About being required to have workers comp. even without employees or payroll

My name is Gordon Perry.Iam a roofing contractor in Southern California. Recent laws require roofers and maybe one or two other trades to have a workers comp. policy regardless of weather you have employees or not. The cost of such a policy has increased this year by about 300% to over $1800 .I am content with working with my two partners and don't feel I should have to contribute to this fund. To me this stinks of extortion. Are there any other contractors out there that feel this way?

wywoody Said: The other trade with the high rate is non-automated shingle and shake splitters. Which, as of last year employed a grand total of 0.

Haha. I've split about 3-4 shakes from oak. That was enough. I imagine cedar is way easier. Maybe they are doing it in sandles? I can't imagine splinters causing many trips to the ER.

We pay 51% I think right now. Had a guy screwing down a metal roof(ugh, I know) and hurt his wrist, but told me that nothing happened and it had been hurting for a year any ways. Not sure how that's going to turn out for us.

I have to confess I am a bit perplexed. In the US an employee has virtually an absolute right to receive treatment for work-related injury. This matter, taken as a whole, becomes too technical to jot down here (or even for me to completey comprehend for that matter.) We can leave aside for the moment the entire issue of who supposedly is and who supposedly is not an "employee" and speak only of uncontested employees, but what on earth difference does it make how many employees you have if one of them is injured? Either your insurance has to pay, or you have to pay. The bargain that was made regarding this is that if you have employees and workers compensation insurance to cover injuries to them, they cannot drag you into civil court and sue for punitive damages, pain and suffering, etc. They are limited in the compensation they can sue for. So if wc is mandatory, I ask again, what difference does it make how many employees you have? One, four, or four thousand...you are on the hook for them. One way or another. Maybe some states legislate their programs in strange ways. Maybe they do. Like Texas for example. But the last thing I would want is to go bare and wing it on my own, taking the risk of having an employee hurt and facing off against him in civil court with no limit to what he and his attorneys could ask for.

Here, I need 4 to have it required and I was told I will not be covered anyway.

The largest companies in my area "sub" all their work. As far as I'm aware the only people on payroll are the office/sales staff.

The biggest of these pays a whole $40 per sq.

That's for a 1-layer walkable tear off, felt and install new shingles.

And trust me when I say they slap the roofs on like wild animals.

I make my living by coming in behind them and fixing their shoddy work.

Once their warranty has expired that is. Usually after 5 yrs.

I don't go "by the square" in the grand picture. Are you speaking of T/O and re-roof for as low as $50? I've heard of this but never seen it in person. We charge more than that just to nail on new construction, and I think my rates are usually more than reasonable.

Basically all I'm saying is that the laws are whacked. This is what I'm referring to as a "racket".

The primary contractor sets the pay scale as well as the charge sheet to the home owners.

The "going rate" here is 40 to 50 per sq. If the alleged sub goes to the primary contractor and says I need $100 per sq. then he will simply be laughed off the planet and let go. There's 100 other "subs" waiting in line for the work at the prices the contractor is willing to pay. Just like insurance work which btw is also a racket.

Since the primary contractor sets the charge rate to home owners he could easily provide the workers comp for anyone that performs work for his company, Sub or Employee, and simply add that cost into the charge for the home owner.

I respect your opinions Tom and all I'm doing is giving mine which is that the law should make the primary contractor cover EVERYONE and charge the home owners accordingly. Problem solved. Right?

Obviously the little guy can not afford to pay the WC at those prices. The Contractor can.

It's the same old thing thats been going on since the beginning of time. Have the blue collar worker do all the work plus be responsible for everything while the white collar guys make most of the money without doing anything physically and taking on the minimum liability.

It's a racket!

Herein lies the problem(s); 1. The "working subcontractor" as you call it, chooses to play the sub-game w/his/her employees, rather than operate legit. He's the one actually taking all the risks.

2. The "working subcontractor" as you call it, chooses to let another contractor, ("paper-pusher"......we'll call it the "prime contractor"), dictate wages, rather than set his/her own rates/fees......This goes for insurance work as well.

As a subcontractor providing the services you mention, we'd be at aprx. $200/sq...... Our hourly rate is $68/hr.

Here workers comp is not required by law unless you have 4 or more employees.

The paper pushing big companies get out of covering "on the roof" workers by calling everyone a sub-contractor, having them sign a release of liability and giving them a 1099.

That leaves the working sub contractor to provide all trucks, equipment, fuel, tools, landfill costs, his own labor, etc. , workers comp, GL and the payroll tax burden on a measley 40-50 bucks a square.

Aint gonna happen! Not Legitimately.

Could you do it?

Huh?

The employer pays the WC ins. The goal it make certain, (as much as can be), that employees are coverd under WC.

In states where there exists no or lax licensing, as well as no manditory WC, (sub-game persists), WC goes by the wayside.

I fail to understand any "racket". WC is simply a cost of dong business, just as nails, fuel for your vehicles, etc.....

It's a racket any which way they decide to go about it.

Personally, I don't believe the big roofing company should be able to get out of providing workers comp by pushing it off on the small "sub" contractor.

They pay a whopping $40 per sq. for 1-layer walkables around here.

Who could pay for "legitimate" workers comp on that measley amount?

Somebody's cutting corners. Let me rephrase that. BOTH the main contractor and the sub contractor are cutting corners.

Gordy......You only pay WC ins. if you have employees......The $1,800 is a minn. policy premium I suppose? Personaaly, I think tha'st a small price to pay to help keep the dirt-bags at bay.

What's the WC rate for roofing in Calif? I know it's been up close to 100% at times. I think it was 60% in 92', when I moved away.

TomB. Please don't misunderstand me.I am all for licensing contractors as a way of way of making them accountable for their work. My point is why should I be forced to pay for something that I don't get.It would be like buying auto insurance and don't drive or own a car.

OW.....I've worked in both environments, so I feel I speak with somewhat reasonable knowledge.

- The "sub-game", as we typically know it, does not exist in states with authentic/effective licensing; It just doesn't happen. Because, subcontracors are authentic contractors, saddled with all the same labor burdens as the prime contractor they work for. There is no 'loophole' so-to-speak.

Years ago, Mass, instituted a law whereas a prime trade contractor could not "sub" his/her primary trade/craft.....That made all the sense in the world. Don't know if it ever made it. Maybe someone from Mass. could elaborate.

I'm definitely against big gov't. and feel gov't should be limitted in it's role concerning it's citizens daily lives. However, there are particualr public safety issues we should encourage our gov't to protect.

Imagine if we simply let every drunker'd just keep on driving our public roads after he's killed/injured countless people; No need for drivers' licenses, let nature take it's course. He'll eventually destroy himself. If people are stupid enough to go out on the roads at 2:30Am after the bars close...Well, that's their own fault; They know the increased risk of driving around w/drunks.

You can put a million rules and regulations on it but most of those who comply will just "Sub" the work out to the knuckle heads you speak of.

Either way there will be plenty of knuckle heads doing the work!

So what is the real goal? To limit who individuals can work for so larger companies can have a bigger market share?

Even a knuckle head with a little money can get a license and purchase insurance. None of that makes anyone a better roofer. Only one thing truly does and that's experience "In the Field".

It's a free country. We all have a right to work for whomever we choose. Whether that be as an employee, a subcontractor or for home owners.

Gordy....That law's been in effect for several years, hasn't it? I say kudos to California! You should be thankfull your able to work in a state which requires such a law and authentic contractor licensing.

The grass is definitley not any greener over here, on the east-side of the continental divide. Just imagine every knuckle-head whoever put a shingle on becoming a contractor. at the slightest whim......It's a mess.....buyer-beware is an understatement!