Sorry for what may be an ignorant question here, but I’m a homeowner just venturing into my first remodeling job.
My wife and I basically designed our own kitchen and bath remodel. A friend of ours who is trained (but not licensed) as an architect drew up the plans for us. We hired an engineer to check the plans and stamp them for submission to our city for permits. That should be done next week.
At first I had grand DIY delusions of doing most of the work myself (I’m fairly handy) but when it came to opening up partitions in load-bearing walls and other things out of my league, I decided to look for a contractor to take on the majority of the job, leaving much of the finish work to me. I had one GC whose work I had seen (and came recommended by a friend) come look at the project; he should have a bid ready later this week.
Then a co-worker whose opinion I respect recommended the guys who remodeled his kitchen last year. My wife and I went to look at the quality of their work (high) and then invited them over to see the project. From the beginning I got a “good vibe” from these guys, like they really appreciated what we are trying to do and were enthusiastic about our ideas and willing to share their own. But here’s the rub: these guys aren’t licensed and bonded GCs. My question is what is the possible downside to working with unlicensed contractors?
Who would be responsible for liability or workman’s comp issues if they should arise on the job? Are their subs working for them or for me? If their subs are licensed (I know their electrician and plumber are), does that count for anything?
They sent me their bid tonight and, I’ve got to say, I was pleasantly surprised by their numbers. I’m sure the other GC is going to some in considerably higher. But I’ve checked references and their work. I have no doubt the work would be accomplished in a quality way and everything would meet necessary codes. But I’m still not clear on the whole licensing issue.
What do you pros think? What would you do in my shoes? What would you suggest to a renovation novice?
Replies
I can almost certainly tell you that most everyone here will tell you to go with the liscensed guy. for alot of reasons that others will fill you in on better than I.
I got thrown into self employment this past summer after building my house and my wife and I seperated leaving me to raise and support my 2 young boys. needed cash flow, and going back to my old framing job was not an option, leaving at 5:30 am getting home 6:30 to 7:00 pm, wouldn't work with my boys in day care, and the need for me to be flexible, for appointments and such with them.
my phone wouldnt stop ringing and I have ended up doing a bunch of renos and small jobs. all of which have been unliscened. I can tell you that overhead is less and as such, is surely relfected in the price you received. It is risky way to go for me, but as I said I got thrown into it, but pretty much all the jobs I've done have been for friends, and they have turned out very well. I am right now in the process of putting everything togther so that by the new year I will be set up right. I will feel much better about it, and will reflect it in my prices.
same great work - but I believe paying extra for a guy that has all his bases covered is - and will be worth it.
My heart goes out to you and your situation. I can certainly understand why you're doing unlicensed work for the time being and I undestand your plan to get licensed as soon as you can. That answers my question from your perspective. But I'm curious about it from the perspective of a client. What, specifically, are the risks I would be running with the unlicensed guys? What, exactly, are the bases that are covered by going with the licensed guy? I'm sure you do the same great work with or without a license, so what does paying for the extra overhead actually buy me?
It's a combination of practical issues and ethical issues.
An unlicensed "contractor" is not likely to have liability insurance. If they damage your property or hurt someone while doing your job there will not be an insurance policy to pay a claim. The injured party may be you, or someone else who comes after you for settlement.
An unlicensed "contractor" is not likely to have worker's comp insurance. If they are hurt on the job, or one of their "employees" is hurt, you may find yourself on the hook for their medical bills.
An unlicensed "contractor" is not likely to be paying some or all of the income taxes. That can become your problem if the IRS finds them (and you, as a result). It's also an ethical issue--do you believe that people should pay their taxes? Would you knowingly patronize a tax cheat?
In my experience, unlicensed "contractors" are less serious about their trades, and about their businesses. My brother hired an unlicensed guy for cash to remodel his house, using workers the guy paid in cash. They did not show up reliably, did a lot of things wrong, took forever to almost finish the job, and finally left with a bunch of details undone or uncorrected. From the sound of it the whole thing was a major headache. Fortunately for my brother they did not get hurt, did not hurt anyone else, and the IRS has so far not come and asked him to pay their employment taxes.
Licensing itself does not confer anything special. Where I now live you can "buy" a license by sending in about $100 and a certificate of insurance. Where I lived previously I took a written test to get licensed. Neither process is a major barrier. The fact that someone is serious enough to get licensed and run a proper, above-board business is a good indicator that they may be someone you want to deal with.
You sound like you are buying on price, that you believe the lowest price is probably the "best deal". Let me respectfully suggest that you don't have much of a clue about how to buy remodeling services. You should spend quite a bit more time learning about these issues and others before you make a decision. You should talk to your state's licensing authority and ask for their free consumer publications on hiring contractors. Don't think that one reference from a friend who is satisfied with a job is enough evidence that someone is the right contractor for you. You want someone with a long history in business and a lengthy reference list.
Virtually 100% of my customers are people like you who started out hiring unlicensed hacks and paid thru the nose with unfinished jobs, poor quality work, unmet schedules, and other good stuff. They know now that hiring a pro is the best value and are happy to pay what I charge.
"An unlicensed "contractor" is not likely to be paying some or all of the income taxes. That can become your problem if the IRS finds them (and you, as a result). It's also an ethical issue--do you believe that people should pay their taxes? Would you knowingly patronize a tax cheat?"First of all a customer has absolutley no liability for the taxes of some one that they contract with.Secondly you are branding him a tax cheat without any basis.
I obviously don't agree. If you hire someone on an hourly basis who is not running a business you can become liable for their employment taxes if the arrangement is discovered, because the IRS defines them as your employee. Of course the IRS would have to find this out... which is unlikely... because in my experience most of the unlicensed guys are also under-the-table and are paid in cash, which makes the whole thing hard to trace and goes to my second point about tax evasion. The intent of my post was to acquaint the OP with the issues. I obviously do not know the person he is thinking of hiring, or that person's business or financial practices. You and he are both smart enough to know that... right?
Who said anything about hiring him by the hour?
I get where your coming from Bill... I see davids point, but don't think he is accurate on that particular issue. ( But states may be different than here in Canada)
if one is working for oneself, you are deemed to be a sole proprietor. In Canada what an employee is, is very specifically outlined with very little room for variance. I have detailed info, which my father in law who is helping me to set up my company printed out for me from the government of Canada.
in a nut shell if the guy supplies his own tools and makes a profit for himself he is working for himself and is NOT an employee regardless of wether he is paid by hour or not.
in order for him to be an employee, the home owner would have to supply and be maintaining the tools ( aside from personal hand tools) that are being used for the job. this seems to be the key factor as to what determines an employee.
where David raises a good point. is that if it was deemed an "employer situation" your IRS would be looking to deemed employer for employee deductions etc.. I doubt that is even close to the situation.
where we run into it more often is when a lot of guys hire someone ( worked that way before and also guilty of it myself) to work for us and we pay them as a sub. unless they supply and maintain their own tools they are not a sub they are an employee. there may be some other factors, but this seems to be the huge key.
Edited 11/21/2006 9:35 pm ET by alrightythen
There is a simple test in the US. It used to be 20 questions. I think that number has changed. But there has never been any kind of scoring system that really makes it clear if one is an employee or independent contractor.One of the ares is in control. Control of the the specific task that he is performing; how, when, where, who. And also long term control. His he available for work from other clients.The chance of making a profit or taking a loss is another area. Being paid hourly does take that out of the equation. But does not automatically make the person an employee. T&M and cost plus are just as a legit method of doing business as fix cost.But so far none of these issues have raised their head here.
If you hire a lawyer then he is your employee. When he bills you, do you deduct taxes? Do you pay workmen's comp. on him? How about your dentist, doctor, accountant, architect ? Those are just occupations. Many states have provisions in their licensing laws that an employee can qualify for a contractor's license. They usually use the term 'responsible managing employee' . Obviously, it would be ridiculous for someone who is not a contractor to qualify for a contractor's license. In California, it is not mandatory for a contractor to carry workmen's compensation unless the person who qualifies for the license is an employee. Under California law, if the applicant for a contractor license is an individual who has no employees and he qualified for his own license, then he need not carry workmen's compensation. He must, however, supervise the work. If the applicant for a license is an individual who employs a 'responsible managing employee' to supervise, then workmen's comp. must be carried on that employee.Suppose a group of journeyman plumbers forms a corporation. Suppose a property owner acts as his own plumbing contractor and contracts directly with this corporation. Compensation is paid to the corporation, not to the individual members. So it would be impossible to pay taxes and carry workmen's comp. on this corporation. I think one of the problems that people have with the term 'contractor' is that it has more than one meaning. In the world of construction it refers to an occupation. When a court refers to journeymen plumbers and master plumbers the distinction is that journeymen are mechanics who perform plumbing labor and master plumbers are contractors. Mechanics lien laws and contractor licensing laws are based on this distinction. A Registrar of Contractors would have jurisdiction over master plumbers if plumbing contractors were required to be licensed, but would have no jurisdiction over journeymen plumbers. Plumbing contractors and journeymen plumbers being different occupations, each makes different kinds of contracts. The same is true for journeymen electricians and electrical contractors (master electricians) and so forth. A journeynan plumber makes contracts to perform plumbing labor. A plumbing contractor makes contracts to award contracts to journeymen plumbers and award contracts to materialmen to supply plumbing materials. This is the legal meaning.
Although I can see some of your points....I don't agree with a few. For example:""If you hire a lawyer then he is your employee. When he bills you, do you deduct taxes? Do you pay workmen's comp. on him? How about your dentist, doctor, accountant, architect ? Those are just occupations""Lawyers, doctors, dentists, accountants and I think architects....are all licensed in their respective fields. Although those are occupations, to perform the work as a <insert title here>, they have to be licensed. They have gone throuugh the education, testing and accredation process and have received a license to do business in that particular field....as a business (proprietor/partnership) and/or as a licensed employee working for another individual, company, etc. So when you go to the doctor, you are not hiring an employee. You are making an agreement (contract) to pay that individual/company a fee for their services, and then they are responsible for licensing, insurance, etc.2nd...""I think one of the problems that people have with the term 'contractor' is that it has more than one meaning. In the world of construction it refers to an occupation. When a court refers to journeymen plumbers and master plumbers the distinction is that journeymen are mechanics who perform plumbing labor and master plumbers are contractors. Mechanics lien laws and contractor licensing laws are based on this distinction. A Registrar of Contractors would have jurisdiction over master plumbers if plumbing contractors were required to be licensed, but would have no jurisdiction over journeymen plumbers.Plumbing contractors and journeymen plumbers being different occupations, each makes different kinds of contracts. The same is true for journeymen electricians and electrical contractors (master electricians) and so forth. A journeynan plumber makes contracts to perform plumbing labor. A plumbing contractor makes contracts to award contracts to journeymen plumbers and award contracts to materialmen to supply plumbing materials. This is the legal meaning.""Contractor (to me) and I think the State of California, does not refer to an occupation (framing, plumbing, concrete, electrical work, etc), but it refers to someone who is licensed to do that work on his/her own, versus doing that work as an employee of someone else.A journeyman plumber, if NOT a contractor, does not make contracts. He/she is an employee of someone else. A plumbing contractor (who is probably a journeyman plumber, depending on how that is interpreted), is the one who makes contracts, and can therefore either hire another plumber (journeyman or not) as an employee, can sub the work out to yet another plumbing contractor, or can do the job on his/her own.Either way, to me, a Contractor is someone who is licensed, not just every Tom, Dick and Harry who works in any particular occupation.
U.S. Supreme Court, December Term, 1852, speaking of contractors: "They do not labor as mechanics, but superintend work done by others. They are not tradesmen in lumber, or other materials for building, but employ others to furnish materials. ... The act (a lien law ) contemplates two conditions, under which such labor and materials may have been furnished: First, on the order of the owner, who may act without the intervention of any middleman, and thus become indebted directly to his mechanics and tradesmen. Or, secondly, when they have been furnished on the order of a contractor or undertaker. ... Experience has shown that mechanics and tradesmen who furnish labor and materials for the construction of buildings, are often defrauded by insolvent owners and dishonest contractors."How dare the U.S. Supreme Court say such a thing when those on this board say otherwise.In City of Milwaukee v. Rissling, 184 Wis. 517, 199 N.W. 61, an ordinance of the City of Milwaukee required electrical contractors but not journeymen electricians to be licensed. Defendant's counsel argued: "The ordinance can only be sustained on the ground of the exercise of police power, and as such it must fall because it fails to provide for the licensing of the very men who do the work - that is to say the journeymen." In the opinion of the Court it is said about the ordinance: "It thus recognizes a distinction between contractors in this line and journeymen. ... The test to be applied is to ascertain whether all those included in the class are treated alike under like circumstances and conditions. ... In the instant case, individuals, firms, and corporations are treated alike; each is required to obtain a license, and each must file a certificate naming the person who shall be the supervisor of the work. ... Having treated all contractors in a class alike, the ordinance is constitutional."What? Supervisor? Supervise work done by others like the U.S. Supreme Court said in Winder v. Caldwell, the case mentioned in the beginning of this commentary. Journeymen electricians do the labor as mechanics? How dare the Supreme Court of Wisconsin say such a thing. And how dare the U.S. Supreme Court affirm this decision ( Roy Rissling v. City of Milwaukee, 271 U.S. 644, 46 S. Ct. 484, 70 L. Ed. 1129 ) when the readers on this board say otherwise.In City of Shreveport v. Bayse, 166 La. 689, 117 So. 775, defendant Bayse was convicted of supervising electrical work in the city of Shreveport without first qualifying for a master electrician's certificate. Defendant's counsel argued that the ordinance was designed to "... prevent competition from electrical contractors not living in Shreveport." The ordinance provided that master electricians actually and continually supervise, direct, and superintend electrical work in the City of Shreveport but could only do so if a master electrician's certificate was obtained.What? A master electrician's certificate needed to prevent competition from electrical contractors not living in Shreveport. And supervise? How dare such a Court of authority recognize a contractor as a supervisor when the readers on this board say otherwise.In State ex. rel. Grantham v. City of Memphis, 151 Tenn. 1, 266 S.W. 1038, an ordinance of the city of Memphis required all journeymen plumbers to obtain a license and all master plumbers to obtain a license. For master plumbers ( plumbing contractors ) the supervisor was required to stand an examination and be licensed. In the opinion of the Court it is said of master plumbers ( plumbing contractors ) : "Nobody but the licensed 'manager' of a corporation or the licensed 'superintendent' of a firm can even supervise the plumbing work which such firm or corporation may do." What? Supervise? How dare the Supreme Court of Tennessee say such a thing. What is with this supervision thing? In Arizona, section 32-1122 of the statutory law requires an applicant for a contractor's license to designate a qualifying party. Section 32-1127 states: "While engaged as a qualifying party for a licensee, the qualifying party shall not take othe employment that would conflict with his duties as qualifying party or conflict with his ability to adequately supervise the work performed by the licensee."What? Supervise? A supervisor does not perform labor? He supervises work done by others? Not according to the readers of this board. In Trewitt v. City of Dallas, 242 S.W. 1073, the Court said: "In the nature of things, we think a corporation could not engage in the occupation either of a master plumber or of a journeyman plumber."What? Master plumber and journeyman plumber are different occupations? How dare the Court of Civil Appeals of Texas say such a thing when the readers of this board say otherwise. In Wilby v. State, 93 Miss. 767, 47 So. 465, The Supreme Court of Mississippi declared a statutory license tax applied only to plumbing contractors and not to journeymen plumbers. The Court said: "The business of plumbing is an honorable and necessary one. So is that of a contractor. The law looks on both of these occupations with favor, not with disfavor."What? Occupation of contractor? How dare the Supreme Court of Mississippi say such a thing when the readers of this board say otherwise.In State v. Malory, 168 La. 742, 123 So. 310, the Court said: "There is a well recognized difference between a master plumber and a journeyman plumber, and this distinction is noted by the trial judge. The former is a plumber who employs plumbers, and the latter is one who does the actual work of plumbing."How dare the Supreme Court of Louisiana say such a thing when the readers on this board say otherwise.In City of Louisville v. Coulter, 177 Ky. 242, 197 S.W. 819, a statute required licenses of journeymen plumbers but not master plumbers. In the opinion it is said: "This creates a distinct class to be dealt with by the law, and is founded upon the distinction between the persons who actually perform the work of plumbing and those who merely contract to do plumbing and employ other persons to do the work, the latter class being the employing or master plumbers. In the opinion of the Legislature the necessity existed for restraining and regulating the one and not the other. Doubtless the basis for the distinction arises from the fact that the defects in plumbing and the dangers to be guarded against from improper and defective plumbing chiefly arise from the ignorance, incapacity or want of skill in the persons who actually do the work of plumbing, rather than from the want of qualification in the employing plumber, who does not actually perform the work.What? How dare the Court of Appeals of Kentucky say such a thing when the readers of this board say otherwise. And how dare the Supreme Court of Georgia define journeyman plumbers to be those skilled in the business and holding themselves out as able and willing to do the work themselves while defining master plumbers and employing plumbers to be one and the same, and to be those who did not hold themselves out as personally doing the work, but as contracting to furnish the material and to do the work through others. Felton v. City of Atlanta, 4 Ga. App. 183, 61 S.E. 27. The readers of this board say otherwise. And in Dasch v. Jackson, 170 Md. 251, 183 A. 534 , how dare the Court of Appeals of Maryland declare a statute unconstitutional which required licenses of journeymen paper hangers and paper hanging contractors. How dare them say: "The art of paper hanging is one that requires manual dexterity, skill, and some experience. It differs in that respect not at all from other similar occupations, such as house painting, carpentry, stone cutting, bricklaying, horseshoeing, repairing machinery, wood carving, plastering, and the like, which men have from time immemorial followed without regulation or interference as a matter of common right and which have no substantial relation to the public health or safety." The readers of this board say otherwise. And in Hunt v. Douglas Lumber Co., 41 Ariz. 276, 17 P2d 815, the Supreme Court of Arizona said: "It frequently happens that the owner pays to the contractor funds which under the contract should be used in the satisfaction of bills for materials or labor, and the latter diverts such funds to other purposes, leaving the owner under the necessity of paying a second time to avoid a lien on his property."What? Bills for labor? Bills from the journeymen? Oh my God. Not according to the readers of this board.
you're funnyMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
I read your post, and it seems every case you "quoted" was from...Milwaukee, Arizona, Tennessee, Dallas, etc. Oh wait, you also quoted the US Supreme Court.First...being in California, I don't give a rat's *** what a Tennessee court determines is or is not a contractor, a journeyman plumber, a master plumber, etc. What matters in this case here (since the original poster is in California) is what California Law states.The governing body in California is the Constractors State License Board (which others have posted links to). They don't care about or make laws for Alabama, Georgia, or Alaska, only for California, so those are they only laws pertinent to this situation. Now if the feds (and the US Supreme Ct) wanted to step in and say California cannot govern contractors this way or that way, that's their business....but so far, that is NOT how it works.In California, you become a "contractor" once you've qualified for and then passed the CSLB's test(s), and then posted your bond. Anyone else, who has not done so, may call himself a contractor, but is NOT recognized as one by the State of California until he/she actually gets licensed.For jobs over $500 (including labor and material), you MUST be a licensed contractor to do the work someone legally. If the job is under $500, then yes, you can enter into a contract to do so legally, as long as you state in writing that you are NOT a licensed contractor.As far as insurance goes, this individual who is NOT licensed as a Contractor, will NOT be able to buy liability insurance for a construction business since no company will insure him. Also, this individual who is NOT licensed will NOT be able to secure workman's compensation (assuming he has employees) for a construction business since he is not licensed.All those quotes you posted make it sound like the only thing a "contractor" does is sign contracts and then supervise work. Sure, that's how some contractors do it here, while others sign the contracts, do the work, and superivise others too.I looked at your profile, but it does not state where you are from, but it doesn't sound like you're from CA based on the logic in your arguments.
"I looked at your profile, but it does not state where you are from, but it doesn't sound like you're from CA based on the logic in your arguments."That is where you are wrong.Completely and totally100% wrong.There is no logic to his arguements.In fact in all the years that he has been posting that stuff no one has every figured out what his argument is about.
Please post the California mechanics' lien laws and contractor licensing laws or refer me to a web site where I can read them .Thank you.
Message 22 in this thread which posted links to the CSLB site:http://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages?msg=81805.22Contractors State License Board home page:http://www.cslb.ca.gov/CSLB information on Owner/Builder scenario....which is what the proposed scenario is if the original poster hires the unlicensed individual:http://www.cslb.ca.gov/consumers/owner-builder.aspCSLB Warning on Owner/Builder scenario:http://www.cslb.ca.gov/consumers/owner-builder1.aspHomeowner's info on Mechanic's Liens:http://www.cslb.ca.gov/forms/MechanicsLiens.asp
whoa, you can do allthat court research and cannot find simple things like that?
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
i also would like to know the date of those legal references... i'd venture to say that they have all been superceded in most statesMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
The California State Licensing Board for contractors has been in existence since 1929. I guess they have been superceded by now.
no,not the board..... the date of these sitations :
http://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages?msg=81805.80Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Look them up. But I can guarantee you one thing. If anybody were to challenge the constitutionality of California's licensing laws, their attorney general would be citing those decisions in defense of their statutes. He would be arguing that individuals, partnerships, and corporations are treated alike in that each must obtain a license and each must designate the supervisor of the work just as in City of Milwaukee v. Rissling, City of Shreveport v. Bayse, and State ex rel. Grantham v. City of Memphis. And their attorney general would argue that a distinction is made between contractors and journeymen and that the state has the right to license one without the other just as stated in City of Milwaukee v. Rissling and City of Louisville v. Coulter. For your information, City of Milwaukee v. Rissling was decided in 1924, City of Shreveport v. Bayse in 1928, State ex rel. Grantham v. City of Memphis in 1924. California started its contractor licensing in 1929 on the heels of these decisions. Perhaps not you, but most people could see a connection here that California's laws were drawn with a knowledge of these decisions especially given the time frame.
that's what i thought... 1920's
gimme a break.... Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
What logic? He always sounds like he is arguing that rain falls up into the sky and makes the green grass yellow
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Roar
LOL
Cackle cackle cackle
Chuckle chuckleSamT
Now if I could just remember that I am a businessman with a hammer and not a craftsman with a business.....segundo <!----><!---->
From Google "Code 5150":
FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State ...
WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE SECTION 5150-5157. 5150. When any person, as a result of mental disorder, is a danger to others, or to himself or herself, ...caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/wic/5150-5157.html - 48k - <!---->Cached - Similar pages<!---->
http://www.van-halen.com - Music: 5150: 5150 Police Code
5150 comes from the California Code of the same name. And was the source of the album's title. Here's the actual code taken verbatim from the law book: ...http://www.van-halen.com/newsite/5150code.html - 10k - <!---->Cached - Similar pages<!---->
5150 (Involuntary psychiatric hold) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
California Welfare and Institutions Code, Sections 5150-5157; contrast/compare with Rogers Law, concerning involuntary treatment/commitment in Massachusetts ...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 5150_(Involuntary_psychiatric_hold) - 23k - <!---->Cached - Similar pages<!---->
ROAR R R R!
SamT
Now if I could just remember that I am a businessman with a hammer and not a craftsman with a business.....segundo <!----><!---->
Edited 12/3/2006 7:35 pm by SamT
I don't have a horse in this race, but the entertainment is wrth the read. It's something the way he wants somebody else to do the research so he can twist it.Like a duelist asking if he can have both weapons, LOL
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
I had a roommate who said she got social aid 'cuz she was "5150."
Dang, this Wernesgruner is pretty good beer. I'll have to get some more.SamT
Now if I could just remember that I am a businessman with a hammer and not a craftsman with a business.....segundo <!----><!---->
Clicked on the California State Licensing Board site and this is what I found under ' blueprint for contractor licensing':It stated that to obtain a license one must have 4 years experience as a journeyman or as a contractor in the respective trade to act as a qualifier for a license.It then defined a journeyman as an experienced worker who could perform the trade without supervision.It then defined a contractor as a person who managed the daily operations of a construction business as field supervisor.These definitions were under section 7 of the 'blueprint'.Section 52 of the blueprint stated that if the licensee was an individual, the qualifier could be the individual or a responsible managing employee ( RME ).If the licensee was a partnership the qualifier could be one of the partners or an RME. If the licensee was a corporation the qualifier could be a corporate officer or an RME.The qualifier was the person responsible for the daily operations of the business as field supervisor. That is the definition of contractor under section 7. So the contractor qualifying for the license could be an RME.Sections 2 and 3 stated that if after making the contract the costs of labor and materials exceeded $500.00 a license was necessary. I then clicked on a site by the California Registrar about how to prevent mechanics' liens. The Registrar stated that when bills for labor or materials are presented by the prime contractor, the property owner should make a joint check payable to the party who performed the labor or furnished the materials and the prime contractor. Then both of these parties could endorse the check. and the party performing the labor or furnishing the materials would get the proceeds. The same was true for subcontractors. The property owner should make out a joint check payable to both prime contractor and subcontractor. After both parties endorse the check, the subcontractor would get the proceeds.The prime contractor of course gets the entire amount of his contract and no joint check is necessary.
Based on your statement.....""It then defined a contractor as a person who managed the daily operations of a construction business as field supervisor.""What is it you are claming a Contractors job is? Field Supervision?
No, he's misrepresenting what the licensing board says:
Here's a cut and past from the site. Notice the changes he made
Experience Requirements
7. What kind of experience is required for a contractor's license?
You must have at least four years of experience is required to qualify to take the examination. Credit for experience is given only for experience at a journey level or as a foreman, supervising employee, contractor, or owner-builder. These are defined as follows:
View Image
A journeyman is a person who has completed an apprenticeship program or is an experienced worker, not a trainee, and is fully qualified and able to perform the trade without supervision.
View Image
A foreman or supervisor is a person who has the knowledge and skill of a journeyman and directly supervises physical construction.
View Image
A contractor is a person who manages the daily activities of a construction business, including field supervision.
View Image
An owner-builder is a person who has the knowledge and skills of a journeyman and who performs work on his or her own property.
46. To whom is a license issued?
A license may be issued to an individual, a partnership, a corporation, or a joint venture. The license belongs to the owner of an individual license, to the partnership, to the corporation as it is registered with the California Secretary of State, or to the combination of licensees who are party to the joint venture. The CSLB does not issue licenses to Limited Liability Companies (LLC's).
49. To whom does the term "qualifying individual" refer?
A qualifying individual, or simply "qualifier," is the person listed on the CSLB records who meets the experience and examination requirements for the license. A qualifying individual is required for every classification on each license issued by the CSLB.
50. What is the qualifying individual required to do?
The qualifying individual for a license is responsible for the employer's (or principal's) construction operations.
52. Who can be a qualifying individual?
If you have an individual license, your qualifier may be either a Responsible Managing Employee (RME) or you.
If you have a partnership license, your qualifier may either be one of the general partners (who shall be designated as the qualifying partner) or the RME.
If you have a corporate license, your qualifier may be either one of the officers listed on the CSLB's records for your license (who shall be designated as the Responsible Managing Officer, or RMO), or an RME.
If your qualifying individual is a Responsible Managing Employee, he or she must be a bona fide employee of the firm and may not be the qualifier on any other active license. This means that the RME must be regularly employed by the firm and actively involved in the operation of the business at least 32 hours per week or 80 percent of the total business operating hours per week, whichever is less.
[End of C&P]
You know, I used to think 5150 was just a well meaning individual of low intelligence who thought he was smart. I am beginning to think that he is actually a smarter than average troll.
Either that or he really is nuts (5150.) See: 81805.90 SamT
Now if I could just remember that I am a businessman with a hammer and not a craftsman with a business.....segundo <!----><!---->
Here is a biggie:
In some states, you can end up double-paying for the work if you go with an unlicensed guy. Here is how that works:
You pay the GC. He goes broke and files bankruptcy. He hasn't paid his employees, suppliers or subs. Those guys put liens on the house. You pay everybody again.
Licensed contractors, on the other hand, pay yearly into a state lien fund. If the same scenario happens, the lien fund pays all the amounts due. Homeowner is in effect insured against double-paying.
I would not count on that.In a number of states you can pay twice with a licensed contractor.Getting lien releases is the key in all cases.
Oh yes, Bill. You can indeed count on that. Michigan's State Lien Fund is set up specifically to indemnify various parties when that situation arises and protect the homeowner against paying twice WHEN THE CONTRACTOR IS LICENSED.
It gives homeowners a powerful incentive to stick with licensed contractors.
Look it up.
So I can count on Michigan's Lien fund is ALL STATES.
"So I can count on Michigan's Lien fund is ALL STATES."
Not sure, Bill. Can you translate that into English?
Using a licensed contract is no guarantee that you won't have to pay twice. Lien releases will protect against that.That is true in all 50 states and the many other cities that do or do not license contractors.
You know......I read his post last night.....and I started to reply and then said....ahh the heck with it. In particular, he states that in Section 7, the CSLB says:""It then defined a contractor as a person who managed the daily operations of a construction business as field supervisor.""However, in your post, which is a direct copy and paste, which is what I started to do last night...""A contractor is a person who manages the daily activities of a construction business, including field supervision.""Changing the words from "including field supervision" to "as field supervisor" makes a big difference.I'm not sure if it's me or if I'm just misunderstanding him, but it seems he keeps saying that a contractor ONLY supervises, and that's it? He doesn't actually work in the field. Maybe I'm misreading the posts...who knows. Either way, I DID notice the changed language and how (to me) changing a couple words in a sentence definitely changes the meaning of the sentence.
5150 has been poking a stick in the hornet's nest for about 5 years now..
best i can figure out.. he has some idea that employers steal labor from employees, that it is a one-sided relationship and that contractors engage in white-slavery
his thrust is to continually prove that most contracts are illegal because the GC stands between the journeyman and the customer
but hey, whadda i no ?
Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Thanks for clearing THAT up.I could always see that he was arguing some point, but his communication ability is so poor, he never seems to make the point, just the arguement, so I never knew where he was going
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
5150 has been poking a stick in the hornet's nest for about 5 years now.. best i can figure out.. he has some idea that employers steal labor from employees, that it is a one-sided relationship and that contractors engage in white-slaveryhis thrust is to continually prove that most contracts are illegal because the GC stands between the journeyman and the customerbut hey, whadda i no ?So...what's yer point, I mean really?...don't look while I'm stuffing all this moola under my matress...ha,ha,ha Oh God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe says, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God say, "No." Abe say, "What?"
God say, "You can do what you want Abe, but
The next time you see me comin' you better run"
Well Abe says, "Where do you want this killin' done?"
God says, "Out on Highway 61."
just keep your metal detectors out of my back yard..
you can have the mattressMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
have the mattress?You heard that the IRS is disguising their spy bugs and bedbugs now didn't you?
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
I just read in Men's Magazine that a matress gains ten pounds in weight from our dna over it's life .
blue
That DNA must be heavy stuff!;)
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
So...what's yer point, I mean really?...don't look while I'm stuffing all this moola under my matress...ha,ha,ha
Amen brother! They can come and take my mattress and everything in it!
blue
Gee Sam, your own cut and paste has definitions for journeymen and for contractors, does it not?Does it not define a contractor as a person? Your own cut and paste then mentions licensed individuals, licensed partnerships, and licensed corporations, does it not? And yet, when I said the same thing, you ridiculed me. The joint check issue was from the California Registrar. Post 86, mechanics' liens. Ridicule the Registrar. Does not the definition of journeyman refer to labor? Here's a clue, the term worker. Does not the definition of contractor refer to management? Here's a clue, the term manages and the term supervision. Which does California license, labor or management? When you see 2 definitions, one for journeymen and one for contractors, and there is a Registrar of Contractors, which one of those two do you think it applies to? If there was a Registrar of Journeymen, which do you think it would apply to.Now when you see that all contractors must be licensed when the cost of labor and materials exceeds $500.00, do you think the term labor refers to labor or management?By definition, under California law, a contractor cannot make a contract to perform labor. Guess who can? Journeymen perform labor. Therefore they can make contracts to perform labor.Now since California has, by definition, created two classes - contractors on the one hand, and journeymen on the other, it is an impossibility of law for journeymen to be employees of contractors. For the state may not create two classes and say that one class shall be the employees (servants) of another class. To do so would violate the 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude.
>>>>By definition, under California law, a contractor cannot make a contract to perform labor. Guess who can? Journeymen perform labor. Therefore they can make contracts to perform labor.<<<<So....if I understand you correctly.....a self-employed 100% legal Licensed California Contractor...who has ZERO employees (meaning he is a one-man shop), cannot do any work himself? Since all he is allowed to do is manage and supervize, he must contract (or subcontract) out any and all work he finds?Or....he MUST hire an employee?Wow..so much for the self employed contractor...lol
Edited 12/4/2006 8:39 pm ET by jja28
If he was a one man shop performing labor, he would under the definitions posted be a journeyman and not need a license.If the Legislature of California did not mean for them to be different, then there would be no reason to define them differently. Why define one as labor and one as management if the Legislature did not mean what they say.You are however on the right track. When a property owner hires a contractor there will always be third parties. A contractor is hired to contract the work out to third parties. Here is a quote from State v. Tabasso Homes, 42 Del. 210, 28 A2d 248, : "When an owner of land enters into a contract for the erection of a building it is understood that such contractors MUST arrange either for subcontractors or for labor and material. There springs into existence an implied agency of the contractor for the owner to obtain the necessities for the building, ... ."And here in Morrison v. Hancock, 40 Mo. 561 when speaking of carpentry contractors: "In contemplation of law the owner of the building, by employing a person to do the work, does thereby cloth him with authority, not to bind him individually and to an unlimited extent, as an ordinary agent might do, but so far as the procuring of materials and labor may be necessary to complete his contract."In other words a contractor says: I don't personally do the work as a journeyman or furnish materials as a materialman, but I will act as your agent and award all the necessary contracts to those who do personally perform the labor and those who do furnish materials. This is what a plumbing contractor or carpentry contractor does.Or, you could have another kind of contractor who says: I don' t personally obtain the labor and materials as a trade contractor, but I will act as your agent and employ the necessary trade contractors to obtain the labor and materials.Is this really that difficult to grasp.
Edited 12/4/2006 10:36 pm ET by 5150
>>>If he was a one man shop performing labor, he would under the definitions posted be a journeyman and not need a license.<<<Why couldn't he still be an apprentice/trainee of some sort? Are you saying only a journeyman can run a one man shop?And what if the jobs were over $500? Could this journeyman do them?As I see it...A journeyman is someone who has put in the required time (according to state, locality, etc) and possibly education (vocational, trade, union shop, etc), and passed any required tests in their specified field (plumbing, electrical, hvac, etc) to have earned the title of Journeyman Electrician, Journeyman Plumber, etc....versus being called a laborer or apprentice or trainee, etc. That's how I see it and that's how most people I've come into contact with see it.A contractor who is the qualifying individual (such as in a sole proprietorship, possibly a partnership, or corporation), has taken it one step further, or gained his/her experience from somewhere else and become licensed as a contractor, so he/she can take jobs over $500 as a legal business. A journeyman (as you put it), cannot take jobs over $500 so if he wants to, he must become a licensed contractor first......or he must work as an employee of someone else.This is how it works: - You want to work as an "employee" for someone else and/or take a bunch of side jobs for under $500 (materials and labor), then no, you do not need a license. - You want to work for yourself, take jobs for over $500 (materials and labor), then yes, you get a license as a Contractor. With that license, you can work on the job if you want. You are NOT required to hire employees or to sub it out and introduce, yet another, middleman into the picture. If that were the case, the state would be fining 1,000's of self employed legal contractors who do the work themselves EVERYDAY!Is that so difficult to understand?And for the record....my questions in my last post....were not me being on the right track...
Answer this question.Suppose nobody in the state of California wanted to be a contractor and nobody got a license. Does that mean that no journeyman could work at their trade. Arizona has a licensing law like California's. Arizona's mechanics' lien laws state that every person who performs labor shall have a lien for such labor whether the labor was furnished at the instance of the property owner or his agent. It then states that all contractors and subcontractors are agents of the property owner.To me, that says that if a property owner has no agents, then the labor is furnished at his instance. And "it is difficult to understand how a lien can be created unless there be some debt to be secured by it, and to create a debt there must be some contract either express or implied." Geddes v. Bowden, 19 S.C. 5.To my mind, if it says labor can be furnished at the instance of a contractor or subcontractor as agent, then the property owner must have hired such agent specifically to obtain the labor. Otherwise the property owner would have done it himself. That would mean that a contract between a property owner and a contractor or subcontractor is not complete until contracts are awarded to those who perform labor.In other words a direct contract between a property owner and a carpenter is a two party contract. But a contract between a property owner and a carpentry contractor is a three party contract. The contract to employ the carpenters on behalf of the property owner as his agent means that one party to the contract is the property owner, a second party to the contract is the carpentry contractor, and the third parties to the contract are the carpenters the carpentry contractor was hired to procure.Arizona's state Constitution has a provision most states have in there Constitutions. Article 4, pt. 2, section 13 states that every Act shall embrace but one subject and such subject shall be expressed in the title. Any subject outside that embraced in the title is automatically void. Arizona has a title "Contractors". From this title, any person who works at a trade is exempt. For if a carpenter can contract directly with the property owner as stated in the lien laws, or is a third party to a carpentry contractor's contract as expressed in the lien laws, then he does not come within the scope of the title "Contractors".Under Arizona law, which is generally very similar to California's regarding licensing and liens, contractors employed as agents must submit invoices from carpenters or other tradesmen they engage to work on a project. There is no limit on how much a carpenter or other tradesman can charge. I'm sure California has a similar provision.
That's your labor and your materials you are talking about, correct. You are not going out and obtaining labor and materials from somewhere else, correct. When you say you will perform the labor and you will supply the materials for the construction of a new 20 unit apartment building, you will not be obtaining material from any other source. The property owner has a 2 party contract with you. He chose you over all other material suppliers. He chose you over all other persons to perform the labor. For you not to do it would be breach of contract. For you to obtain labor and materials from somewhere else would be breach of contract. For when you said you would do it, it specifically meant you. No third parties involved.A lien law is public policy. If public policy says that the only way a carpenter can come on to another man's property to perform labor is either at the direct request of the property owner himself or at the request of the property owner's agent, then it must be presumed that if someone other than the property owner requests that I perform carpentry labor on another man's property he is the property owner's agent. Is this not logical. If he is not the owner's agent, then it must be true that my labor was performed at the request of the property owner. How can carpentry labor come on to a job site in some manner other than that specified by law. Otherwise the law is violated. Who should be held accountable for violation of the law? If a man represent himself to be an agent of the owner and he is really not, should the carpenter suffer? Should the property owner say, you were performing labor on my property illegally by trespassing. If the person representing himself as the agent is a licensed agent, should not the carpenter trust him?What do you think? I want peoples opinion on this.
Edited 12/5/2006 9:06 pm ET by 5150
What do you think?
I want peoples opinion on this.
5150, you and I might be very good at twisting a pretzel into any shape we like and we then get the pleasure of naming it. Others will see the same uniquely designed object and call it something else. Neither are more right or wrong.
Your creative ideas regarding your subject might very well be more correct, but your chances of swaying a majority opinion are very slim, very slim indeed.
blue
I just recently came back from the law library where I could look at the statute laws of different states regarding contractor licensing. In particular, I looked at Rhode Island's licensing laws because that is where Mike Smith is from. Mike Smith has repeatedly bad mouthed me, despite the fact that everything I stated I backed up with precedent case law. Interestingly enough, Rhode Island statute law, section 5-6-1 et seq. , requires a certificate B license of "journeyperson electricians" and certificate A licenses of "electrical contractors". Section 5-6-1 defines a "journeyperson electrician" as a person who does actual electrical work of installing wires, conduit, fixtures, and electrical apparatus. The same section defines an "electrical contractor" as a person, firm, or corporation, who, THROUGH THE EMPLOYMENT OF JOURNEYPERSON ELECTRICIANS, installs wires, conduit, fixtures, and electrical apparatus. Those who have certificate A licenses as electrical contractors are not allowed to do any actual electrical work. Under Rhode Island law, whenever an electrical contractor is hired, they must, by law, contract the actual work out to certificate B licensees (journeyperson electricians). Under their statutes, a certificate B license shall state the name of the person who is entitled to engage in the OCCUPATION of journeyperson electrician. The state regulatory board issuing the licenses is made up of various personnel including a member of the state fire marshall's office, a member of a city building inspection department, one electrical contractor, one journeyperson electrician, and various others.There are provisions for registered apprentices to learn the trade under the direct supervision of a licensed journeyperson. I find this all fascinating because Mike "know it all" Smith has repeatedly said I was crazy when I referred to case law whereby the Supreme Court of Wisconsin said there were electrical contractors on the one hand, and journeymen electricians on the other and that the journeymen were the ones who did actual electrical work. When Mr. Know it All asked the date of that decision and I said 1924 his response was "I thought so. Gimme a break." Turns out his own state is currently using the same distinction in their licensing laws. These distinctions are even made in the 2007 supplement of their statutes in section 5-6-1. Hopefully, the other readers on this board can see that the term journeyperson is a more modern way of saying journeyman. It is perhaps more politically correct so as not to offend female electricians. But the actual meaning is the same, the ones who do the actual electrical work.Even better, in 1908, almost a century ago, in Wilby v. State, the Supreme Court of Mississippi stated the difference between a plumbing contractor and a journeyman plumber in the same manner as current Rhode Island law defines the distinction between an electrical contractor and a journeyperson electrician; the court then saying a plumbing contractor was an individual, firm, or corporation who , through the employment of journeyman plumbers, did plumbing work. The contract of the plumbing contractor was to be completed by the employment of third party journeymen. In other words, they have a contract to hire somebody else to do the work . Any person on this board can go to the Rhode Island statutes and read for themselves that what I have just stated is true. Go to section 5-6-1 and the sections that follow pertaining to the certificate A and certificate B licenses. Mr. Know it All better tell his Legislature that they are wrong. That their legal definition of what an electrical contractor is must be wrong because that is not what he thinks an electrical contractor is. The state where I live, Arizona, makes the same distinction as Rhode Island concerning electrical contractors and practical electricians who work as mechanics (journeymen). The term mechanic in mechanics' lien laws originated from those carpenters, masons, and other tradesmen who were given lien rights if there bills for labor were not paid. So, Mike Smith, GIMME A BREAK.Edited 12/23/2006 1:42 pm ET by 5150
Edited 12/23/2006 1:44 pm ET by 5150
what a bunch of ignorance you are
i've worked with at least 10 different "A" license ( aka: Master Electricians ) over the years
they all employed "B" license ( aka: journeymen ) & some also had several Master Electricians on the job too
all of the "A" 's wore tool belts and worked alongside the journeymen
the real interpretation of the law is that journeymen cannot work unless they are undere the supervision of Masters
there is nothing in RI law that prohibits Masters from doing the physical work
as usual you read law , but don't have a clue as to the meaning
you're a joke.
but Merry Christmas anyway
Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Edited 12/23/2006 4:24 pm ET by MikeSmith
I hate to be the one to point this out, but you forgot to wish him a Merry Christmas...:)
bob , you're so right... i'd better go back & edit thatMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
MikeWhy don't you post the statutes as they exist in your state so that others may read them?What other meaning can there be when your own statute law says that electrical contractors shall cause the work to be done by journeyperson electricians. As I said, any reader on this board can read the R.I. statutes because I have given them the sections to read. I will post word for word the statutory definitions tomorrow so that readers can see for themselves that a distinction is made. Obviously, you will not do so because you will be proven wrong. It is interesting though that you acknowledge that there are A and B licenses. If there were no distinction, there would be not be two separate licenses. The fact that you saw A license persons working does not mean that they are not in violation of the law.
hah... you read , but you don't comprehend
"shall cause the work to be done " means supervise.. it doesn't mean "shall not perform any of the work"
there is no wording in the statute...nor in any of the other statutes that prevents an employer from working
do you think you've found the rosetta stone. and you are the only one i the world who knows the "true" meaning of these labor laws..
how arrogant
Merry Christmas !Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
I think that 5150 is being confused (I'm trying to be generous here, in the spirit of the season) by the fact that an electrical contractor's 'A' license does not in itself qualify the holder to perform electrical work. That is, you can own and operate an electrical contracting company without being licensed to actually perform the work. That said, of course there is nothing that restricts the holder of an 'A' license from also holding a journeyman 'B' license.
If you go to the RI Dept. of Labor and Training License Inquiry page and search the records (enter a city and state), you will find that most holders of 'A' licenses also hold 'B' licenses. That should be proof enough (I know that it won't) to 5150 that no prohibition exists.
The link to RI DLT is: http://www.dlt.ri.gov/profregsonline/ElecInqPage.aspx
And, oh, of course - M e r r y C h r i s t m a s !!!
Bob
Edited 12/23/2006 11:31 pm ET by bobguindon
BingoYou are absolutely correct. To engage in actual electrical work you need a B license.Section 5-6-1 (g) reads: " 'journeyperson electrician' means a person doing any work of installing wires, conduits, apparatus, fixtures, and other appliances."Section 5-6-1 (a) reads: " 'electrical contractor' means a corporation, firm or person, who, by the employment of journeypersons, performs the work of installing wires, conduits, apparatus, fixtures, and other appliances for carrying or using electricity for light, heat or power purposes exclusive of low voltage wiring for heating or refrigeration equipment for service, maintenance, and installation."Section 5-6-8 reads: "The holding of a certificate A does not entitle the holder individually to engage in or or perform the work of installing wires, conduits, and appliances as previously described in this chapter, but entitles him or her to conduct business as an electrical contractor."Section 5-6-9 reads in part: "The certificate shall specify the name of the person who is authorized to engage in the occupation of a journeyperson electrician."Now here is a question? Suppose nobody wanted to be a journeyperson electrician. Therefore, nobody would get a B license. Since section 5-6-8 does not entitle the holder to engage in electrical work, how would any person, firm, or corporation engage in electrical contracting. By definition they do it through the employment of third party journeypersons.Alternatively, suppose no person, firm, or corporation desired to engage in electrical contracting and so no A licenses were issued. Does that mean that no B licenses could be issued? Does that mean nobody could work as a journeyperson unless someone else first obtained an A license. That seems absurd.Also, if the holder of an A license acts in the capacity of an electrical contractor, and he also holds a B license, then when he hires himself to do the work, he is a third party to his contract just as any other B license holder is. I know that where I live, Arizona, we use the same definition for electrical contractor. Electrical contractors are required to be licensed here but not journeyman electricians. Here, if nobody wants to be an electrical contractor, it does not stop people from working as journeymen. Our mechanics' lien law makes it perfectly clear that the journeymen can contract directly with the property owner. In fact, on owner occupied residential property here, our statutes provide that a journeyman cannot lien the property for nonpayment unless he has a direct written contract with the property owner. One other thing I would like to say. Contractor licensing is nothing to be proud of. When a state or city requires regulatory licensing, it is usually because of one of two reasons: First, because the occupation requires a certain level of skill and knowledge to enable one to follow the occupation. That is why Rhode Island requires B licenses of journeyman electricians; Second, not because any skill or knowledge is required, but to eliminate bad behavior. In discussing why it would be okay to have regulatory licensing for contractors, the Arizona Supreme Court listed numerous bad practices engaged in that needed control. One such reason was that frequently property owners would give money to contractors which was to go toward labor and material bills and the contractor would divert the money to other purposes. Also failure to observe safety practices on the job site to the detriment of the workmen. You have all seen job sites where there was no scaffolding and carpenters are walking walls to set trusses or frame roofs. Why does the contractor do this? The money to provide basic safety measures does not come out of his pocket. This regulatory licensing of contractors is nothing to be proud of. Rather it should be looked at as a matter of shame because unscrupulous persons engaged in conduct detrimental to others. Those unscrupulous persons have now given even decent contractors a bad reputation.
Now here is a question? Suppose nobody wanted to be a journeyperson electrician.
Really simple, the demand would cause the wages to increase to the point that somebody would get the license and do the work.
Might be $100 or $200 /hour, but at some point some one would say, 'That's more than I'm making now and I could do that.'
You really don't know much about life and how things work, do you?
Ozlander
MIKE.
Google "5150"
(|:>)SamT
Now if I could just remember that I am a businessman with a hammer and not a craftsman with a business....."anonymous". . .segundo <!----><!---->
Mike, I think I just found the key to the perfect eteernal perpetual motion machine.We get frenchie and 5150 to argue with each other. The total persistant locking of heads energized by the absolute lack of common sense will generate enough heat energy to power the grid for a small city.
We can all put the thread on ignore and let it hum along in the underground background while we go about our business in the real world.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
"As I said, any reader on this board can read the R.I. statutes because I have given them the sections to read."
Why on earth would we want too? I am in Ohio. What happens in R.I. means little to my business. Feel free to type away all you want but really it is a waste of time to p*ss in the rain. It all washes away immediately. DanT
Anyone can read anything and apply it out of context to try and make it mean what they want it to. grow up and learn exegesis.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
grow up and learn exegesis.
I am sorta ,kinda grown-up. "Exegesis" sure has me stumped.
Merry Christmas all!!
It is the science of reading something with the goal of omprehending the intent of what was written, not dissimilar to havig good listening skills, essential to proper communication.When a reader gets something entirely different out of a written thing than was understood and intended by the writer, if it was properly written to begin with, the reader has entirely failed and needs to brush up on rudimentary verbal skills.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Hmm, sounds like some sort of republican plot to do something or other!!
Roasting candied walnuts and wrapping presents.
Happy Holidays
What, exactly, is it that you do to justify breathing?...and, if it's something that might be around in 150 years, could you post some pics? Oh God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe says, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God say, "No." Abe say, "What?"
God say, "You can do what you want Abe, but
The next time you see me comin' you better run"
Well Abe says, "Where do you want this killin' done?"
God says, "Out on Highway 61."
as for 5150...
just put him on ignore and lithium/prozac....
Sir Bedevere: Tell me. What do you do with witches?
Peasant 1: Burn them.
Sir Bedevere: And what do you burn, apart from witches?
Peasant 1: More witches.
Peasant 2: Wood.
Sir Bedevere: Good. Now, why do witches burn?
Peasant 3: ...because they're made of... wood?
Sir Bedevere: Good. So how do you tell whether she is made of wood?
Peasant 1: Build a bridge out of her.
Sir Bedevere: But can you not also build bridges out of stone?
Peasant 1: Oh yeah.
Sir Bedevere: Does wood sink in water?
Peasant 1: No, no, it floats! It floats! Throw her into the pond!
Sir Bedevere: No, no. What else floats in water?
Peasant 1: Bread!
Peasant 2: Apples!
Peasant 3: Very small rocks!
Peasant 1: Cider!
Peasant 2: Gravy!
Peasant 3: Cherries!
Peasant 1: Mud!
Peasant 2: Churches! Churches!
Peasant 3: Lead! Lead!
King Arthur: A Duck.
Sir Bedevere: Exactly! So, logically...
Peasant 1: If she... weighs the same as a duck... she's made of wood.
Sir Bedevere: And therefore?
Peasant 2: A witch!
Crowd: A witch!
Sir Bedevere: We shall use my larger scales! Right, remove the supports!
Crowd: A witch! A witch!
Accused Witch: It's a fair cop.
I don't know where that came from Bass, but it was funny!
blue
The "logic" employed by 5150 reminded me of Monty Python...that's all. Just havin' a little fun. ; )
speaking of definitions, I looked up obtuse, and there you were...
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
An acute observation.
Edited 12/4/2006 9:24 pm ET by basswood
Can I recommend the Frank Zappa term "abstruse'? A combination of abstract and obtuse.
Zappa was creative with his use of language, for sure...kids with Moon Unit, Dweezil, Ahmet, and Diva Muffin for names...crazy.I got to meet one celebrity with a funny name when I was traveling in Italian Switzerland in the 80's:http://cdbaby.com/cd/shandalear<!----><!---->
Edited 12/4/2006 9:56 pm ET by basswood
LOL
blueprint for contractor licensing'
licensee was a partnership
licensee was a corporation
defined a contractor as a person
So many self contradictions
the property owner should make a joint check payable to the party who performed the labor or furnished the materials and the prime contractor
The prime contractor of course gets the entire amount of his contract and no joint check is necessary
You're hilarious!
LOL
Honestly though, you need to put more 'smilies' in your posts so that innocent bystanders don't think you're being serious.SamT
Now if I could just remember that I am a businessman with a hammer and not a craftsman with a business.....segundo <!----><!---->
If you hire a lawyer, or a dentist, etc, you better pay taxes and workers comp, especially in Ca.
If you use a lawyer, dentist, etc, you are using an employee of a business that belongs to that laywer, (maybe, he might not be a Partner) and the business will bill you. Then you don't have to withhold taxes of pay WC.
No state has provisions in their licensing laws that "an employee can qualify for a contractor's license." They have provisions that a business can use an employees license. The term "responsible managing employee" is used to designate the License holder for a business when the owner or the business is not itself licensed.
In Ca. it is mandatory for all employers to have WC, unless all their employees are family members.
I think one of the problems that people have with the term 'contractor' is that it has more than one meaning. In the world of construction it refers to an occupation.
You definately have a problem with the term. Everybody else in the world, incudining the courts and lawmakers thinks that "Contractor" means one who makes contracts. In construction that would be a contract to construct.
When a court refers to journeymen plumbers and master plumbers the distinction is that journeymen are mechanics who perform plumbing labor and master plumbers are contractors.
The Ca courts do not refer to journeymen and masters, they refer to employers, employees, and contracts.
Plumbing contractors and journeymen plumbers being different occupations, each makes different kinds of contracts
A plumbing contractor is not an occupation, it is a type of business. The only kind of "contract" an employee, nonrated, apprentice, JM, 'Master', atty, archy, or dentist enters into is where he promises to show up on time, sober and ready to do as his boss says.
Where do you live anyway? Kazakistan? 'Cuz your notions of Ca law are as fubar as they are of Az law.SamT
Now if I could just remember that I am a businessman with a hammer and not a craftsman with a business.....segundo <!----><!---->
sam...
<<<
Where do you live anyway? Kazakistan? 'Cuz your notions of Ca law are as fubar as they are of Az law.
SamT>>>
you think it's him again ?..... hah, hah, hahMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Lest ye forgethttp://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages?msg=56157.19
http://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages?msg=69551.18
yes i did.... but i'm getting older and that's my excuse
thanks for reminding meMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
I thought I recognized the spiel halfway into the first paragraph
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
"a customer has absolutley no liability for the taxes of some one that they contract with."but because of no license, this is not a contract situation. These guys become employees of the HO
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
"but because of no license, this is not a contract situation. These guys become employees of the HO"
Piffin, is that fact or opinion. does one need to have a license to have a contract. also what does having a contract have to do with it. if a guy has a license and does a job without contract does that make him an employee?
from what I've picked up having a contract is bottom of the list as to what constitutes an employee.
look forward to your feedback.
cheers
Edited 11/22/2006 5:36 am ET by alrightythen
depends where you are. In CA, the state has defined what pre-requisites must be in place first, one of them being a liccense.In US, we have a constitutional right to enter into ontracts between two people. But it all gets sticky -as with freeedom of speech, it can be 'regulated' as to where how and when. That is whole different issue.Personally, I am not much in favor of licensing and most of my life I have lived where no licensing is required, making "Let the buyer beware" the operational rule, and in small communities it seems to work farily well, possibly better than licensing does in more crowded populations.But CA has already set the rules of the game in the area where this OP lives.story -
I have an uncle in NY who had an inlaw apt over his garage. Hew rented it out to a carpenter who did work on the side, some for uncle. As time went oin, he got married and moved out, but still did work for him at times on various projects, all unpermitted and carp still unlicensed. He became totally self-employed, then hired aa helper, all still unlicensed. Evemntually he got to be as expensive as the licensed outfits, so one day, uncle asked him when he was going to get liccensed. The guy replied in the negative, not having any such plan in place, even refusing to try, so uncle went with the licensed company on the next project.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
If I understand it correctly.....here in CA...If the job is over $500 (inlcuding materials and labor) the individual(s) doing the work, must be licensed in the specific qualification (category, A, B, C-17, etc) if he/she wants to work as a contractor/subcontractor (versus an employee).If the job is over $500 and the person is not licensed, but is acting as a contractor/subcontractor (non-employee), then laws are being broken!If the job is over $500 and the homeowner wants to be the GC and still hire this individual(s) to do the job, then the homeowner must take on the responsibility of being the Employer in and Employer/Employee relationship. In this scenario, the Employer (homeowner) would be responsible for taxes, deductions, workman's comp, SS, etc.In the above example, I'm not sure how easy it would be for the homeowner to acquire the workman's comp (and for what category...framing, sheetrock, sheetmetal, etc), since this is NOT his/her line of work.I think this is one of the main reasons to do it right, and hire a legitimate GC to do the job....or if you want to be the homeowner/GC, that's fine too...as long as you hire legitimate licensed subs who have all the legal requirements taken care of.Am I close?
I didn't make it through every post in this thread, but let me throw in my experience...first, I sympathize with your temptation, but it's immoral to me to snub the licensed guys by choosing somebody under the table.
In CT, I don't think I can even get building permits without proof of license and proof of insurance. So, in my neck of the woods, that would mean relying on the customer to file all of the paperwork - then I can't, in good conscience, charge them a markup for handling all of that work that a GC is supposed to handle.
Just so you know, though, here in CT there are only two types of contractors - Home Improvement Contractors (who can handle everything up to building new homes), and New Construction Contractors (who can build new homes) - no General Contractors here. But either of the above can take on subs. Justin Fink - FHB Editorial
Your Friendly Neighborhood Moderator
"In US, we have a constitutional right to enter into ontracts between two people."
do you have a right not to if 2 parties choose?
thnks for response....I'm getting the feeling that things are very tight down there in CA, probably for good reason.
"do you have a right not to if 2 parties choose? "Sorry, but I don't understand the Q - There are more than three hundred million people here with whom I have that sort of arangement
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
I'm not talking about 300 million people. we have been talking about 2 parties.
I will clarify: can we not enter into a verbal agreement. or do work for people without a signed contract? yes I know written quotes and estimates can be deemed a written contract, and even a verbal agreement to some extent can be deemed to be a contract. but it is not the same, and that is what I was asking about
...I'm sure that you use formal written contracts.
Actually, no - I do more work on a handshake than on written contracts.A verbal contract is a contract jsut the same as a written one, just harder to prove if it omes to a case in court.
The main purpose of a contract is communication - to stipulate the details of the agreement. I always ahave a lot of other documentation
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
"but because of no license, this is not a contract situation. These guys become employees of the HO"It is still a contract. Good bad or indifferent. That does not automatically make him an employee for IRS purposes.Lets look at some other examples.Barbers are licensed, at least in most place. You go get a hair cut. But it turns out that the barber is not licensed. Does that make you his employee? Could the state go after you for hiring an unlicensed barber?Or lets reverse this case.You are in a state that does not have any contractor licensing. You hire a carpenter as an employee. But one of the requirements to be an employer is to have an EIN.Now in all other aspects he is an employee. You supply tools and materials, direct the operations, etc.But you don't withold and the IRS comes after you.How far would the following argument get you. "I don't have the qualifications to be an employer so there he must be a self-employeed contractor."
---
"but because of no license, this is not a contract situation. These guys become employees of the HO"It is still a contract. Good bad or indifferent. That does not automatically make him an employee for IRS purposes.
---Good point. The IRS has one set of criteria for the purpose of assessing who pays Federal employment taxes. The state of California has another set of criteria (or maybe several sets) for assessing such things as state employment tax liability, enforceability of contracts, liability for worker's compensation, eligibility for unemployment insurance, etc.---
Barbers are licensed, at least in most place. You go get a hair cut. But it turns out that the barber is not licensed. Does that make you his employee? Could the state go after you for hiring an unlicensed barber?
---Licensing is not identical to the employee vs independent contractor relationship issue. Licensed professionals certainly can be employees, but professional licensure is based on assumptions about the nature of professional practice, which often coincide (or overlap significantly) with the practice conditions of an independent contractor -- things like being paid by the job or outcome rather than by the hour, having control over one's own time and methods, etc.Whether or not the state can "go after you" (for what? the act of hiring? unpaid taxes? other unmet financial responsibilities?) depends on what the state wrote into that particular licensing statute.---
You are in a state that does not have any contractor licensing. You hire a carpenter as an employee. But one of the requirements to be an employer is to have an EIN....Now in all other aspects he is an employee. You supply tools and materials, direct the operations, etc....But you don't withold and the IRS comes after you....How far would the following argument get you. "I don't have the qualifications to be an employer so there he must be a self-employeed contractor."
---If you are a corporation with no employees (and hence no FEIN)and hire a carpenter as a subcontractor, and the IRS determines that your relationship was one of employer/employee, then I'm sure you will be required to *get* an EIN (or maybe they'll just assign you one). It's not a qualification to become an employer, but a requirement if you are one, so that the government can track your tax payments. As far as I know, the Federal government doesn't take away your "right" to employ people if you don't have an EIN, they just fine you penalties and interest if you don't pay the taxes (and you need the EIN to pay the taxes).In contrast, if you don't have a contractor's license in California, the state does not allow you to *contract* to do more than $500 worth of construction work. I am not a lawyer, and I don't know the ins and outs of the licensing law in excruciating detail, but I don't think there's any prohibition against earning more than $500 as an employee for a homeowner doing construction work. If I were the unlicensed "contractor" and the state came after me for doing more than $500 worth of work on a job (say someone turned me in), I might very well tell the state I was employed by the homeowner, and therefore innocent. Then the state would come after the homeowner for employment taxes, and would presumably report the homeowner to the IRS as well.Would the homeowner really end up on the hook for the taxes? I dunno, but if not, he'll end up on the hook for lawyer's fees to fight the presumption.Rebeccah
Here in the Great State of Maryland the only thing being licensed does is protect the homeowner. They (the state) go to great lengths fighting for the consumer in disputes. We pay into a fund that pays to finish jobs other licensed contractors fail on. A homeowner that hires unlicensed is on their own. DLLR does not police the unlicensed with the exception of advertising... If you don't advertise and never wind up in court over a home improvement... you're golden.
And under Maryland Home Improvement Law one must be licensed inorder to contract for a home improvement. Meaning it could be argued that without a license, a contract is not valid.... further jeopardizing a homeowners ability to recover in a dispute.
Hypothetically, would the contract be valid if it is disclosed in the contract that the contractor is unlicensed, and thus, is not misleading the homeowner. If the municipality requires the contractor to be licensed, the contractor is still in violation of the law, but as to the contract, the contractor is up front and the Owner by his signature accepts the risks. I don't advocate such a scenario. But hypothetically, what if?
I believe the part of the law that states only a licensed contractor can execute a "contract" for home improvements is pretty clear. It's kinda like saying what is and is not legal tender.... Because you have the ability to print it and pass it to someone else who knows what it is.... doesn't make it legal.
There is a principle in law that one cannot enter into a contract that is an agree ment to break the law. Such an agreement is null and void.
So if two parties agree in contract to do this home improvement when the remodelor is unlicensed in an area where contractors are required by law to be licensed and when the HO is aware that the remodelor is in fact unlicensed and breaking the law, then there is no valid enforcable contract. Should either party feel the need to petition the court for help in enfforcment of the terms of the contract, they will be laughed out of court just as surely as if two people agreed to rob a bank and split the proceeds 50/50. If one got double crossed and with no share of the loot, he would look just plain silly trying to conviince a judge to render him his half.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
neither of those are even a near comparison to this case so I won't waste your time debating them
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
"You want someone with a long history in business and a lengthy reference list."
I agree with just about every thing you have said except the above statement. The HO has seen the work and likes it. If this guy got his licence then he would be a new contractor so nobody should hire him? Did your company start with long history? He has references.
I started my business after quite a few years working for other people. When I went into business those people served as references for me and sent work my way. I only hire subs with a long history in this community, and I go out of my way not to give anyone their first job. And, even if someone has a good track record I still go to lengths to check them out. We've all seen good, established companies go bad.
Yes, it sounds like the OP has seen the guy's work. Does he know what he's looking at? There is plenty of bad work that looks OK on the surface. The only way to see thru it is to find tradespeope with a long history of satisfied customers.
I live & work in northern Minnesota where a good deal of the economy is pretty informal. Licensing has been required for the past 10-15 years, and yep I'm in compliance.
HOWEVER...the much hyped idea that by requiring a license we will be getting rid of the hacks and dudes has been nothing but a joke. There are more of them than ever, possibly because they can buy some authenticity from the state.
For the client, looking at a guys license might be the first step, but it's nothing more than that. The best way to find skilled builders is through referrals and it sounds like that's what you've been doing. You have to understand the ins & outs of the isurance maze, and make sure you have enough yourself, but the lack of a license in and of itself might not keep you from dealing with an individual.
And fergawdsakes pay no attention whatsoever to his jacket or his pickup truck. Your local FordChevDodge dealer woul;d be happy to sell a snazzy new truck to Jabba The Hut.
davidmeiland, covered it pretty well. The jobs that I have done have been pretty low risk as far as danger factor goes. moslty trim and fix up type jobs. my biggest job has been is about a 12,000 reno, (we are trading a great deal of the cost for the wife to cook meals for me and my boys and come to do house keeping) invloving removing walls, which appeared to be bearing. I suspected that they were not judging by my inspection. I however told the owners ( close friends of mine) I'm not taking them out unless I get engineers report to give me the OK. we proceeded that route.
now lets say I convinced them that taking the walls out are no problem, no engineer required. lets say I was wrong. lets say their roof falls in. lets say I take off.....
that's one thing the extra cost will buy you.
incedently if this paticular job was for a stranger, I probaly would not have taken it.
It's illegal in Calif. to contract for more than $500 without a contractor's license.
"...never charged nothing for his preaching, and it was worth it, too" - Mark Twain
This guy did your neighbors kitchen a year ago, that should have been enough time to get his license if he is qualified to do contracting. I would assumes that he has no interest in becoming licensed. Or maybe he lost his license, or is not qualified to get one, or has a criminal background and does not meet the eligibility to become a licensed contractor.
Regardless, if the only difference between this guy, and your first guy is a piece of paper with with his picture on it, that would not be enough to justify the difference in price.
Make sure you have a permit, and all the inspections are done especially the structural ones. Did your neighbor pull a permit for their remodel?
The bottom line is that we all like to save money when it is appropriate. Buying any thing that is not legal is a major risk, and whether the risk is worth the saving is your discretion. Just know the risks.
I see you are in CA.
CA requires thaat contractors be licensed by law. They are strict about it and do try to help protect cconsumer homeowners. There are other states that make a liccense little more than a fee generator to add funds to the state budget. Do you want to deny yourself the protection the state gives through their licensing system?
I live in a location where builders are not required to be licensed, and have seen both sides of this question. When in Florida, I did have a license there.
The question that comes to my mind is WHY these guys do not havre a license. Maybe they do great work and are very personable, but can't balance a checkbook long enough to buy the required insurance. Maybe they have already been cancelled or denied with reason....The list for speculation is very long. I would want to know for certain WHY before entering a relationship with them aand inviting them to live in my house.
Yes, that's right, when you hire a remodelor, you are establishing a relationship almost as close as getting married, albeit for a shorter time span.
So go slow in this courtship ritual.
Welcome to the
Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime.
where ...
Excellence is its own reward!
My quick opinion is this: You've already established that your contractor has no qualms about breaking the rules of the government. In essence, they are cheating the state and, indirectly, every other contractor in California. Once we've established that fact, what makes you think that they wouldn't also cheat you given the chance?
I'm sure some will say that the government is a scam and they have the highest ethical standards, but it all seems similar to the famous quote by Churchill when he made a propisition to a socialite: "Madam, we've already established what you are. Now we are haggling about the price"
Jon Blakemore
RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
I think the quote is from W.C. Fields. Churchill was a politician, afterall.
Insist on paying by check, made payable to a company name.
"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
Depends on a lot of things. Location is one, as others have already covered. I have a license but it only required a fairly simple test and a few hundred bucks. A license means very little on its own. It doesnt mean you do good work, it doesnt mean your insurance hasnt lapsed or that you have any at all in most places. My advice to you is that if you want to use the unlicensed guys you need to get the permits yourself, cover yourself legally if that is possible in California, and talk to your insurance agent to see what they will cover as far as you acting as your own contractor. Use common sense regarding your payment schedule to these guys, ang get lein releases from the other subs after their portion of the job is finished.
A homeowner's insurance will not take the place of workers comp insurance. Either do the job yourself or hire a good licensed and insured contractor! My $.02
No, but having a license doesnt mean you carry comp insurance either. Your homeowners insurance may protect you in the event of a lawsuit brought on by the injury though, which is why I suggested talking to their agent about their plans.
It is generally very easy for a savvy homeowner to find out whether a contractor has the right insurance in force, and to have the carrier make them aware of whether or not the policies stay in force. Here in WA I can simply go to a state website and fill out a tracking request on any licensed individual or entity. From then on I am notified if their license status, insurance status, or comp status changes. I have dozens of subs on this tracking program. My more aware clients ask to be made an additional insured on my liability policy, which gives them a major leg up insurance-wise.
Most HO insurance can make a rider available at extra cost for HOs doing their own GC
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
I would not encourage anyone to consider their homeowner's insurance as an alternative to worker's comp. Worker's comp pays for medical treatment and also makes long-term disability payments to injured workers--in the case of my injured neighbor, they are going to be paying him a significant monthly amount for the rest of his life. If you think your homeowner's insurance will do that, make sure your agent or carrier agrees, in writing, and spells out all of the terms and conditions.
If you are found to be liable for the injuries of an uninsured worker the results can be disastrous. One of my favorite stories about this involves the friend of a friend. A homeowner hired him for cash to work on their house. He fell from the roof and broke his back. Total cost of medical treatment: $900,000. The injured man's medical insurance company sued the homeowners and their insurance policy paid, but only the $500,000 limit. The owners had to come up with the other $400,000, which they did... by selling their house.
Again, I maintain my position that an unsuspecting HO can become the employer of a worker simply by hiring them. I don't care if the worker calls themself a contractor. It is not up to the two of you to decide--if necessary it will be decided by the IRS, the work comp agency in your state, or a judge who is handling a case against you by someone else and/or their insurance company.
My employees are covered by worker's comp, but according to both my attorney and insurance broker, they could sue me if they are not adequately treated by the comp system. I therefore have a rider on my liability insurance policy to cover that gap.
Worker's comp is a very dangerous thing to fool with. Thinking that your HO insurance will cover you is silly, unless you have it in writing from your agent or carrier that you are covered for the specific situation you are in. I don't even let the neighbor kid come over here and cut the grass anymore.
Edited 11/22/2006 12:04 pm by davidmeiland
"If you think your homeowner's insurance will do that, make sure your agent or carrier agrees, in writing, and spells out all of the terms and conditions."That is what I said, only in different words. It is called a rider when they increase standard coverage for any specific need. It probably does vary like anything from state to state, but I know it can be had, but certainly not to subvert the law. Every insurance policy I've ever read, had a clause in it stating basicly that if you have a claim subsequent to actions by yourself that were illegal, you are screwed.That is why I was pointing out to Bill that in CA, under their system, this HO would need to consider these guys employees and act accordingly.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
wait until you get the other quote. if the unlicensed guy is saving you enough money present it like this, "look, I like your work and I would be willing to give you the job but you need to get your affairs in order first."
I dont know how california works but here in Ct anyone other than a convicted fellon can walk into the dept of consumer protection and walk out with a license 10 minutes later. then call his ins. agent and have an insurance certificate faxed anywhere they like
next stop is the bank to set up a business checking account
the whole process takes a couple of hours and a couple of hundred bucks. if he's saving you enough money offer to help him out with that. if he declines the offer waive him off
from all I've read here, it is far more expensive and difficult in CA to get licensed, and insurance got haed to aquire also
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
In Florida, not sure about other locales, if you hire an unlicensed guy and he or any of his employees get hurt on the job, they can (and will!) sue you for their medical costs. Being unlicensed, they have no Workmens Comp or insurance to cover them. And guess what? Your homeowners policy will not cover that!
Please feel free to email me directly with any questions you might have about this. I ran the Licensing Department and Code Compliance section of Hillsborough County, Florida for a few years and saw just about any combination of problems both unlicensed guys and homeowner can get into together.
Including the one where the unlicensed guy actually took the homeonwer to court for breach of contract as the homeowner refused to pull a permit for the job!. Sure, the unlicensed guy probably wouldn't win but the HO still had to pay for an attorney and go through the grief of a court appearance and of course that whole time the job is not getting done.
In Florida, it is also a 3rd degree misdemeanor to knowingly hire an unlicensed fellow but I've never seen that enforced.
Mike
---Being unlicensed, they have no Workmens Comp or insurance to cover them. And guess what? Your homeowners policy will not cover that!---Homeowners' policies vary. Mine covers workers comp under certain circumstances. I forget if the circumstances are those of having a domestic worker like a maid or a nanny, or if they are those of having a one-time or short-term worker like a handyman fixing something. I think there's a limit on the total number of hours the worker can work for you, and it has to be on your property, for them to be covered. I doubt that someone doing a major renovation, working full-time for several weeks or months, would be covered.RebeccahP.S. I live in California, and it probably makes a difference.
Rebeccah,
Good point! I probably should have clarified there may be some instances where it does.
I'm just used to the insurance crisis we are having here in Florida where the carrier will drop you or raise your rates for the slightest infraction or appearance of one. I can only imagine what some of the companies here would say if a homeowner called and said a guy who has been on site for about a week doing remodeling fell off the roof and needs his medical bills paid. Yikes!
Mike
Another point of view... I've taken, and passed, the home improvement test 3 times over a couple of decades, never got my licence. First time, they wanted property or a bond for 50K. I was 22, didn't have those kinds of assets, no licence. Second time, same requirements, wife refused to sign (now ex-wife, largely from that issue). Third time, I said to hell with the wife, my credit should get me through. But my credit report is all wrapped up with my father's info (same name) and, oddly, my brother's. And they wouldn't accept a report with multiple SS #s on it. Many calls and letters to the credit bureau, no resolution. Once again, no license.
I'va always done good work, always had more than enough insurance, never had a complaint about any project that wasn't easily rectified. 100% of my work is obtained word-of-mouth.
Some states, like this one, make it pretty tough for the liitle start-up guy to get going. So I'm leaving. Got my Connecticut license in the mail Friday, going up this weekend to try to make some connections for the spring.
I've seen plenty of shoddy work done by guys holding a licence, and I've been called in to correct a lot of it. So having that registration doesn't guarantee anything. I'd be more interested in seeing the guy's past work than I would be about a piece of paper.
Tom,Like you, I've passed my state test (MN), but never did get a license. In my case, I've been busy as a trade specialist & sub so I have not had to get one. I do have insurance and work comp. I agree with you that some states make licensing too difficult (and in others it is a joke). Actually, like you I get asked to fix plenty of stuff done by the licensed guys.--"I'd be more interested in seeing the guy's past work than I would be about a piece of paper."I provide my potential customers with at least 12 references (one for each month of the past year), including a current customer. I show them a portfolio. I invite them to personally see my work. I think licensing is overrated. A persons' work and reputation should be the basis for being hired.The problem is with California law, in this case IMO.Â
It's ridiculous in Maryland. In the 90s I built 2 homes from wooded lot to finished dwelling while I had another full-time carpentry job. Building a house at the time required me to get a $17.50 business license at the county courthouse. But I couldn't so much as nail a deck board or dip a brush into a paint can in an existing dwelling because that constituted "home improvement", and was thus governed by a big regulatory agency.
As far as the test for the license goes, it's 80% multiple choice. So you really just have to decide which of the answers provided best matches, "you can't lie, cheat, or steal" and you'll probably pass. Absolutely ridiculous.
I'd be more interested in seeing some sort of consistent grading for carpenters based on their knowledge and abilities. Although I'd rather the government stay out of it.
I don't suppose the People's Republic of Maryland really gives a 5#IT about my opinions, so I'm outta here as soon as I can get my affairs in order. And maybe before.
Same thing here in California only I don't believe we have any misdemenor laws against homeowner for just being stupid. Mostly just the financial consequenses are similar and just a deadly.
Lots of good reading for you here:
http://www.cslb.ca.gov/
What You Should Know Before You Hire a Contractor (html)
http://www.cslb.ca.gov/consumers/beforehiring.asp
What You Should Know Before You Hire a Contractor (pdf)
http://www.cslb.ca.gov/forms/wysk.pdf
Check by license number here:
http://www2.cslb.ca.gov/CSLB_LIBRARY/license+request.asp
Ian, if you were in Michigan, you'd have the unlicensed GC over the barrel. You could let him do the entire job and not pay him a penny. He would have no legal recourse because the court would not let him file any claim due to his lack of license.
I call that the ultimate leverage factor.
To get a permit, you'd have to pull a homeowner's permit. Then, if something didn't pass, the city would come after you but you'd have 100% of the money to hire a licensed contractor to clean up the punch list.
What state you in?
blue
Same deal here... no license = no lien rights.
Ian, I would not hire the unlicensed GC on principal alone. I've lost a few jobs to a guy with a pick up and a hammer that decided he was a contractor.
Not exactly a fair comparison but would you go to an unlicensed surgeon? Were licensed for a reason. It protects me from deadbeat (non paying) customers and it protects you from deadbeat contractors taking your money and running.
The problem is that I/we (licensed contractors) care enough about our business and your house to go through the proper channels to provide a legitimate service. I'm not saying this guy cant give you a good job, but your really not comparing apples to apples here.
In Michigan if I contract without a license I have no protection for my company and no recourse if you decide not to pay me.
Good luck with your choice.
You appear to be in California, and a previous poster sent links to the State Licensing Boards Web-site, I highly recomend you read these if you have not already done so.
It is not legal to hire anyone to carry out home improvemnt work with a value of over $500 in CA.
To do work over $500 you have to have a current license in your trade. To obtain a icense in CA you have to have at least 4 years demonstrable experience managing construction, take a test and be bonded.
You can not obtain liabilty insurance or workers compensation insurance if you are un-licensed, so the un-licensed guy has neither. That means if something goes wrong with the work now or in the future it's your problem. If someone hurts themselves on the job they can sue you and you would be liable for the costs of that. You will not have a defensable case in court.
You can not work on permitted jobs unless you are licensed. As a homeowner you can pull your own permit, but unless you do the work yourself you should hire licensed subs. It is illegal to do un-permitted work, there are penalties involved and if you're doing any structural work I think you would just be stupid to do it without a permit and inspections.
Using a licensed contractor provides you with some measure of reassurance that the guys take their work seriously and for the long term. However even if the guy is licensed I would suggest to anyone they still do a license check, and ask for certificates of insurance both for liability (it is not a requirement but sensible) and for workers comp (it is required if you have anyone working for you who is not a licensed sub).
Thank you all for weighing in with your opinions on this. No real surprises, really (I knew that when I chose this forum for its input), but some good information was passed on and I appreciate that.I will read the info from the CA govt. sites that was posted. I also appreciate the specifics from DML regarding what the requirements are for doing work in CA. I'm not trying to pull a fasty on the state. I have applied for permits and all the work will be inspected. The structural work has been reviewed and calculated by a licensed engineer (funny that nobody jumped all over me for mentioning in my OP that I had hired a trained but unlicensed architect to draw my plans). Since a license is required to work on a permitted job, then all subs would have to be licensed, thus turning me into the GC in effect (which is exactly what my architect did when he added a 2nd story to his own house).In the meantime, I'm still waiting for a bid from the licensed GC so I can compare. I may take the suggestion of a previous poster who suggested I assist the guy I'm considering to get his license and get legit. That could be a good thing for all parties in the long run.Thanks again, guys.
Although I'm not sure what the rules are, to the best of my knowledge there are certain things that 'unlicensed architects' can work on (I believe by definition you are a designer, not an architect, if you're not licensed). I do know that the building departments will not accept structural calculations from an un-licensed engineer, so you were correct in getting someone to do this.
I don't doubt if you went on an architects bullitin board they would give you plenty of good reasons to use someone licensed, but I'm not sure that you're actually breaking the law by doing so within certain limitations.
Although I would support you wholly in helping someone get licensed, apart from the 4 year experience needed, it typically takes 6-12 months to get a license from application.
All the best.
As far as I know, in most states, as I have learned in continueing education seminars, it is illegal to call yourself an Architect, Project Architect, Intern Architect, Design Architect, Lead Architect, or any other form of Architect if you are not licensed in the state you are working in. You can be an architectural designer, architectural draftsman, interior architectural designer, architectural intern, etc. if you are not licensed.
You can design and draw any project in a state you are not licensed in only if you do not mislead anyone in believing you are a licensed architect in that state. You cannot sign and seal anything in a state you are not licensed in.
Some municipalities do allow drawings prepared by people (notice I am not using unlicensed architects) to be submitted for permit review. However, usually, there is a restriction on the scope of the project (size or dollar amount of construction).
The same I'm sure goes for licensed engineers.
Quote: " You can be an architectural designer, architectural draftsman, interior architectural designer, architectural intern, etc. if you are not licensed. "
FYI -- definitely not in California, or many other states, I suspect. "Architectural" is a protected word along with "Architect" because it implies an architect is involved. At least this is the case in advertising business services; you can be an "intern architect", I guess, if you're working for an architect, you just can't advertise your own services with that title.
Richard
Edited 11/23/2006 3:18 pm ET by RichardAIA
Since a license is required to work on a permitted job, then all subs would have to be licensed, thus turning me into the GC in effect (which is exactly what my architect did when he added a 2nd story to his own house).
I don't think so....subs can work under the contractor's license. Ian, I am in CA. I just got a summary judgement on an unlicensed contractor. He told me he was licensed, but he wasn't. He made a mess of my house. There is a new law in CA saying that if a contractor is unlicensed at any time on a job he can't collect a dime from the client. I sued under that law and got a judgement for the entire amount I paid the guy plus interest (the dufus didn't respond to the lawsuit until it was too late so it probably didn't cost me over $5,000 because he couldn't fight back once he defaulted). I now have a lien on his home for $110,000 but he may file bankruptcy or he may live in the house for the next 50 years. The contractor I hired to fix his mess just built on top of it. So I am in a lawsuit with this one and it is going to trial. The contractor's board wouldn't touch the first guy because unlicensed contractor's aren't under their jurisdiction. You are setting yourself up in a situation where you will have to eat it or go to trial (I'm over $30,000 right now and we haven't even finished depositions). I thought the second contractor was the best thing since sliced bread when I signed that contract. You just never really know. I would never, ever enter into another contract without knowing all of the ins and outs, especially contractor language...I knew nothing. Stuff I thought was covered in the contract wasn't....I didn't what all the terms meant. I just believed both contractors when they explained it to me. And I'm paying dearly for it.
The other thing this unlicensed guy did was tell me that I needed to pull the permit from the city myself. I'll never do that again, either.
>>I now have a lien on his home for $110,000 but he may file bankruptcy or he may live in the house for the next 50 years
What has your lawyer said about perfecting this lien? I would have him do whatever is needed to get the house on the auction block. Do you know if he has a mortgage on the house or if there are other lienholders?
Also, what is CSLB's position on this? Don't they penalize unlicensed contractors who get this far into a mess?
What has your lawyer said about perfecting this lien? I would have him do whatever is needed to get the house on the auction block. Do you know if he has a mortgage on the house or if there are other lienholders?
Also, what is CSLB's position on this? Don't they penalize unlicensed contractors who get this far into a mess?
The lien was just filed last week. To my knowledge there are no other liens or second mortgages. He has 90 days from the date of entry of the judgement (9/20/06) to take whatever remedy he has available...like bankruptcy. I'm not too worried about bankruptcy because they won't vacate a judgment if fraud is involved, although I will have to follow him into bankruptcy court to establish fraud. My attorney sent the judgement to the CSLB and informed the contractor that if he does not pay me in 90 days his now reinstated license will automatically be suspended. Since his license had lapsed for 2 years when I ran into him I'm not sure how much that matters to him. My only worry about the lien (assuming it sticks) is that with interest it will eventually exceed the value of the home. I don't mind waiting, however, if my daughter ends up getting the money that is ok. I do get some perverse pleasure out of the thought that the guy would be my renter for all practical purposes. Hope he puts in lots of improvements. This is going to ruin his credit, too and that can't be much fun. I will probably have to go to a collections attorney to proceed further than a lien...these attnys just do contract law.
In answer to your question about CSLB doing anything about unlicensed contractors...not a thing. The only thing I could have done was have him arrested on a job site.
I would be moving aggressively to make that lien stick and get the property sold to satisfy it. Have your attorney refer you to another that can do that. Otherwise you may just end up with a worthless judgement and no satisfaction. I don't know a lot about bankruptcy law (fortunately!) but I believe that if he declares bankruptcy his house might be protected, whereas if there's a lien against it then a sale might be forced. Good questions for your lawyers, I $uppo$e.
The homestead exemption varies by the state. A couple of states it is for unlimited amount. FL and KS are like that. Other is has a certain value. That means that they have to either refi or sell and buy cheaper so that they are limited to that amount of equity.In MO it is fairly low. IIRC 25k.Here is CA."HOMESTEAD
Real or personal property you occupy including mobile home, boat, stock cooperative, community apartment, planned development or condo to $50,000 if single and not disabled; $75,000 for families if no other member has a homestead (if only one spouse files, may exempt one-half of amount if home held as community property and all of amount if home held as tenants in common), $125,000 if 65 or older, or physically or mentally disabled; $100,000 if 55 or older, single and earn under $15,000 or married and earn under $20,000 and creditors seek to force the sale of your home; sale proceeds exempt for 6 months after received (husband and wife may not double)."
If state law requires that all contractors be licensed, doesn't it make sense for the Owner acting as GC or the contracted GC to require to see a copy of an unexpired license from each sub?
As most of the posts here suggest, go with the licensed contractor because there's a reason he went through the hassle to get the license in the first place, BECAUSE HE CARES! He cares about the people working for him by having Workers Comp insurance in case they're hurt on the job. He cares about the customer because he's bonded in case something goes wrong that he has no control over. He cares about the subs who work on the house because he needs to maintain a good working relationship with a whole list of subcontractors to keep his business up and running.
The biggest concern for you, the homeowner, is that by California law he needs to carry workers comp if someone works directly for him under his license. In California, if a worker is hurt or killed and he, the contractor, doesn't carry workers comp then the worker, or the workers family, can legally come after the homeowner to cover all expenses. Eventually the homeowners insurance picks up the cost but you had better carry HO insurance otherwise you're personally on the hook for the whole deal. You can check to see if the contractor is licensed by looking at the state contractor's licensing board web site at:
http://www.cslb.ca.gov/
The best advice, make sure your contractor is licensed, insured and pays his bills. The little money you might save by going with the unlicensed contractor could turn out to be very, very expensive in the long run.
You're investing hard earned money in one of the largest sinle items you will likely ever be involved in. CYA and don't cut corners here.
IanD,
Like allrightythen, I was layed off from my Govt. Contractor job (environmental) and decided to stop working for others and work for myself. In good old NJ we are required to get a license. When the state instituted the contractor license law...the genius' that run our state did not realize that so many contractors would file "all at once" as I was told during my original call to them! They have a current back log of "about six months" you send your money in and you wait.....and you wait..... so I am not supposed to work until I get a license? Sorry State! I'm working. I am very qualified to do what I do and am generally working for friends, friends of friends, etc. Do I want to be legal? Yes I do! Do I want to wait six months to make money? Not really. I do think that licensing is a good idea. Will it cause better work to be performed? Will it stop bad contractors from living and breathing? No it will not. yes you will put on a bad contractor list and your lic. could be revoked. But I really don;t think it will stop people from hiring bad contractors. It seems that people s bottom line id "hoe much will this cost?" I believe references are the best way for people to guage a contractor. If a contractor is a good honest hard working individual, they should have no problem supplying references and backing up their claims. Am I waiting to get my license? Yes I am. I want to be legal. But.......
MarkL
I am also waiting for my contractor's license from NJ. I filed MORE THAN A YEAR AGO. That's right, I filed in October of 2005.
But get this, After repeated attempts to contact them and find out the status of my application, they finally got back to me last month to let me know that my insurance had expired! Of course. What do they think, that I buy insurance for life?
I sent them an up-to-date certificate of liability insurance and I'm once again waiting to see what happens. Ironically, I should have already renewed for 2007, but I just can't bring myself to keep sending them money for no reason.
So, like you, I have no confidence that NJ has taken any significant measures to protect the consumer or our industry.
And, by the way, we do have a law that says that all work over $500 requires a written contract. That could easily represent 1 day of work (with materials), but the law says we need a contract to "protect" the consumer. I don't know if the consumer has the option to waive the need for a contract, but the way I read it, it seems not.
-Don
WOW a year?!?!?! Totally nuts! This is my fear ... exactly whats happeneing to you! I sent $ ins. cert. and I call, and call...... great system huh? You try to be honest, but.. There also is a clause that says if your a relative. I have alot of cousins now! TONS OF THEM. I also thought that I wouls just treat diffrent aspects of each job as a seperate job. I know its sounds crazy. Gotta make $ right? Did the state cash your original check? Because if they did...they took money from you without giving you a product. Now they are breaking the law!!!! :) I guess I'll just have to wait like everybody else... It makes me feel good that I'm not the only frustrated one! The easy fix would be online registration with a temp. # As soon as you show proof of insurance, you would get a permanant #. They could give you like 30 days to get them proof or your temp. # gets cancelled.
Oh well...good luck Don!
Mark
Ian-
You have probably already decided on something, but I will offer my opinion.
IF you have checked references and their work AND they are adequately covered with liability and some sort of worker's comp - hire them if you like them.
In the state there I live and I assume in others, you have to have $17,500 basically liquid before you can even take the licensing test. This stipulation pretty much eliminates alot of good carpenters who simply cannot put away that sum of money living on a construction wage. I understand its relevance, but it opens the door to alot of salesmen and people outside of building to become contractors. It took me a while to get my license and alot of jobs that were just under the limit in this state for operating without a license, but I consider it the least important qualification in my resume.
Good luck.
Overall, I am probably against the idea of licensing, but I never advocate breaking the law to someone else."This stipulation pretty much eliminates alot of good carpenters "One of the points of licensing though, where it exists is precisely TO weed out those who do not have the financial stamina and budgetary backbone to be a contractor. After all,we are not talkinga here about carpenters. We are talking about contractors. There is a vast difference, and the ability to handle money well is one of the determining factors.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Have the unlicensed guys do all the work and give them as little money down as possible. If you live in Michigan, even if their work is exceptional, you have no legal obligation to pay the balance and they have no legal recourse even if their "contract" has an arbitration clause. They cannot lien your house, nothing.
I learned this the hard way when I was licensed in Ohio and did a job over the border in Michigan.
Go ahead, it'll be the cheapest tuition they ever paid.
Kowboy
In the state I'm in, a license isn't required. The result is that a lot of people are running around with a ladder, truck and hammer calling themselves contractors, ready to due serious damage.
By the same token, I started my business with very little and frankly have worked very hard to please and do excellent work. I have the references to back up my assertion on that end. So I am the last one to begrudge someone who has the drive but not the priviledge of a lot of available cash or credit to get started.
That said, I also have taken the time to get licensed in a neighboring state, which frankly is nothing more than a seven week review of the code followed by mandatory fees and an open book test. Many people carry licenses in this state who have no idea about carpentry or construction.
First off, you should never pay anyone by the hour unless you are willing to accept the responsibility of being their employer, with all its attendant issues of responsibility and leadership -- for their daily activities, work habits, procedures and end product. This runs counter to the concept of hiring a professional contractor for whose expertise and special skill a customer pays. You also pay for their ability to manage the job properly, estimate the cost properly and take responsibility for the work and its attendant issues.
You have a right to request that an insurance binder be sent to you either by fax or snail mail directly from their insurance agent, showing proof of workman's comp and liability insurance. Make sure the dates are correct and that the policies are current. Also, examine both policies for the amount of coverage.
Ask to speak to other previous clients. Ask about if they have a safety policy for their crew, or what kind of safe practices they carry out. Do they manage and hire all subs or are you expected to hunt subs down? Will they purchase materials or expect you to run around getting things for them? Run their name through the licensing board to see if they have a past negative history, also give the name to the BBB, although they aren't as effective as many people think. Use both the company name and the individual's name.
Demand a written contract and READ IT for crise sake before signing and make sure it covers your concerns clearly. And honor the contract and make sure they do.
Get other bids. Get everything in writing in detail about what you want done, when to start and finish and what particular materials you wish used.
Hope that helped if everyone hasn't already covered it all before.
You could save a lot of money by acting as your own contractor, under an owner builder's permit, if you know what your doing, and are willing to do a lot of homework. Leagally you could hire the unlicensed guys by the hour and give them a 1099 at the end of the year. They may or may not be covered under your homeowners insurance. Also you will have more controll over the job. You become the boss. On the other hand you can give the licensed contractor the job . Agree on a set amount of money and time based on the expected job as per drawings. And let him do all of the worrying for you. There are many variations in between these legal avenues. About a year ago in a FH, I seem to remember an article reflecting these hybrid contracts. It was very helpfull to me. By all means stay legal and happy and safe. There are other laws besides "The Man" laws, there's Murphy's law and there's the law of averages and there's that little cute dog that comes up and bites you in the #### when your not looking.
1099s are for contractors and subcontractors. If he is the contractor and hires them by the hour, they are employees in th eeyes of the IRS and he has to handle their witholding as in any othe emploer/employee relationship. There are fines for misuse of a 1099
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
What state are you in?
I was in the contracting business years ago and now am a commercial insurance broker specializing in contractors. One of the major concerns is that if they get hurt on your "job site" and they miss a lot of time chances are they will chase you "the employer". I've seen this come up numerous times and it is amazing how quickly friends disappear when something goes wrong and you are left to fend for yourself. Don't be penny wise and pound foolish.
Bob