Guns are Roofing

I was talking to a friend of mine today who is a Texas congressman. He said he's been approached by a large Austin roofing company owner trying to push for Texas roofing licensure. My friend asked my opinion. I think he respects my opinion because I don't engage in group-thing - I'm not a sheeple and I try to approach things from a common sense angle. Or, maybe he just likes me because we're both pilots. ;-)

Anyway, I told him: I'm against it. I know you're a big supporter of the Second Amendment and you are a dependable opponent of ANY new gun control legislation. Guns are roofing. Outlawing guns only creates more obstacles for law-abiding citizens, because criminals ignore the laws. That coupled with their knowing that there is very spotty enforcement of the laws that do exist, means that the criminal has a very good chance of not getting caught. I have sold dozens of our roof rigs in California and Florida, the 2 most restrictive states for roofers. They also have a far bigger problem with fly-by-nights than does Texas and other non-licensing states. This, admitedly, is anecdotal from talking to roofers I know. But it also makes good sense.

I don't see how a guy can be anti-gun control, and pro-roofing licensure.

egg Said: ...and in my view I still wind up on the side of licensure.

I dont pretend to know that I am right even though I think I am right.

Egg, my friend, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but... ;) I'm joking, of course. As always, you make perfect sense.

Doing biz in three states, Ohio (totally unrestricted except for local, some of which are very strict, and some of which are "pay the $50 and have fun") Alabama (Licensure is the FL model, and licenses are reciprocal between the two states, though the permitting process is much easier in AL) and WV, (a little easier to get licenced than AL/FL, requires a bond equal to or greater than two full weeks of total employee payroll, and permit needs vary like OH) I can say that I would not trade the freedom of Ohio's system of anarchy for all the gold in Alaska.

I guess I'm a rebel. I'd rather live and die by my own hand or decisions, while living on the edge of my own mental precipice than survive on the (in)competence of government ballyhoos. Though, I'll admit that I'll take closer note of the paper hanging on my dentist's wall next visit.

egg Said: If they start getting funny with it, I assure you I will sing another tune.

(Now just where did I hide that fat lady) :)

State License can be a two headed monster. Deep Down In Florida Where The Sun Shines Damn Near Every Day. Pre test applicant must prove four years of experience, required to provide a credit report and financial statement that is no more than 12 months old. A net worth of $20,000 is required and the minimum general liability insurance that is required for licensure is $100,000 for bodily injury and $25,000 for property damage. The 1st part of the license is business law, finance and building codes with the last part roofing. Once you pass and receive your license that when the fun starts.

B) :) :) B) Deep Down In Florida Where The Sun Shines Damn Near Every Day

Part of my distrust of the machine making dictatorial Rules For Roofers, is that I've seen firsthand that many of those in power in the roofing industry wield that power as a tool to make money for themselves. I have personally known a past president of one of the major roofing associations who used his power locally to promulgate rules to make it very hard for anyone to compete with him.

The default should be to err on the side of liberty, not safety.

I realize that my life experiences helped to mold my views on this, as do yours I'm sure. In a very general sense I am wired to not fear the bad guy. I fear fearing the bad guy. It would be a stroke to my ego. I spent 8 years and 150-175 tournament karate bouts climbing in the ring against other black belt trying to beat the piss out of each other, up to 5 times each tournament day, in hopes of taking home a 7 dollar plastic trophy. I tend to want to face the bad guy, not seek protection from him. I realize that this is not the smartest way to go through life, but at the same time I think it fits well with this nation's history of favoring liberty over safety when both cannot be had.

I consider this an interesting discussion but not because I have any vested interest in whether or not anyone in Texas (RCAT, I presume) does or does not prevail in this apparently perennial struggle.

I do buy the arguments given against licensure. But as stated, it is a question of balance and in my view I still wind up on the side of licensure.

I don't pretend to know that I am right even though I think I am right. The reason I say this is that virtually every system I have ever seen or been a part of is so seriously flawed by the practices employed by its participants that it is often easy to wonder if things might not be better merely left to chance.

Nonetheless, as Tim says, safety is not the goal, relative safety is. I don't want to have to choose between an unknown (but great) welder who can't string three graceful sentences together and an unknown (but lousy) welder who can. I want to choose between two certified welders, which I presume means that they passed a short test that any competent welder could pass easily, regardless of his level of finesse. I don't have the time or the wherewithal to do the first level of screening on everything I need to have done by somebody else.

I know that having a license does not prove you are great or even prove that if you were once great you are still great. I don't have the ability to check the credentials of every dentist, x-ray technician, optometist, bank, banker, mechanic, teacher, policeman, real estate broker, stock broker, insurance broker, pilot, driver on my left, driver on my right, driver coming toward me, and driver doing the tail-gating. I do want to choose for myself among base-line professionals and pick whichever ones seem to my earnest but unprofessional eye most likely to do right by me, but I want to know that whatever choice I make, should they turn out to be utter crooks or incompetents and fail to make amends for their actions whatever licenses they have to practice will be stripped from them and that if they repeat the offense they will end up in jail. And I want to know that my remedy is not limited solely to taking action against them in the public courts.

That's just me and that's because I am used to working within a system (of course not without its own issues) that makes it pretty easy to get in if you are reasonably knowledgable, and doesn't allow third parties lethal monopoly-style access to work the system to their advantage.

You still have to be very careful who you pick, but you don't get far without (at least) a license so it behooves you to toe the lines. These lines are general business practices and they are not pertinent to locale. Local codes cover the local issues, as they should. They do not require minimum types or face amounts of general liability insurance, or even that you have a general liability policy in force at all. They require that you carry workers comp if you have employees (though in the case of roofing contractors, they make an exception and require a minimum premium because roofers are legendary for having among them a high percentage of cheats. Yet even so, this minimum premium is extremely easy to handle for anyone running a half-serious business.) And they require a license bond which costs nothing more than a pittance to maintain in force. You lose the bond, you lose your license. Period. You can of course pony up your own bond if you like. You mess up, the board sends an agent to evaluate. If you truly messed up, you make it right or it settles against your bond. If you didn't mess up, the complaint is tossed. Not that hard. Certainly not Draconian. And certainly not a deal-killer. I have to say that I don't know anyone in the business here that wants it gone.

City business licenses are not contractors' licenses. Each city exacts its own ounce of flesh in its own style but they don't care if you're selling roofs, groceries, or kazoos. They just want their ante. When you show them your state contractors license they assume what I assume when I see one: that you have demonstrated base-line competency and are in current acceptable base-line standing. Works fine for me. If they start getting funny with it, I assure you I will sing another tune.

Balance is the goal. The trouble is that people define balance differently.

The goal is not safety. The goal is relative safety. Reasonableness. For every action there is an equal and opposite... Every action/legislation enacted to make the homeowner less likely to be cheated, costs the contractor more time/money to abide it, and thus the homeowner pays for his own futile search for perfect safety.

Balance.

At the very least, licensing should be as localized as possible. Austin and Dallas Texas are as different from Lubbock as though they are 2 different worlds. I don't want Austin deciding how to be a roofer in Lubbock.

When I choose to enter a public roadway paved with my tax dollars, I think it reasonable, and just, to expect a certain modicum of safety born of the legislative actions necessary to assure something a degree less than total chaos. (ever drove the Ventura freeway at rush-hour? LOL) As such, I think licensure of drivers using that public roadway, in an effort to assure a minimum standard of skill, thereby providing a minimal assurance of safety to an innocent public user is totally right and just.

On private property, the government has no right to tell me who I may and may not allow to drive a vehicle. Even though it is entirely possible that my 8 year old nephew may kill me, my wife, my grandchildren, my dog or my horse in the process. Government has it's boundaries, and this too is right.

When a homeowner or business owner chooses to part with their hard earned money to perform an upgrade to their private property, they should take that investment seriously enough to do their homework. Failing to meet that basic degree of sensibility, imho, leaves them subject to the unfortunate results of being whooed by the lowest price. Government has no right to interfere.

That's how I still 'er.

And for the record, there are still plenty of people in the commercial side of the purchasing equation who fail to take their responsibility to purchase wisely as seriously at it deserves. Whether its the hope fueled by savings, the apathy born of a short time until retirement, or simply a dislike of the boss, a good many commercial purchases just don't care. At least not in Ohio, anyway.

It's those people that do care, whom I work hard to discover, that I don't want being influenced by a worthless piece of government issued paper.

Here, Deep Down In Florida Where The Sun Shines Damn Near Every Day. ON the magnificent West Coast and the rest of the state The Florida Supreme Court has ruled: unlicensed contractor can not file lien claims on property, no ticky no laundry........... On January 24, 2013, the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion of importance to contractors and owners engaged in building construction in Florida. In Earth Trades, Inc. v. T&G Corp., No. SC10–1892, 2013 WL 264440 (Fla. Jan. 24, 2013), the Supreme Court held that § 489.128, Florida Statutes, precludes an unlicensed subcontractor from enforcing a contract claim against a general contractor, even where the general contractor knows that the subcontractor does not hold the state-required license to perform the construction work under the contract. BAM!!!!

B) :) :) B) Deep Down In Florida Where The Sun Shines Damn Near Every Day

Didn't read me right; I'm solidly with you on this. I have to say, though, that as natty describes the terms proposed for the Texas licensure, I would be utterly against that proposed program.

Egg,seriously, The buyer shouldn't have recourse? If I read you right... You must be overrating the education and experience of the buyer. The only experience or education they get is from the seller who is selling them something. Sure, some of them do their homework but the majority are at the mercy of their salesperson. They only buy one roof maybe two in their lifetime, there's goes the experience factor, How much are they going to put into education? Most of them not much.

Natty, as far as the screw up, which happens with both lic/unlic contractors, insurance doesn't have anything to do with it. But the threat from the licensing dept. of losing your license will generally hurry the contractor along in remedying the situation, no matter who he sent out to do the work(scab or skilled). The licensed contractor has something other than his reputation at stake. That's not to say legit unlicensed contractors won't or wouldn't live up to their obligations

Rockydog Said: and its not the legit unlicensed guy that worries me its the damn carwasher who says I can put that roof on that does. You dont find many of them doing commercial roofs, either.

I believe every state requires electrical, plumbing, and hvac contractors be licensed. At least those licenses require testing and some level of competency. But, only the contractor or owner of the business must be licensed. I have seen too many cases where all of the work is done by lackeys supposedly "supervised" by the master electrician or plumber. If there is a screw up, I suppose their liability insurance will cover it? hah!

That IS the problem with the residential roofing business. There are too many unskilled laborers doing all of the work. CONtractors putting in their order to the politicians for more guest workers to do the work.

How is licensing and insurance addressing the real problem? They don't.

Commercial roofing by its very nature is a different animal.

In Texas, there is currently no law requiring a license to roof. There are several bills now being debated for licensing which will probably not get passed. Those for licensing cite the need to protect consumers from all of these evil CONtractors who take deposits upfront but don't do the work. They basically have no other argument.

If a law passes, the only requirement to get a license is that you carry liability insurance. And the agency overseeing this law will be the state insurance board. What a crock.

An ignorant consumer is going to get taken whether there is any licensing law or not. Which is easier for a consumer to demand?- Show me your license or no deposit until the work is started and material delivered?

I am still waiting for some proof how liability insurance makes anybody a better roofer. All it does if anything is encourage risk taking.

My family history is decidedly Scots-Irish, as is, I am confidently guessing, the family history of a number of other people posting here.

The Scots-Irish historically avoided just about all regulation, even the early census tallies.

I understand this... in my blood you might say.

Maybe we shouldn't have pilot's licenses or driver's licenses either. Who can say with absolute certainty?

Nobody likes to be controlled. Nearly everybody likes to do the controlling. I think I'll just leave it at that. Where we set the control boundaries is alway going to be a perpetual struggle. Where the human intellect meets the flesh plane, it is a lot of work to keep things sorted out.

What Rocky says: "buyer (needs to have) ... recourse other than small claims court or some other civil action..."

if you're in a state where all things are equal no doubt the unlicensed guy has an advantage. That's not to say the buyer will get less of a product rather it guarantee's the buyer has recourse other than small claims court or some other civil action. and it's not the legit unlicensed guy that worries me it's the damn carwasher who say's "I can put that roof on" that does. You don't find many of them doing commercial roofs, either.

If anyone disagrees with you Mike, just look at the Insurance/ Restoration Realm:

Any roof, no matter how badly installed, rates the same coverage. Every roof install costs the same. All products are equal.

Cutting corners becomes mandatory to install the "same roof".

YUP.

As I've stated before Mike: I can put on their roof. Anytime, any day. Question is: Can they put on mine? B)