November 8, 2011
*************
Hi Ken
As I read many arguments Pro&Con to licensing . I see that it is a matter of preference . I how ever feel we should all be on the same field to play the game .Or we are just no better than a country that like vultures ,Mobsters , Preying on the dumb,stupid,weak,feeble of the society .
I am pro licensing , this is why. It keeps all on same standards, accountability,tractability,Making sure that we do what we state we will do. It Provides for laws , enforcement, standards; Keeps us stable as a society , with out it we would turn into gangsters.
I have been licensed for over 20 years , it is tough sometimes & trunkslammers can always win the job , but here today , gone tomorrow no warranty , standards,integrity to the job.True sometimes you have bad installers,service personnel,salesmen , but we always make it right with the customers .
I will be here tomorrow so I have to keep to a better standard for my reputations sake .
The difference is we stand by what we do , provide honest,reputable,accountable , stable business to come back to .
CFF/ppp
****************
To Steve Joos: The question was not about unlicensed general contractor. It was that general contractor is not licensed to install alarms, plumbing, electrical wiring, so the general contractor hires licensed people and that contradicts the "law???" which says that unlicensed contractor can not hire licensed contractor.
This is confusing. Put it this way: The GC hires you to install fire alarm and pays you. You don't get paid by the property owner - you get paid by GC who is not licensed to install alarm. The GC may be licensed general contractor or have home improvement license, but no alarm license.
Dusan
*************
Hi Ken,
An earlier post started off with the comment for us to preach about the benefits of licensing. I don't preach but I do look at a licensing quite a bit differently. First of all it is the law and I would hope that those in this industry are at least law abiding citizens. Those that oppose licensing, whether they are simply anti regulation or their opposition is really based on the mere fact that they cannot qualify, seems to always be centered around their competency. The opponents continue to use the analogy that licensing doesn't make one a better installer, contractor, technician etc etc. and they are absolutely right. Passing a test does not make a person a better installer than someone who does not, or cannot qualify to take the exam. Sort of like a drivers license does not make a person a better driver than a person that learned to drive that farm vehicle when they were 12 but never left the farm to get that license. Or a doctor or, excuse me Ken, a lawyer for that matter.
I have been licensed in many states over the last 30 years of my career and in all cases the license is regulating a business and the responsibilities of that business. Is testing for competency part of the exam? Of course. Does the test automatically make you a better installer? Of course not. But that is on you to perfect the craft. One may be book smart but a Neanderthal when they get a screwdriver in their hand. So how does it all relate. Regulation of business is for the health, safety and welfare of the citizens. The business is a licensed business but only when there is a person that has obtained a license, usually through testing. Should something go wrong, and I am not talking about whether it was a good install or not, the consumer needs to be protected. The licensing agency does not want a corporation that can dissolve at the first sign of trouble to stand alone. They want a person that they can hold responsible for whatever problem the company may have create. In all of the disciplinary hearings I have witnessed, they are usually financial issues that have burdened the consumer. For instance, and one of the big ones, is a contractor buys a large amount equipment from a supplier, does the job, gets paid but never pays the supplier. The supplier puts a lien on the building. The contractor doesn't return calls from the customer or the supplier. Now what? If the contractor is licensed the State steps in to aid the consumer. Even if the job was done perfectly, the unlicensed contractor is gone and the consumer has no recourse but to pay again in order to get rid of the lien. Now, a citizen of the state has been financially harmed because they used someone that does not fall under any type of regulation. Through the licensing requirements, not exactly the same in every state but you will get my drift, the business is a legal entity, has liability insurance coverages, has workers compensation coverage, has employees that fall under the regulation of the license holder, is financially sound, legal entity address listed, must pull permits and get inspections and in Florida at least, has continuing education for the license holder, initial and continuing education for the employees, background checks on the employees every two years, drug testing on the employees, and fingerprints on file with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. This is all in state statute which starts out saying again that it is for the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of this state. I really don't believe that a licensing requirement is meant to exclude anyone from a profession. I do believe that the states, counties, or cities set a minimum requirement to be able to practice a profession and really wouldn't expect anything less when their responsibility is to protect the public. Reciprocity would be nice but I don't believe it would or even could ever happen. I would question a license holder from the fine state of Iowa to know the construction codes for hurricane construction in Florida or the earthquake construction codes in California. Might need to know that they are competent out side of Iowa before they start putting up building here. I would agree that a hair dresser shouldn't have an issue though since hair seems to grow the same no matter where you are. As far as competing with the unlicensed guy. You probably don't want the kind of customer that is hiring them anyway.
Robert M. Worthy CPP
President
Secur Technologies, Inc.
*********************
Dear Ken;
A homeowner can act as his own General Contractor, at least in New Jersey. But a homeowner who is his own GC is a fool if he doesn't check every contractor's license that he let's walk into his home. As much as I'm not against licensing, I have witnessed it become little more than a big power grab by government in New Jersey. In this godawful economy, I don't see all of this over-regulation as being a way of ridding our industry of "trunk slammers," rather it is just big government squeezing all the little contractors, some of them to the point of it not being worthwhile for them to stay in business. That was never the stated purpose of licensing in New Jersey, but it sure is happening. I just can't wait for the next thing that the EPA wants to regulate. Maybe if we find mouse droppings in a crawlspace, the contractor will have to collect samples and have them sent out and tested for the Hanta Virus (at his own expense of course.) The EPA is a runaway organization, and now the Obama administration wants to hire 234,000 EPA inspectors. One might say "Gee, that would put a lot of people to work," but when you consider that if you add up all of the employees of the FBI, Secret Service, CIA and the Federal Protective Police (they guard the monuments and federal buildings) they only total about 105,000 employees, you start to see just how gigantic they want to make the EPA. I'm all for clean air and water, but at some point we have to step on the brakes when it comes to growing the hell out of the federal government. That would be nearly 4,700 agents per state, but you know that the more heavily populated states would have many more agents than that. Even if they were all paid some ridiculously low salary like $50K per year, that is 5.2 Trillion dollars just in salaries. Add benefits, training and equipment, and our economy will make that of Greece look like a super power's. Forget what they will force us to do with our cars, we will have to wear filters in the seats of our boxer shorts, to filter out methane from any flatulence.
As always,
John from NJ