is also a standard condition around here. There is an enormous amount of illegal labor. (Note to everyone-this is not a effort to hijack this thread about illegals and whole issue assiciated with the use of illegal labor-just a statement of fact as I see every day)
Congrats on selling the house. Maybe we can do lunch one day before you head out.
Bruce
hiker .....<<<<<
I quit going to NARI meetings locally because the local HBA rep was adamant that licensure and insurance requirements would kill the home building industry. I argued that if everyone had to do it, it would effect everyone the same and would have less than a 5% impact in total cost of any house. His response was he did not want the government running his business. I translate that to "it is difficult to get illegal workers licensed and covered under insurance". That is also a standard condition around here. There is an enormous amount of illegal labor. (Note to everyone-this is not a effort to hijack this thread about illegals and whole issue assiciated with the use of illegal labor-just a statement of fact as I see every day)>>>>>
i used to be very active in our state HB Asscn... before we had Contractor's Registration..... any discussion of the issure would usually come down with the majority being opposed.. and since we had a pretty good lobbying effort in the legislature..
they managed to hold it off for several years, not until consumer complaints rose to an annoying level ..
then we got Contractor's Registration.. which is slowly evolving to Licensing
as for WC, it got so bad with fraud against the insurance companies that all the insurance companies pulled out of RI and refused to write it.
the legislature had to create a captive insurance company and rewrite the WC law.. the biggest change was getting rid of the 3-employee minimum requirement...
now it's ANY employees and you have to have it... there are still vast numbers of contractors who are doing the IC dance... but that is slowly changing alos
one big high profile case was the Station Nightclub fire ( 100 dead, 200 injured ) ..
none of the employees were covered by WC
.. the two brothers who owned it are bankrupt and probably going to jail
in the 6 - 7 years i've been posting here on BT, it always seems like Texas builders have a harder time with WC and non-compliance than any other state..
anyways , good on you for figuring out how to run your business as a business and cover your employees and your self
Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
>anyways , good on you for figuring out how to run your business as a business and cover your employees and your selfWith all the focus on WC, anyone bothered that no fed taxes are being paid? 1099's issued for "employees" and ignored? Heck, I didn't know you could give those things to employees or that filing them was optional! Think I can file for a refund? Man, you learn all kinds of stuff here.
Don't I get any credit for the mention in http://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages?msg=77640.126?
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
Full credit. I wonder why there isn't more outrage. He calls them employees but says the IRS okays them as contractors. Either way, taxes aren't being paid, except by the rest of us. I always had to suck it up for the employer part and do the withholding. WTF?
way, taxes aren't being paid, except by the rest of us. I always had to suck it up for the employer part and do the withholding. WTF?
Ditto.
They used to make me make the medicaid & U/I & such, and I was supposed to go after my contractors for to be "made whole." Which, of course, violated the trade contracts I had with the subs . . .
I always wanted to dare my shyster to write up a fill-in-the-blank injunction versus whichever donkeyclown was insisting that I had to pay taxes that others owed in violation of the legal contract between the two business enitities . . .Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
It may not have come across in writing, but I am extremely frustrated by the situation. I would love to carry WC, but the market here absolutely will not support it.
No, that didn't come across. What did come across was a guy who disabled the safety mechanism's on his saw & nailer, one of which was used to injure an animal (one can only imagine the HO's toddler being the recipient of the nail rather than a dog). Obviously I don't know you, but from what I've read I would have to say I vehemently disagree with your business practices.
When and if it becomes a requirement, I'll be first in line. I'm not holding out much hope though, in TX, there are no requirements to call yourself a contractor. No license, no insurance, no knowledge.
While you may not be required to carry WC, did you know that the IRS has rules that pretty clearly state that you have employees, not subs?
Do you think your GL provider might find that to be a sticking point if one of your "subs" does something that damages a customers home?I don't know if there is a precedent established for denying a GL claim because you are not following the rules, but it's more risk than I would be willing to bear.
Like Bruce said, you can use your insurance as a marketing point to your customers. I won't pretend to know the market that you operate in, but I would guess the owner who paid you to do an 8,000 ft² ipé deck has a lot to risk and may be willing to pay a little more to protect his assets.
Consider the amount of risk that you are taking on for the benefit of saving a few bucks. Is it really worth it?
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
Jon, as I stated in an earlier post, I've already had this discussion with the IRS, and they agreed, I have subs not employees.
I'll be the first to admit I'm over the IC- employee line in some instances. But I'm willing to bet that most subs who work extensively with a GC have crossed the line into employee status at some point.
If even 50% of your income is from one contractor, it is almost impossible not to violate the IRS' rules.
The worst being the right to direct work. My subs work must meet my and the HO expectations, and it must pass code.
No offense to Bruce, but I believe I talked to him on the phone a couple years ago about doing some work. I could be mistaking him for someone else, but I think he was looking for someone who could frame, trim, sr, paint, do a little electrical, tilework, and maybe some plumbing, and was willing to pay $18/hr with taxes taken out.
Bruce if I'm wrong I heartily apologize, if I'm right , WTF
No offense taken. I am not sure that we've spoken. I have never run a "must be jack of all tradeswith own truck and own tools and you will be a subcontractor" add. I do not recall ever interviewing anyone who ran multiple framing crews for tract builders. As an aside, you mention $18/hour with taxes taken out. To me that implies an employee not a 1099 so I am not sure what your point is?
Anyways
Edited 8/28/2006 5:36 am by Hiker
My point is that you advertised for a carpenter, but really wanted someone with multiple skills that you wanted to pay a less than reasonable rate to as an employee. Because your WC costs are tied to your payroll, you have to do whatever you can to keep those costs down.
I have no payroll, I have no employees, I don't need WC.
My crew gets paid by the sq ft, they generally make 25 -45 per hour, it depends on how fast they move. They've made 8/hr on some and 80/ on others. They like the fact that the faster they are the more they make, not me making more profit off their speed and skill.
If I were to make them employees, should I split the difference at 35? I'm pretty sure they would not view it as a guarantee to never make 8/hr again, but a guarantee to never make 80/hr again. But, at least they'll be covered by WC.
I guess I could just get rid of them all, and start over with some 12/hr hacks I couldn't leave alone for 5min.
Neither option is very appetizing to me or my crew.
My compliments to everyone on one of the randomest threads in long time (outside of a few in the Fest folder)!
Is this what it's like in the Tavern?
we did meander a bit, didn't we. they'd never put up with this in the tavern.
I don't think you have to remove performance incentives if you decide to pay WC on your employees.
The two are completely unrelated, but since you've set them up as the same issue in your mind you can rationalize your way out of protecting your workers.
Neither option is very appetizing to me or my crew.
I know there's at least one other person in this thread who loses their appetite when you openly admit that you are skirting your tax liability with your workers.
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
He isnt really skirting his tax liability as long as he is 1099ing his guys. It is being reported. Whether it is legal is between him and the IRS. Whether his guys throw the 1099 away or not is between them and the IRS. It is unlikely that they can get away with that anyway unless they are completely without a paper trail like an illegal immigrant or have fake SSN numbers. The IRS does a pretty good job tracking down 1099's.
ccal...
<<<<He isnt really skirting his tax liability as long as he is 1099ing his guys. It is being reported. Whether it is legal is between him and the IRS. Whether his guys throw the 1099 away or not is between them and the IRS. It is unlikely that they can get away with that anyway unless they are completely without a paper trail like an illegal immigrant or have fake SSN numbers. The IRS does a pretty good job tracking down 1099's.>>>>
here's the way i've seen it go down with one contractor i know:
he called his employees 1099 IC's
he 1099'd them every year
two didn't report the income..... the IRS went after them and they lied and said they thought the contractor was withholding theri taxes
it didn't matter wether they lied or not.. they had no assets , so the IRS went after him for all of their back taxes plus interest..
because they were , by IRS definitions, employees..
same thing here.. call them what ever you want , 1099 them if you want..
but in the end ... the liability still rests with the contractor.. both for taxes & injuries
the IRS will get you on taxes... and the injured worker's lawyer will get you on the injuries
there is no escape from thisMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
I'm going to try to explain this one more time, after reading what I posted earlier, I realize I think a lot faster than I type.
"Of course they are employees" I left out, according to the IRS.
In 97 +98 I had 2 men file , but never pay taxes. The IRS informed me because they were employees, I was responsible for their tax. They called them employees because more than 70% of their income came from me. Apparently a rule to distinguish IC from employee. I could never find that one written down anywhere. After several meetings the IRS decided they actually were IC, and stopped bothering me.
I hire the same elec. contractor on all my jobs. I either get electrician A, 5 ft 3 in approx. 300#. Can't fit under most pier and beam, or through most attic accesses.Electrician B, who fell out of the bucket, landed on his head, and was in a coma for 6 days. Nice guy, but not real good with making things symmetrical, and kind of a short attention span. Because I decide who gets sent to the job, the IRS considers the elect. sub my employee. It is very easy to cross the line.
Just because, as a GC, I swing a hammer every day with one of my subs does not make him my employee.
CCAL, as far as I can tell, the IRS does a poor job tracking down anything. I know for a fact one of my guys hasn't even filed taxes since 1993, and has never been contacted by the IRS.
called them employees because more than 70% of their income came from me. Apparently a rule to distinguish IC from employee. I could never find that one written down anywhere.
http://www.peakconsultinginc.com/Articles/employee_vs_independent_contract.htmOccupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
hey, that's a great link !
anyone who is carrying IC's as a regular way of doing business should read it..
what it basically comes down to is :
" do you feel lucky , punk ? "
it's pretty crazy.. you work and slave for 20 - 30 years ... and you do business the way most of your competitors do.. and you wind up being the horrible example
either the IRS or a Personal Injury lawyer will get it all...
i was without WC for two years while RI was getting it's act together..
i wouldn't go back to those days ever again.. i'll go work for someone else before i'd try to beat the IRS or work without WC for my employees
Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Edited 8/29/2006 8:22 pm ET by MikeSmith
hey, that's a great link !
Thanks, I either picked up here, or from some employment-management class/conference--I know I have the IRS web page on this computer (which I ought to sync up bookmarks with the work computer, but . . . )Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
but in the end ... the liability still rests with the contractor.. both for taxes & injuries
I know in my case, they always went to the first place with an actual business address. If they drove to the "business address" for a sub, and it was in a residential neighborhood, they always came back to me, all fired up in guilty-until-proven-innocent-but-pay-us-now-you-have-an-office-you-must-be-able-to-afford-it mode . . . Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
even if you come out whole.. just answering their audit will really ruin your day... and your week , and your month and your bank account after you pay an accountant and a tax lawyerMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
I am not sure why I am responding, but please read my post carefully.
"I have NEVER run an ad for...." So please don't put words in my mouth as to who I hire and why I hire them and imply how I run my business. You have no idea how I run my business.
Best of luck to you.
Bruce
Bruce, don't let yourself get too bent about what mctex writes. Remember, the man shoots dogs with his nail gun, for God's sake. ;-) It's all too easy when you're making these anonymous posts to write without thinking, and be a little more harsh or careless than you would be in real life. It's a little different when you're talking man to man, or you can put a face to the other fellow.
Seriously, what we see here all the time is such wide disparities between how people operate from state to state, region to region, that it's almost impossible to have any kind of meaningful discussion because we don't know what's going on in other people's heads and forget that communication is a two way street.
To mctex, the idea of having WC is akin to being some sort of hack operation. To others, the idea of not having WC is like a gypsy running his biz out of the back of a station wagon. They are at opposite extremes. We all try to fit the information into our own paradigm, and we have a very hard time comprehending that somebody else works in a world that's opposite ours. Maybe mctex is right, maybe not. But we're all just killing time here, maybe learning a little and making some friends (or enemies) but there's nothing said here that's worth getting upset about.
ScottFor every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-H.L. Mencken
Scott
Appreciate the insight. You are right about the challenges of thinking beyond the place and time we are currently at. I find that a great part of this board is the breadth of experience and ideas that can arise from some of the posts and the challenge to push oneself to think beyond their world and to consider what other possibilities are out there.
Thanks
Bruce
Blessed are the peacemakers...
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
sup, dog. just keepin' it real.
my son taught me that.
http://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages?msg=62769.1
So if one of your guys gets shot in an artery and costs 20-30 grand in the emergancy room and the doctors and hospital sue you what is your game plan then.
ANDYSZ2WHY DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY THAT BEING A SOLE PROPRIETOR IS A REAL JOB?
REMODELER/PUNCHOUT SPECIALIST
"I do high end work for high end prices."Whoa! Just a few posts back you said you were working on tract shacks for $2.50/ft. How is that high end?Most of my high end customers are smart enough to know that they need to hire contractors who protect them from HO lawsuits with proper insurance.The only way I see that a "sub" could nail you for liability is if you are "Liable" by acting negligently by doing things such as requiring them to work with unsafe tools such as guns with the safeties disabled or the gaurds tied back on saws.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
If you read what I posted, you would know that I wrote ,when I was framing tract shacks.
In 1998 a contractor from San Antonio with 22 crews told the builder I was working for he could frame and cornice these houses for $1.55 sq ft for 1 stories and $1.85 for 2 stories. The builder invited me to keep framing at these prices, I declined.
If you can figure out how he was able to do it that cheaply, you'll understand why the price has been stagnant on new construction for 10 yrs.
I now do only remodels, specializing in high end outdoor structures. I have a two man crew that is mostly spun off on their own, and one carp that has been with me for 10 yrs to work with me. The only reason I was on a small patio cover was to relax after 8000 sq ft of ipe deck, over 160 handrail posts, and what seemed like a mile of custom steel handrail. After 3 months of that, I needed a break, that's not exactly what I got.
I don't require anyone to work with tools they don't feel comfortable with. If they want to let down the guards and unwire the safeties they know I don't care, they don't do it though.
See there, you HAVE already made changes to suit you with the passage of time. You CAN still make other changes that benefit you, your men, and your customers.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Of course they're employees, they work for me full time.
And, in Texas, since he's not a Public Entity, he's not required to carry WC.
A person could make an argument that, that practice, is well, in a word, "stupid." The liablity for WC does not go away just because the employer is not required to pay for state-sponsored or state-mandated WC in Texas.
Now, back aways, in the dark ages before the last reform, you had to demonstrate that you had accident-injury coverage as least as good as the State WC. This is not a very high bar to leap over, even today. Even in an industry the Insurance guys are allowed to "target" (State is not, go figure)--private insurance rates are still half the State WC rates for about twice the coverage.
Just how he got IRS to go after his employed subs is what I want to know. I used to have to show copies of state sales tax forms, TWC employer work qualifications, and any other ream of paperwork I could find to keep them from arbitrarily labeling my subs employees . . . Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
SHG
With all due respect with your post to mc your thinking like someone from NY, this is Texas, not the same animal!
Doug
With all due respect with your post to mc your thinking like someone from NY, this is Texas, not the same animal!
This is a perfect example of why giving legal advice to someone else can create confusion and inaccuracy. I was completely unaware that WC was voluntary in Texas, though it shouldn't surprise me. On the other hand, calling employees ICs is a federal matter, not state or local, and applies even in the wild west. And the risk of an nice juicy tax audit that can bankrupt a business still looms. Now I can't speak for a Texas boy, but us New Yorkers really hate to be audited. Then again, we hate getting shot in the face by the Vice President too, so go figure.
SHGFor every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-H.L. Mencken
Then again, we hate getting shot in the face by the Vice President too, so go figure.
Well there ya go, thats just another day down here, we dont get all excited about a little flesh wound.
Plus it was a lawyer ya know.
Doug
is Helen a candidate for fastest framer? or is she in the running for slowest one, LOL
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
something tells me that at some point you're going find yourself either in the ER or in Court losing your ####
" my crew with 3 frame guns fire 4k to 5k nails per day, and it makes a difference."A difference in how high a percentage of them hits the dogs, the neighbors, the passing cars...vs how many hit the wood joints they are supposed to?
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
"I don't want to turn this into safety vs. no safety"Safety or lack thereof is what caused you to post this thread in the first place. you failed to take due diligence in protecting those in the area from danger. Pure negligence
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
I was on your side until this:
The gun is fixed exactly the way I like it. No one else but me uses it, and I've never shot anyone but myself. It hurts less than hitting a finger with a framing hammer.
Now that's just ignorant. But I still feel for you and understand why you're upset about the whole situation. I would be too. But I'm afraid DaveMeiland has summed it up best for you. That's the real world scenario.... you're gonna eat the money and hopefully learn something from it. Call it a tuition payment I guess. You'll barely get a lawyer to answer the phone for that much money.View Image
The homeowner owns the dogs and is responsible for them. If they destroy your property when you are at his home, at his invitation and certainly when contracted to do work for HO, he's responsible for damages caused by his dogs. If his 16 yo brat destroyed your stuff, would either of you think twice about who is responsible?
I'd write HO a firm letter threatening the lien and if he doesn't make amends, file the lien.
Did your contract specify that the owner would keep the dogs corraled?
If not, you may be the one holding the chewed up bag.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." Voltaire
Thanks to everyone for responding, HO wife showed me her chewed up coffee table, dining table, and sofa legs.
She wrote me a check on the spot and asked me to please ignore her husband, as she had signed the contract not him, said he could pay for his dog and like it.
Two more days and I'm done and gone, don't want to get in the middle of that.
let's all take a deep breath of relief on your behalf - somebody up there is looking out for you mctex. congrats!Justin Fink - FHB Editorial
Your Friendly Neighborhood Moderator
Oh, well, you didn't tell us you had the option of dealing with the Boss. Smart move!
That will not be the end of this kind of situation for you though.you will continue to leave unsafe tools haphazardly laying around, so it will come up again.The HO will conmtinue top allow his dogs to ruin things.She is an enabler who has let you both get off easy without dealing with or learning from the problem you were both involved in.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
I think you should be talkin to a lawyer.
sooner the better.
Eric
in Cowtown
Pack up, pull out, let him sue.