# Contractor Licensing



## mdshunk (Mar 13, 2005)

Why should it ever be illegal for any man to repair someone's home, as long as he fulfills his contractual obligations to the property owner?


----------



## Mike Finley (Apr 28, 2004)

I suppose you are looking at this as if you want to be hit in the head with a hammer what is the harm if you pay somebody to do it and it harms no one else.

If you're only looking at it that regard, the problem still exists that the next person to own the home inherits any of the faults the previous owner accepted as reasonable risks.

The broader reason is contractors or tradesmen brought this upon themselves. Since they couldn't self-police their own kind they forced the public to cry out for some level of government to police them.


----------



## Gordo (Feb 21, 2006)

mdshunk said:


> Why should it ever be illegal for any man to repair someone's home, as long as he fulfills his contractual obligations to the property owner?


If your state has laws that say so. Ask yourself this question.

Why should it be illegal for any man to perform surgery on my torn rotator cuff as long as he fulfills his contractual obligation?

This does not apply to you if your state does not have licencing requirements.


----------



## mdshunk (Mar 13, 2005)

Mike Finley said:


> If you're only looking at it that regard, the problem still exists that the next person to own the home inherits any of the faults the previous owner accepted as reasonable risks.


Does the nice appearance of a home for sale constitute some sort of warranty with regard to any hazards that might be present? 

Does hiring a licensed contractor necessarily mean that any work done will be without faults? 

Why should it be illegal for a man to make a living?


----------



## mdshunk (Mar 13, 2005)

Gordo said:


> Why should it be illegal for any man to perform surgery on my torn rotator cuff as long as he fulfills his contractual obligation?


That is a valid question also, for a medical forum site. This is a contractor site, so I'm asking the one I asked.


----------



## Gordo (Feb 21, 2006)

mdshunk said:


> That is a valid question also, for a medical forum site. This is a contractor site, so I'm asking the one I asked.


In Virginia, contractors are regulated by the State Board of Contractors Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation. The medical profession is regulated by the state as well.

I do not make these laws up. But it is my obligation to abide them.
If your state is not regulated, no problem. If it is then play by the rules or be punished.

Illegal is illegal plain and simple!


----------



## mdshunk (Mar 13, 2005)

Gordo said:


> Illegal is illegal plain and simple!


Without regard to whether it is presently illegal and where it might be illegal... 

Why should it be illegal for a man to make a living without getting special "permission" (the license) from the state?


----------



## Tscarborough (Feb 25, 2006)

Because those people can cause loss of life and property.


----------



## Gordo (Feb 21, 2006)

mdshunk said:


> Without regard to whether it is presently illegal and where it might be illegal...
> 
> Why should it be illegal for a man to make a living without getting special "permission" (the license) from the state?


That is a question you need to ask the state. 

Why do I need to get special permission for a drivers license? Why am I required to have car insurance? Why do I have to pay taxes?

I hear what you are saying, but rules are rules. I did not make them, but abide by them.


----------



## mdshunk (Mar 13, 2005)

Tscarborough said:


> Because those people can cause loss of life and property.


Fine, then does obtaining special permission from your state to practice your tradecraft necessarily mean that this will not happen? Or that it will even happen less from a licensed individual? Bullcrap. A license is neither a guarantee or a warrantee against anything.


----------



## mdshunk (Mar 13, 2005)

Gordo said:


> That is a question you need to ask the state.


I'm reasonably sure the nobody from my state is on this site. Tonight, I'm asking you guys.


----------



## Tscarborough (Feb 25, 2006)

It means that if it does happen, you are a known entity and can be held liable.


----------



## mdshunk (Mar 13, 2005)

Tscarborough said:


> It means that if it does happen, you are a known entity and can be held liable.


Is the unlicensed contractor somehow unknown or less liable than the licensed one? Certainly not. They both share the same liability, and the unlicensed one is not operating out of a cave like Bin Laden. Assume they both have the same level of bonding and insurance, as any good responsible tradesman would.


----------



## Gordo (Feb 21, 2006)

Tscarborough said:


> It means that if it does happen, you are a known entity and can be held liable.


There is your answer. 

We will be held to a higher standard as 'professionals'.


----------



## mdshunk (Mar 13, 2005)

Gordo said:


> We will be held to a higher standard as 'professionals'.


Did high quality, professional work not exist before the intrusion of tradecraft licensing? Sure it did. Is work done by an unlicensed person necessarily of lesser quality? Does a license guarantee some level of quality? Nope.


----------



## Gordo (Feb 21, 2006)

Are you licensed MDSHUNK?

The way you are asking these questions, you seem a little shakey.:shifty:


----------



## Tscarborough (Feb 25, 2006)

Mdshunk, the answer lies in your reply. The unlicensed do not carry those things in an area where licensing is required; they are jacklegs and will disappear when a problem occurs. The only ones who oppose liscensing are those who will suffer from not applying standard practices to their trade.

Any man can pursue his trade, but there is no reason why that man should not be willing to back up his qualifications with a certification.

You can play it as an infringment on your rights if you like, but that tack is a poor one.


----------



## mdshunk (Mar 13, 2005)

Gordo said:


> Are you licensed MDSHUNK?
> 
> The way you are asking these questions, you seem a little shakey.:shifty:


You're assuming too much when you ask me if I'm licensed. My state doesn't license [construction] tradesmen of any sort, except some oddball stuff like barbers and insurance salesmen. There are local jurisdictions that do require licenses, which I have, simply because my objection towards going to jail is greater than my objection to contractor licensing.


----------



## nadonailer (Nov 15, 2005)

MD Shunk - I know you're probably a bit toung-in-cheek here, but realistically, a licensed contractor has jumped through the hoops necessary to prove themselves at the very least. In my experience the licensed guys are head and shoulders above the unlicensed. 

As a conservative, I don't believe much in government control, but I will make an exception here. I see so much dangerous and shoddy work that I will turn in unlicensed companies without hesitation. We need to play on a level field. If your state requires a license get one.

My opinion.......


----------



## mdshunk (Mar 13, 2005)

Tscarborough said:


> Mdshunk, the answer lies in your reply. The unlicensed do not carry those things in an area where licensing is required; they are jacklegs and will disappear when a problem occurs.


What automatically causes you to think that all unlicensed tradesmen do not carry insurance and that they intend to vanish when a problem occurs? While I'm sure that does occur, it certainly doesn't happen every time. Licensing is also no guarantee that a person presently has insurance or that he will remain at the address associated with the license. It only means that some proof of insurance was shown on a certain date either once when the license was issued or at a certain interval. Licensing offers no guarantee or warrantee of anything. It only means that you're a member of the club too.


----------



## Gordo (Feb 21, 2006)

mdshunk said:


> You're assuming too much when you ask me if I'm licensed. My state doesn't license [construction] tradesmen of any sort, except some oddball stuff like barbers and insurance salesmen. There are local jurisdictions that do require licenses, which I have, simply because my objection towards going to jail is greater than my objection to contractor licensing.


Wasn't assuming, just asking. Like I said earlier, if your state does not req. lic. then no problem.

I just want a level playing field when conducting business.


----------



## Gordo (Feb 21, 2006)

mdshunk said:


> What automatically causes you to think that all unlicensed tradesmen do not carry insurance and that they intend to vanish when a problem occurs? While I'm sure that does occur, it certainly doesn't happen every time. Licensing is also no guarantee that a person presently has insurance or that he will remain at the address associated with the license. It only means that some proof of insurance was shown on a certain date either once when the license was issued or at a certain interval. Licensing offers no guarantee or warrantee of anything. It only means that you're a member of the club too.


That is another big problem. Insurance companies insuring unlicensed contractors. This means the licensed companies are carrying the insurance load of unlicensed companies. That should be illegal.....insurance companies insuring unlicensed contractors.

I'm telling you it is a mess out there and the field needs to be leveled.


----------



## Tscarborough (Feb 25, 2006)

Given the choice of a licensed or an unlicensed contractor, I feel pretty safe assuming that the licensed contractor maintains hs insurance and will be around tomorrow.

Look at it like this:

Any dickweed with pliers can do electrical work, but he will not be able to become licensed.


----------



## mdshunk (Mar 13, 2005)

Would it be fair to say then, simply that:

With a licensed tradesman, you stand a better chance of getting top notch work. 

and

With an unlicensed tradesman, you stand a better chance of getting inferior work.

and

You might get inferior work from a licensed tradesman.

and 

You might get top notch work from an unlicensed tradesman.


----------



## Tscarborough (Feb 25, 2006)

It would be safe to say that you stand a better chance of getting recourse if the work is done wrong when using a licensed workman.


----------



## Mike Finley (Apr 28, 2004)

mdshunk said:


> Does the nice appearance of a home for sale constitute some sort of warranty with regard to any hazards that might be present?


You probably know that state realty boards have contracts with forms that a seller must disclose if the property has defects, so the answer is yes.

No matter how you ask it or phrase it the answer is still always going to be the same:

The broader reason is contractors or tradesmen brought this upon themselves. Since they couldn't self-police their own kind they forced the public to cry out for some level of government to police them.

That's the answer.


----------



## mdshunk (Mar 13, 2005)

Mike Finley said:


> The broader reason is contractors or tradesmen brought this upon themselves. Since they couldn't self-police their own kind they forced the public to cry out for some level of government to police them.


 
You mean, like in elementary school when the teacher would make all the kids put their head's down on the desk and be quiet when a few kids were talking?


----------



## Mike Finley (Apr 28, 2004)

There you go, you got it.

With a home being statistically the largest and sometimes the only contributing factor toward so many American's retirements it has been deemed almost a Holy Grail and has become more than one politicians target to champion and protect in the name of the public's best interest.


----------



## lxdollarsxl (Apr 13, 2006)

mdshunk said:


> You mean, like in elementary school when the teacher would make all the kids put their head's down on the desk and be quiet when a few kids were talking?


 I get what mdshunk is saying i also believe hes correct. The fact that someone is licenced does not mean HO's they get the quality they pay for. 

Maybe those who wish to be licenced and list by local government should do so, and others who dont should be allowed to work as well.


----------



## mdshunk (Mar 13, 2005)

lxdollarsxl said:


> I get what mdshunk is saying i also believe hes correct.


 I'm just asking questions at the moment. Please don't take this the wrong way, because I don't intend it to be personally disparaging against you... but it does tickle me a little that a contractor from the bowels of Kentucky is on board with my train of thought. :thumbsup:


----------



## Double-A (Jul 3, 2006)

mdshunk said:


> Licensing offers no guarantee or warrantee of anything. It only means that you're a member of the club too.


I disagree. I used to teach apprentice plumbers to prepare them for the test that Arkansas requires before licencing. They are required to have four years of approved education. I know that even the dumbest apprentice coming out of this program is better prepared to operate in this state as a plumber than someone that is not licensed for one simple reason; he passed the test.

And if you think the test is easy, it was but every year it becomes harder and harder. The test today is not easy at all. The master plumber's test is easier to pass than the journey plumber's test.

The license requirement exists for one reason only, to protect the heath and safety of the general public.

A licence serves another purpose, its provides a clearing house for complaints against that licence. A dangerous plumber can't just relocate to an out of the way place here and not be found. 

First offence for violating the criminal code for plumbing $500-$5000 dollar fine and up to 6 months in jail.

Every month the State sends out a list of violators, the offence and the punishment to every plumber in the state.


----------



## Tscarborough (Feb 25, 2006)

Licensing does not guarantee quality, it enforces it.


----------



## mdshunk (Mar 13, 2005)

Tscarborough said:


> Licensing does not guarantee quality, it enforces it.


Um... nope. Inspections do that.


----------



## Tscarborough (Feb 25, 2006)

OK, I will assume that you meant that as a joke.


----------



## Double-A (Jul 3, 2006)

mdshunk said:


> Why should it ever be illegal for any man to repair someone's home, as long as he fulfills his contractual obligations to the property owner?


Contracts that are litigated are done so in civil court. Tradesmen operating without a licence when one is required are litigated against in criminal court. 

Without the ability to press criminal charges, a licence would be superfluous, like earrings on a pig.

So, to answer your question, to protect the health and safety of the general public. Has nothing to do with a standard of craftsmanship. A license says you're aware of the right way to do it, and are therefore, accountable under penalty of law.


----------



## mdshunk (Mar 13, 2005)

Tscarborough said:


> OK, I will assume that you meant that as a joke.


No, not at all. Isn't the role of the inspection supposed to be what's assuring a compliant and safe job? Isn't the role of the contract documents to assure that all job related tasks that are not inspectable code issues get completed? Isn't the role of the bond to cover what a person might no choose to complete? Isn't the role of the insurance to take care of problems caused by the work? Isn't the role of the legal system to sort out any other matters? What's the role of the license? Zilch.


----------



## lxdollarsxl (Apr 13, 2006)

I dont think it was a joke, a licence means squatt if the guy holding the licence doesnt do the fix correctly, its the inspection that mean its up to quality.

The licence also is just a way of raising money for the local coffers.

My local licences, have just doubled over the last year.


----------



## lxdollarsxl (Apr 13, 2006)

mdshunk said:


> I'm just asking questions at the moment. Please don't take this the wrong way, because I don't intend it to be personally disparaging against you... but it does tickle me a little that a contractor from the bowels of Kentucky is on board with my train of thought. :thumbsup:


 No offence taken, i may be small here at the moment but that wasnt the case in UK, i just decided on a slower way of life.:thumbsup:


----------



## Double-A (Jul 3, 2006)

lxdollarsxl said:


> I dont think it was a joke, a licence means squatt if the guy holding the licence doesnt do the fix correctly, its the inspection that meqan its up to quality.


No, passing inspection means it meets the minimum standard for safety and health protection adopted by the jurisdiction. Nothing more.


----------



## lxdollarsxl (Apr 13, 2006)

And if it fails to come up to that level, then its outta there.


----------



## Double-A (Jul 3, 2006)

mdshunk said:


> It seems that you're diminishing the value of the inspection. You may well be correct on that issue. Since in your estimation inspections are no real defense against poor work, would you then advocate abolishing inspections and beefing up licensing requirements? Or would beefing up the quality of the inspector (therefore, the resulting inspection) and doing away with contractor licensing accomplish the same result?


I'm not diminishing the value of the inspection at all, merely stating that I take exception to the phrase "peer review" when describing an inspection. In all cases it is not. My experience is that in this state, two things are required to be an inspector of plumbing; to be employed by an AHJ and to be state certified. The state certification course is 3 days. Three days education does not make one a peer of a four year education in the same area. I will however say this; the inspection is only as good as the inspector and the AHJ he works for.

As for changing anything, I would say that public education is the first course to take. Educate the public on the laws surrounding "privileged crafts" and the dangers of employing "unprivileged" persons to engage in that craft as your contractor.

Beyond that, I would say that we need more folks with the ability to enforce the laws we have now. We don't really need more.

As for toughening the requirements for licensing, I'm all for it. I think successful completion of a business management course should be mandatory for all craftsmen. Doesn't have to be Harvard PhD level, or even math intensive. It should however introduce folks to the basics of operating a business.


----------



## Gordo (Feb 21, 2006)

Double-A said:


> No, passing inspection means it meets the minimum standard for safety and health protection adopted by the jurisdiction. Nothing more.


Yes D-A......the minimum. It says so in my code book.


----------



## Gordo (Feb 21, 2006)

Double-A said:


> I'm not diminishing the value of the inspection at all, merely stating that I take exception to the phrase "peer review" when describing an inspection. In all cases it is not. My experience is that in this state, two things are required to be an inspector of plumbing; to be employed by an AHJ and to be state certified. The state certification course is 3 days. Three days education does not make one a peer of a four year education in the same area. I will however say this; the inspection is only as good as the inspector and the AHJ he works for.
> 
> As for changing anything, I would say that public education is the first course to take. Educate the public on the laws surrounding "privileged crafts" and the dangers of employing "unprivileged" persons to engage in that craft as your contractor.
> 
> ...


In Va., the class 'A' test is 85% financial responsibility.


----------



## K2 (Jul 8, 2005)

Too Much or Too little bureaucracy. That is the question.

I always side with too little bureaurcracy,,,Unless my neighbor builds a crappy ol shed next to my property line.


----------



## copusbuilder (Nov 8, 2005)

I have always hated the government being in my life. 
My licensing fees rise every year. 

My dad who is 78 has a masters License (electrical) and it is getting impossible for him to keep with ins. requirements etc. This is like a lifeline to him. He does not want to give it up and admit he is getting old. These jackass government officials a f-ing with his life.....

I have a brother who is a Master Plumber and a Master electrician in Virginia....He was grandfathered in a few years back. The inspector in his small town got him the local licenses and they became state issued.

Quite honestly...We worked tgether and I wouldn't let him touch my house,, But he is legal which makes me feel better


----------



## PipeGuy (Oct 8, 2004)

Gordo said:


> That is a question you need to ask the state.Why do I need to get special permission for a drivers license? Why am I required to have car insurance? Why do I have to pay taxes?...


While your's are all very valid questions, they elude the very thought provoking one he's posed to us.
In my opinion, government interference with (read 'regulation' of) commerce, be it between a homeowner and a contractor or between an airline and a traveler, tends to offer less protection to the parties involved than do the protections already afforded them by choice. 

Will an airline that crashes planes repeatedly stay in business? How many plane crashes will it take before travelers won't fly that airline again? In the abscence of regulations, maybe only one. Isn't it the fact that regulations exist that allows a carrier that has multiple accidents to otherwise stay in business by merely pointing to their own compliance otherwise with the regulations? The same holds true for contractors. What is it about having a license that assures anyone I'm competent?

Airline regulations and drivers licenses have more to do with the fact that the operation of vehicles demands coordianation. Operators need to know the rules. Why indeed should you have to maintain insurance? Why isn't it optional? Probably because insurers like the premiums we pay. Shuoldn't we have the freedom to operate our vehicles at our own risk(s) if we so choose? The risks that is of either being sued into poverty or prison should we harm someone, or otherwise being faced with expenses should we be harmed.

Government regulation reduces individual liberty - which ultimately is the underlying foundation upon which the most prosperous nations in history have been built.


----------



## R&S Exteriors (Aug 4, 2006)

lxdollarsxl said:


> I dont think it was a joke, a licence means squatt if the guy holding the licence doesnt do the fix correctly, its the inspection that mean its up to quality.
> 
> The licence also is just a way of raising money for the local coffers.
> 
> My local licences, have just doubled over the last year.


Exactly. It's all about the money and even about very large Construction companies wanting to squash the small guys.

College is not everything. I'll take someone with expierence over a college diploma any day. Education is fine, but I know, and have worked with, many college educated people that have "Zero" *common sense.* Makes you wonder how some of them ever graduated

As a matter of fact.Bill Gates is "Not Qualified" for a government computer programmer job. Why? Because he quit college before getting a diploma to start his own business (Microsoft). It's stupid one of the best programmers and he's Not Qualified because of lack of education.

Another thing, how about guys that can not Read or even Write, but are better in the trades than me any many of you. They can't pass a test they can't read or write the answers to. My Grandfather could build anything you wanted, but he could have never passed a licensing test because he was illiterate. NOT FAIR

So far in PA no license is required BUT it is coming and it is not because of home owners complaining of shoddy work. It is the big Construction Companies trying to drive us small guys out of business and it's about the MONEY. That is easy to tell because the legislation right now has no requirement for a "Test" just registration and of course a $100 fee every year.


----------



## Double-A (Jul 3, 2006)

R&S Exteriors said:


> So far in PA no license is required BUT it is coming and it is not because of home owners complaining of shoddy work.


License fees are a cost of doing business, not a tax imposed on you individually. Its a cost passed on to your clients. It should be listed as an expense in your chart of accounts.

This discussion is about right to work. My contention is that everyone has a right to work, but as a society, most areas hold that working as a tradesman is a privilege, not a right. Fight city hall if you wish, but hiding behind the banner of "big corporations are unfair to the little guy" or "discrimination against the uneducated" just muddies the waters and misses the point in my opinion. 

The question is simple. Should a person have the inalienable right to put other persons in harms way and risk life, limb and property on their self-professed "skills"?

Society says, "No."


----------



## PipeGuy (Oct 8, 2004)

Double-A said:


> ...Should a person have the inalienable right to put other persons in harms way and risk life, limb and property on their self-professed "skills"?...


That question is a straw man - set up for the purpose of knocking down an already insupportable position. Of course no one has an inalienable right to do what you've noted.

Your question however asserts as inseperable two completely different issues - that entering into an agreement with another to exchange contracting services for good and sufficient consideration neccesitates putting another in harms way. This of course is not true. It's also not true that buyers have little means by which to limit their risk of hiring a bad contractor in the abscence of regulatory intervention.

It can probably be argued (by those quite more learned than I) that less regulation would in fact increase the availability of otherwise qualified contractors; not diminish it. That argument seems more logical to me than does that which advances the notion that parties to a private transaction benefit from government involvement.


----------



## R&S Exteriors (Aug 4, 2006)

Double-A said:


> _License fees are a cost of doing business, not a tax imposed on you individually. Its a cost passed on to your clients. It should be listed as an expense in your chart of accounts._
> 
> _The question is simple. Should a person have the inalienable right to put other persons in harms way and risk life, limb and property on their self-professed "skills"?_
> "


No the question is simpler " Do I as an American have the right to enter into an agreement with another individual without the government, or anyone else, sticking their nose into it? I say YES I DO.


*Quote from another thread (Double A)*

_Here's how a famous guy once said it. If you won't listen to me, hopefully you'll listen to him. He was a visionary, a true patriot. His name, Ben Franklin. Here's what he said: _*“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”*



Double A Are you not advocating giving up personal freedom in order to gain security of a liscensed contractor :w00t: :w00t:


----------



## Gordo (Feb 21, 2006)

PipeGuy said:


> While your's are all very valid questions, they elude the very thought provoking one he's posed to us.
> In my opinion, government interference with (read 'regulation' of) commerce, be it between a homeowner and a contractor or between an airline and a traveler, tends to offer less protection to the parties involved than do the protections already afforded them by choice.
> 
> Will an airline that crashes planes repeatedly stay in business? How many plane crashes will it take before travelers won't fly that airline again? In the abscence of regulations, maybe only one. Isn't it the fact that regulations exist that allows a carrier that has multiple accidents to otherwise stay in business by merely pointing to their own compliance otherwise with the regulations? The same holds true for contractors. What is it about having a license that assures anyone I'm competent?
> ...


If the laws say you must have a license.........then you must have a license.

If you are not required, then no problem. That is all I am saying.

I could keep asking questions along the same line as mdshunk all day long and we could go round and round. The laws are there to protect citizens from themselves.

If you want self government with no rules move to Somalia:w00t: .....did not think you would want that. There are plenty of countries where you can do what you want.....just keep in mind there are others that will do what THEY want and you will not like it.

Fact: I learned new things when I took the licensing test.
Fact: I am against big government, but for licensing.

Why can't somebody build a 7-11 next to your house? Why do we have speed limits? Why do children have to go to school?

If your state does not require licensing no problem. If it does and you don't have one you better get one.


----------



## Double-A (Jul 3, 2006)

mdshunk said:


> Why should it ever be illegal for any man to repair someone's home, as long as he fulfills his contractual obligations to the property owner?


This is the original question. Taking the opposing view, I argued in question form, "Should a person have the inalienable right to put other persons in harms way and risk life, limb and property on their self-professed "skills"?"

Pipe, you say, "Of course no one has an inalienable right to do what you've noted." You then go on to say that I'm really talking about two different breeds of cat here, "Your question however asserts as inseperable two completely different issues - that entering into an agreement with another to exchange contracting services for good and sufficient consideration neccesitates putting another in harms way." Well, ya, it does if were talking about what were talking about, repairing, possibly the foundation, structure, plumbing, wiring, etc. in that house. 

How would it not? Do the repair improperly, and you can cause property damage, loss of limb or loss of life. How is that "two completely different issues"?

So we agree, ("Of course no one has an inalienable right to do what you've noted.") a person does not have the right to go fiddling with the foundation, structure, plumbing, wiring, etc. of another person's house if the jurisdiction they are working in requires them to be licensed and they don't have one. I don't care what that piece of paper says. You cannot contract away your legal liabilities if you misrepresent yourself. No matter your intentions. Just because you and Uncle Sal decided it would be OK for you to rewire his house, because you used to work as an electrician's mate back in '72, in no way shape or form makes you an electrician.

R&S, you question if I am "...advocating giving up personal freedom in order to gain security of a liscensed contractor".

That is just silly. I'm simply pointing out that, we're not all we wish we were as a society. Laws, rules and regulations exist to protect us from each other, and in some cases, against ourselves. 

I have argued that a licence, when earned through successful testing, does imply a certain minimum level of familiarity with the work in question and therefore has to be the minimum legal and verifiable standard of qualification to do the work. Simple as that.

No where did I call for the abolition or reform or rewriting of the Bill of Rights. No where did I call for the restriction of personal liberties. What I said, and I stand by this 100%, is, "This discussion is about right to work. My contention is that everyone has a right to work, but as a society, most areas hold that working as a tradesman is a privilege, not a right." 

In other words; Why should it ever be illegal for any man to repair someone's home, as long as he fulfills his contractual obligations to the property owner?

Because society has deemed that we're too silly and greedy to do the right thing all the time and we have to have laws to punish those that would abuse the public trust, willfully or not.


----------



## PipeGuy (Oct 8, 2004)

Gordo said:


> ...The laws are there to protect citizens from themselves.


I find offensive the idea it's the role of government to 'protect us from ourselves'. The logical extension of that idea is government knows better than the governed - a concept that free people must neccesarily reject in order to assure their continued liberties.


----------



## lxdollarsxl (Apr 13, 2006)

Double-A said:


> I have argued that a licence, when earned through successful testing, does imply a certain minimum level of familiarity with the work in question and therefore has to be the minimum legal and verifiable standard of qualification to do the work. Simple as that.
> 
> 
> Your right in one way it may IMPLY that your can do it because you have been tested ( MMMMM quick 3 day course), but it doesnt guarentee that the work you do is done correctly. Like someone else said there are lots of old craftsmen out there without licenses who could run rings round most of us, who cannot write or read, but whos work you could not fault.


----------



## mdshunk (Mar 13, 2005)

Double-A said:


> This is the original question. Taking the opposing view, I argued in question form, "Should a person have the inalienable right to put other persons in harms way and risk life, limb and property on their self-professed "skills"?"


No, that's not the opposing view. It's not at all the opposite of what I asked. It's another question entirely, intended to muddy the picture. 

Unlicensed people do not necessarily risk anyone's life, limb, or property. The just simply don't have a license.


----------



## lxdollarsxl (Apr 13, 2006)

by the way Mdshunk - the doc told me my leprosy was ok and im fit to be working with yall.:clap: :whistling


----------



## Double-A (Jul 3, 2006)

mdshunk said:


> No, that's not the opposing view. It's not at all the opposite of what I asked. It's another question entirely, intended to muddy the picture.
> 
> Unlicensed people do not necessarily risk anyone's life, limb, or property. The just simply don't have a license.


It was my opposing view and it was not intended to muddy the picture. It was intended to be an extreme extrapolation of the answer, "It shouldn't be illegal."

I'ma just go and get all "old Greek geek" on you guys and ask in regards to contractor (or tradesman) licensing;

_Why should it ever be legal for any man to repair someone's home, as long as he fulfills his contractual obligations to the property owner?_

There is the opposing view.


----------



## PipeGuy (Oct 8, 2004)

Double-A said:


> _Why should it ever be legal for any man to repair someone's home, as long as he fulfills his contractual obligations to the property owner?_


Because it's only the existence of law that renders any action 'il'legal; the natural,unfettered, state of action being 'legal' or otherwise un-restricted.

Whew...my brain hurts after that one:blink:


----------



## PipeGuy (Oct 8, 2004)

One of the other threads just jarred this thought loose...
I think a licensing process that 'certifies' a licensee's familiarity with a set of recognized technical requirements is beneficial. That is to say, televison broadcasters should know how to operate transmitters within the parameters for such. Drivers need to know how to operate automobiles within the context of the 'rules of the road'. Airlines need to know how to operate aircraft within the context of the air traffic control system. IMO, a process by which 'certification' is established is a beneficial one. In the abscence of such specific certifcation, I think a licensing process is nothing more than government largess.


----------



## Gordo (Feb 21, 2006)

PipeGuy said:


> I find offensive the idea it's the role of government to 'protect us from ourselves'. The logical extension of that idea is government knows better than the governed - a concept that free people must neccesarily reject in order to assure their continued liberties.


Who puts those lawmakers in power? Citizens......you and me. We still can vote last time I checked.


----------



## R&S Exteriors (Aug 4, 2006)

TO MUCH REGULATION AND LAWS

I'm tired of this "The Government needs to take care of me cradle to grave" mentality. How about "Personal Responsibility". The government infringes on our freedoms and rights in every aspect. Example) Seat belt and motor cycle helmet laws. I think you most likely got a screw loose if you don't wear them BUT what right does the government have to tell you that you have to wear them.

Every aspect of our lives is controled by the Government. It is a way of "controlling" the population. Hurricane comes and floods don't worry the government will take care of you. Don't want to work that's ok the government will take care of you. Etc ETc Etc

Every time the government passes another "social program", handout, give away law it is for three reasons 

(1) to enslave whoever starts relying on that give away so they will vote for whomever passes the law.

(2) to take money from those that have earned it.

(3) to control the masses.

I know Somewhat fftopic:

back on topic

*Almost anyone can obtain any license the government requires. I t does not mean they know what they are doing. Just look how many IDIOTS have drivers license. They passed the government test verifying they knew how to drive. I don't feel one bit safer because the GOVERNMENT gave them a test. They are still IDIOTS. Same with contracting. Go take the test, have someone else take it for you or pay a government employee to fake it, then back out doing shoddy work.*


----------



## Gordo (Feb 21, 2006)

R&S,

Take two people off the street that have no clue how to hook up/test a gas line under YOUR house.

Give one study materials and a test on how to hook up gas line.:thumbup: 

Let the other just start working away.:blink: 

Who would you trust to perform the work?:laughing: 

Thats what I thought.:laughing: 

I have similiar views as you regarding politics and world view. I do not like big government. You need some state government. Licensing does not guarantee work quality.......it protects the citizens. You gotta be crazy to not see that.


----------



## Tscarborough (Feb 25, 2006)

Aside from the quality of work, licensing indicates a stability and legal corporate body that is subject to responsability. 

I am all for less government, but not in this particular area.


----------



## lxdollarsxl (Apr 13, 2006)

I have similiar views as you regarding politics and world view. I do not like big government. You need some state government. Licensing does not guarantee work quality.......it protects the citizens. You gotta be crazy to not see that.
__________________


There are many laws that protect citizens in cases of fraud,damage etc etc, but the bottom line is having a licence does not. In the end licence or no licence the final recourse is through the courts that is the ultimate protection against shoddy and unsafe work.


----------



## Gordo (Feb 21, 2006)

lxdollarsxl said:


> I have similiar views as you regarding politics and world view. I do not like big government. You need some state government. Licensing does not guarantee work quality.......it protects the citizens. You gotta be crazy to not see that.
> __________________
> 
> 
> There are many laws that protect citizens in cases of fraud,damage etc etc, but the bottom line is having a licence does not. In the end licence or no licence the final recourse is through the courts that is the ultimate protection against shoddy and unsafe work.


Really? What laws are protecting me in the case of fraud according to your view? I will still have to go to court to have recourse.

How is going to court going to protect me in the case my flying splice wire in the wall catches fire?

How is going to court going to protect my house from blowing up because of a leaking gas line?

How is court going to protect my foundation from termite damage because the plate wasn't PT lumber?

Court is post-facto.


----------



## R&S Exteriors (Aug 4, 2006)

Gordo said:


> R&S,
> 
> Take two people off the street that have no clue how to hook up/test a gas line under YOUR house.
> 
> ...


Gordo who is talking about taking someone off the street. The question is Do you have to be licensed to do top notch work? The answer is NO. Are you to tell me every licensed contractor is "Top Notch" and every non-licensed contractor is a "Hack"?

As a matter of fact I did hook up my own gas lines from the meter into the new furnace in the house before I bought this one. IT's been 15 years. No explosions yet. I keep ya posted.:w00t:


----------



## R&S Exteriors (Aug 4, 2006)

Gordo said:


> Really? What laws are protecting me in the case of fraud according to your view? I will still have to go to court to have recourse.
> 
> How is going to court going to protect me in the case my flying splice wire in the wall catches fire?
> 
> ...


How is hiring a licensed contractor who is a "hack" going to protect you as opposed to a non licensed contractor who knows what he is doing and takes pride in his work. 

There are great licensed and non liscened contractors and Hacks on both sides also


----------



## Gordo (Feb 21, 2006)

:lol:


R&S Exteriors said:


> Gordo who is talking about taking someone off the street. The question is Do you have to be licensed to do top notch work? The answer is NO. Are you to tell me every licensed contractor is "Top Notch" and every non-licensed contractor is a "Hack"?
> 
> As a matter of fact I did hook up my own gas lines from the meter into the new furnace in the house before I bought this one. IT's been 15 years. No explosions yet. I keep ya posted.:w00t:


Using your logic anybody could be a gas-fitter. Anybody could be an electrician and go out and start bidding on jobs:laughing: 

I am not saying that every licensed contractor is top notch. It just says that he has passed a test of general requirements designed to protect the citizens.

I am glad you hooked your own gas line up, but the question is WOULD YOU TRUST SOMEBODY OFF THE STREET TO DO IT? BECAUSE UNDER YOUR LOGIC THE ANSWER IS YES.:w00t: 

The law is the law regardless if you believe it or not. Again, if your state does not require licensing......no problem. If it does you better go get one!:laughing:


----------



## Gordo (Feb 21, 2006)

R&S Exteriors said:


> How is hiring a licensed contractor who is a "hack" going to protect you as opposed to a non licensed contractor who knows what he is doing and takes pride in his work.
> 
> There are great licensed and non liscened contractors and Hacks on both sides also


Agreed!


----------



## Tscarborough (Feb 25, 2006)

If they are licensed by the state, your chances of FINDING them are much greater than from some unlicensed jackleg working off of his tailgate.


----------



## lxdollarsxl (Apr 13, 2006)

Gordo said:


> Really? What laws are protecting me in the case of fraud according to your view? I will still have to go to court to have recourse.
> 
> How is going to court going to protect me in the case my flying splice wire in the wall catches fire?
> 
> ...


Your using senarios that would be picked up on inspections, for certain trades (electrical and plumbing) as im sure the plate would too, im talking about having someone in to replace say panes of glass, fit new doors/windows - renewing cabinets etc. Or someone that takes money off you to buy materials and for labour that dont supply and complete what they were contracted to do. In all cases your only recourse is through the court system (unless ya have a big baseball bat)


----------



## Gordo (Feb 21, 2006)

lxdollarsxl said:


> Your using senarios that would be picked up on inspections, for certain trades (electrical and plumbing) as im sure the plate would too, im talking about having someone in to replace say panes of glass, fit new doors/windows - renewing cabinets etc. Or someone that takes money off you to buy materials and for labour that dont supply and complete what they were contracted to do. In all cases your only recourse is through the court system (unless ya have a big baseball bat)


 Taking a quote from Napoleon Dynamite. "Boy.....I don't understand a thing you just said."


----------



## Gordo (Feb 21, 2006)

Tscarborough said:


> If they are licensed by the state, your chances of FINDING them are much greater than from some unlicensed jackleg working off of his tailgate.


Correct. Otherwise, you are just trying to find Jimmy Jackleg in the phone book.:no:


----------



## lxdollarsxl (Apr 13, 2006)

I guess we are all on one side of the fence or the other regarding licences, and no matter what the arguments for or against on either side no one is going to change their opinion. Thats the beauty of free speech. Time to arty: and have a :drink:


----------



## Gordo (Feb 21, 2006)

http://www.contractortalk.com/showthread.php?t=11837

Chew on this.


----------



## Gordo (Feb 21, 2006)

lxdollarsxl said:


> I guess we are all on one side of the fence or the other regarding licences, and no matter what the arguments for or against on either side no one is going to change their opinion. Thats the beauty of free speech. Time to arty: and have a :drink:


Yeah, or should we have a tea party?:laughing:


----------



## maj (Mar 13, 2006)

R&S Exteriors said:


> The question is Do you have to be licensed to do top notch work? The answer is NO. *Are you to tell me every licensed contractor is "Top Notch" and every non-licensed contractor is a "Hack"?*


Yep


That's been brought to my attention many times on here. :whistling


----------



## maj (Mar 13, 2006)

Licensing makes it _legal_ to charge more.


----------



## lxdollarsxl (Apr 13, 2006)

Gordo said:


> Yeah, or should we have a tea party?:laughing:



Whatever sails ya boat.


----------



## Gordo (Feb 21, 2006)

maj said:


> Licensing makes it _legal_ to charge more.


Since you brought it up. It seems like you guys in unlicensed states are at the low end of rates.

Is there a correlation there?

No offense, just observation.


----------



## maj (Mar 13, 2006)

mdshunk said:


> Hey... simma down now. I don't like personal attacks in my thread. Some people make over-the-top comments just to get a rise out of folks. Just let it roll off. We all know that no state in the union is just like a 3rd world country. Well... maybe Kentucky, but I think they like it that way. :jester:


So it's Ok for some to diminish other folks but not OK for others?


----------



## mdshunk (Mar 13, 2005)

maj said:


> So it's Ok for some to diminish other folks but not OK for others?


Certainly not. I'm not a babysitter. I just don't want this to get out of hand, which it easily could. This has been a super-cool, quite intellectual exchange so far. I'd like to see it stay that way. I'm not sitting in front of my computer 24/7 to pipe in with "simma down's". It was just a reminder to keep things civil. It's sorta uncool in my book to attack a man personally for his ideas. Attack his ideas with your own, not the man himself. That's all I have to say about that.


----------



## R&S Exteriors (Aug 4, 2006)

mdshunk said:


> Referee turns on his mic: "Personal insults. 10 yard penalty. Still first down."


Referee turns his mic on: "*Upon further review. Offsetting Person Fouls. Still first down"*


Quote:
Originally Posted by *Gordo*
_I have driven thru and done charity work in some of these non-licensure states and have been shocked to see they are no different than third world countries. Exactly the same. C'mon this is America._

_Not mislead. Are you kidding? I do not like government intrusion. In this case, it is necessary. States rights are far different than Fed rights._



Quote:
Originally Posted by *R&S Exteriors*

_Are you serious????? Your going to try and say that because a state does not require a license that all the builders are "hacks" and the whole state looks like a "Third World Country"._

_I think your kind of "full" of yourself and "full" of something else too. _

_*Just because you bought a degree and a license makes you no better or worse than the rest of us*._

_It never ceases to amaze me how most of these guys that go to college and party for 2-4 years, and get their liberal indoctination, think they are so much better than everyone else. While you were in college Gordo many others were actually out on the job getting real time experience._


----------



## dayspring (Mar 4, 2006)

If the state requires you to be licensed, get a license. Here in NC they do require a license for jobs over $30,000.00. Myself, I am not licensed at this time, the jobs I do are for the most part in the $25,000.00 range and below. Am I a HACK? I honestly don't think so. I have a reputation for high quality work around here. I would like to get a license, however, that would just be a goal reached that I have set for myself. I agree about the protection the homeowner or client gets from a licensed contractor. Here in NC a contractor must have $17,000.00 in working capital or a $250,000.00 surety bond to apply. I don't have $17,000.00 lying around that I know of. I have studied all of the required text and I believe I could pass the test easy enough and I do build by the code. I am looking into ways of getting the surety bond so that I can soon apply for the exam, but even if I do get a license it will not change my quality or business practices. Bottom line, I am working within the Laws of NC.


----------



## Gordo (Feb 21, 2006)

Wow, I stirred up the hornets nest. Gotta go to work. Be back tonite to debate.


----------



## TonyD (Aug 4, 2006)

A few things
1. One of the best benefits of living in America is the ability of state to have some control of their individual laws, making 50 available choices for an american to live and conduct business in a state that suits their needs.
2. I've heard some very strong views on licensing and fees, but I think you're better off aiming all this to your local congessmen. Unless you just need to vent, then I believe this is the place for it!


----------



## Brickie (Jun 15, 2006)

Gordo said:


> Wow, I stirred up the hornets nest. Gotta go to work. Be back tonite to debate.


Yes, you did. You can expect people to be pissed when you write stuff like this:

_*I have driven thru and done charity work in some of these non-licensure states and have been shocked to see they are no different than third world countries. Exactly the same. C'mon this is America.*_


----------



## RYANINMICHIGAN (Dec 9, 2005)

A license only proves you know they bare minimum to provide a service that meets the bare minimum codes. License and quality of work have NOTHING to do with each other. I have a license because it is the law that is the only reason. I learned nothing from getting it therefore it CAN NOT have and effect on my product. I know someone who has a license (thought it would be fun to study and take the test with his son) this guy could not build a fing doghouse…………


----------



## K2 (Jul 8, 2005)

mdshunk said:


> Why should it ever be illegal for any man to repair someone's home, as long as he fulfills his contractual obligations to the property owner?


Why should it ever be illegal for any man to go through a red light, as long as he can do so without risking life, limb, or property??

Because it seems to work best for complex traffic systems.


----------



## mdshunk (Mar 13, 2005)

Rob 53 said:


> Why should it ever be illegal for any man to go through a red light, as long as he can do so without risking life, limb, or property??
> 
> Because it seems to work best for complex traffic systems.


This thread is not about traffic control, but thanks for sharing your thoughts on that matter. I find red lights a very useful part of my daily life. In fact, I purchased a pre-emption control about 3 years ago to give me the green light as I approach, so I really, really love red lights.


----------



## snapper21 (Mar 13, 2006)

mdshunk said:


> Why should it ever be illegal for any man to repair someone's home, as long as he fulfills his contractual obligations to the property owner?


I sorta agree with ya. I have friends who are unlicensed and doing fairly well. Their work is of code or better and they don't fit the description that has been placed on "unlicensed contractors". That doesn't make it right, but I do agree that there is a need for them. Most of the clients they have are not the ones you would want to deal/haggle with, and most of the jobs they take on are small enough to be laughable to most cont's. They are just as knowledgable, if not more than most cont's. in the area and their quality of work stands with the best. But they must stay within their realm or problems ensue.


----------



## R&S Exteriors (Aug 4, 2006)

*Did some research*

Did some research on Contractor License tests. 

*Every state I checked used* 

*- Multiple Choice Questions.*
*- Open Book Test.*
*- 50 to 125 questions*
*- 70% to pass*
*- Take as many times as you want*

Also many websites offering to teach the test for any state. Many "guarantee" you will pass or they will either no charge you or refund your money. These are 16 hour courses

Most tests questions are on: *business & law (non-trade questions)*


> *Testing subjects*
> 
> *taxes, recordkeeping, business practices, job-site safety, OSHA requirements, environmental laws, project management, time management, scheduling, estimating, employer requirements and worker rights, contract law and lien law. *


How does an open book, multiple choice test on business & law topics demonstrate that the individual passing the exam is some how more qualified as a contractor then those in non-licensed states.

Personally I would rather have someone with a good reputation for quality work (licensed or not) work on my house rather than someone who qualification is that they passed an open-book multiple choice test with a 70%. 

What about the other 30%. I'd be worried that the 30% incorrectly answered questions might have been crucial to doing a quality job.


----------



## Gordo (Feb 21, 2006)

R&S Exteriors said:


> Are you serious????? Your going to try and say that because a state does not require a license that all the builders are "hacks" and the whole state looks like a "Third World Country".
> 
> I think your kind of "full" of yourself and "full" of something else too.
> 
> ...


No, I am not trying to say states that do not have licensure that *all *the builders are hacks and the *whole *state looks like a third world country. Read earlier posts.

I apologize for the blanket statement if you construed it that way.

The states I was referring to are KY and TENN. Specifically, the Cumberland Mountain Gap. There is absolutley no code (building or zoning) enforcement. Anybody can just pick up the hammer and start building. I know because I oversaw a youth group that fixed one families house and sided another 'shed' that was a living space for the daughter and her baby.

It was not only that house but just about every other house I saw in that area. Reminded me of some third world countries I have been to. I was shocked that people were living this way in America. This could be fixed with code enforcement over time.

Now about your blanket statement about me buying my degree and license, I would like to think that I earned them. It took me 6 years (not 2-4 like you say) because I worked my way through college. I would consider that about as real world experience as it gets. No loans. I stood up to the liberal indoctorination, you would have been proud. Like I said I like the way you think in an earlier post but, you have let your emotions cloud your judgement in this instance.


----------



## Gordo (Feb 21, 2006)

mdshunk said:


> Referee turns on his mic: "Personal insults. 10 yard penalty. Still first down."


Thanks.


----------



## lxdollarsxl (Apr 13, 2006)

The states I was referring to are KY and TENN. Specifically, the Cumberland Mountain Gap. There is absolutley no code (building or zoning) enforcement. Anybody can just pick up the hammer and start building. I know because I oversaw a youth group that fixed one families house and sided another 'shed' that was a living space for the daughter and her baby.


Ahem. get your facts straight, there is zoning, and codes, and anyone cannot just pick up a hammer and start work<if ya want to be holding a licence> Why do some assume that Kentucky dosent have what other states do? Just time to pull ya neck in before someone cuts it off.


----------



## Gordo (Feb 21, 2006)

cssconstruct said:


> Another aspect that has not been discussed is the fact that the license is also tied to a monetary amount. This ensures that if I default on a job the company or I should have the money to cover the job if I am held liable in court. I agree that the license is just a tax on people in the trades, but in states that require it, go get it. Not for someone else's benefit but yours. If you are caught building here without a lic. It can be a $25,000 fine and jail. Is it fair? No. But it is how the world works. If you live in a state that does not require it, fight it when they bring it up. This is not about who does a better job, but playing the game with the rules they give you. Just my opinion


Yes.


----------



## Gordo (Feb 21, 2006)

maj said:


> Ya know Gordo....... I used to have you on my "buddy" list, but......
> 
> You're gone now... Buddy!
> 
> ...


I am sorry you made that decision without even talking it out first.

Read my follow up post.


----------



## Gordo (Feb 21, 2006)

mdshunk said:


> Hey... simma down now. I don't like personal attacks in my thread. Some people make over-the-top comments just to get a rise out of folks. Just let it roll off. We all know that no state in the union is just like a 3rd world country. Well... maybe Kentucky, but I think they like it that way. :jester:


:laughing: How ironic!


----------



## Gordo (Feb 21, 2006)

lxdollarsxl said:


> Thank god he didnt come though Kentucky. MMMMMMMM maybe i need some free work done, (Have ya got a licence)?


Been there. That state has major building and zoning issues IMO. This was the state I was referring to in last nights post.:laughing:


----------



## lxdollarsxl (Apr 13, 2006)

The more i read your crass statements about Kentucky and Tenn, the more im sure your a wannabe  :furious: How long have you actually been working in the field and what gives you the right to class other areas as third world? Have you ever been to a Third World country?, if so maybe you should have stayed there and brought them up to your standard.:no:


----------



## lxdollarsxl (Apr 13, 2006)

Brickie said:


> I agree with you, it's a big time scam.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



too true:thumbsup:


----------



## RobertWilber (Mar 5, 2006)

*two cents*

I get a kick out of the guys who ARE licensed who pull permits for unlicensed guys as a business, even though it is illegal
License, schmicenze ... I agree with MD
you either know what you are doing, or you don't.
The whole idea of licensing, actually, is to promote registration for regulation of SOMETHING
At least a homeowner can have the knowledge that the guy preparing to put canned fire in his bedroom wall had to convince someone that he at least had some idea what he was doing.
I've seen too much jackleg work to completely reject the concept of some kind of control. We can't self-regulate, because I can't make Joe over there stop installing wire through holes in walls just 'cause he doesn't know how to do it without killing someone.
I agree you can't make it illegal for a guy to make a living, but you CAN make it illegal for him to make a living doing XYZ if he can't show he knows how.

Can I pilot the plane today? Huh? Can I? Can I? pretty please?


----------



## Mike Finley (Apr 28, 2004)

*Hurricanes in Florida last 2 years.* 

Roofers have to be licensed in state of Florida, the merits have been discussed here over the last 2 
years.

Seems to me all the right answer to all this round and round discussion are right there.


----------



## maj (Mar 13, 2006)

Mike Finley said:


> *Hurricanes in Florida last 2 years.*
> 
> Roofers have to be licensed in state of Florida, the merits have been discussed here over the last 2
> years.
> ...



Please explain Mike.


----------



## jwbond (Jan 5, 2005)

dayspring said:


> If the state requires you to be licensed, get a license. Here in NC they do require a license for jobs over $30,000.00. Myself, I am not licensed at this time, the jobs I do are for the most part in the $25,000.00 range and below. Am I a HACK? I honestly don't think so. I have a reputation for high quality work around here. I would like to get a license, however, that would just be a goal reached that I have set for myself. I agree about the protection the homeowner or client gets from a licensed contractor. Here in NC a contractor must have $17,000.00 in working capital or a $250,000.00 surety bond to apply. I don't have $17,000.00 lying around that I know of. I have studied all of the required text and I believe I could pass the test easy enough and I do build by the code. I am looking into ways of getting the surety bond so that I can soon apply for the exam, but even if I do get a license it will not change my quality or business practices. Bottom line, I am working within the Laws of NC.



Unfortunately, $250K is an absurd bond requirement for a contractor license bond. Are they purposely trying to limit the amount of contractors in NC? Sounds like they are looking to get rid of the little guys, or force them to work w/o a license.

I say all of this, as the typical rule of the thumb for license bond requirement is a company with 3x the net worth of the bond amount. So, without a $750K net worth, you might not qualify. However, that net worth rule is not set in stone, as most bonding companies use much more complex underwriting than that, but that should give you an idea for what you are up against.

When you get below $100K or $50K for a bond requirement, they are a lot more liberal in their underwriting methods. For instance, our agency can write $50K contractor license bonds for any company that has been in business for three years, no other requirements! So you can see the drastic differences in how hard it is to obtain a bond when the amount increases.


----------



## NC-SC GC (Jan 17, 2008)

Dayspring,
I have some information for you that I wish not to make public, other than saying your interpretation of the requirements is only half right. I'm licensed in NC and can show you how you to can do the same, also the Test has nothing to do with knowing the building code at all. 
Contact me via PM.
Joe


----------



## tnt specialty (Apr 19, 2007)

Gordo's got a handle on the topic.....

I've had the pleasure/displeasure of operating a construction business both in California and Utah, which have state licensing, as well as Colorado, where it's a free-for-all....NO LICESNING!

I was appauled at the amount of sub-standard work that goes on here; And the scams!!!!

Compared to California, and Utah, Colorado is a cess-pool of unscrupulous/unethical construction operations. 

With it's lack of state contractor licensing, Colorado is a "buyer beware" market for sure. The consumer doesn't have a state contractor's license board to complain to/help protect them. Their only recourse is the judicial system.

You'd think a state with the population of Colorado would be a bit more "modern/up-to date".....But then again, Texas lacks licensing also.....It's all about the big $....... who runs the show....


----------

