All USA Homeowners are Pro Choice!

GKFG - That's kinda what I figured. Typically, most states attempts at contractor licensing is a joke.

Califormia FINALLY made it mandatory, that all roofing contractors carry WC ins....If your WC lapses, your lic. is suspended. Plain n' simple. To those that whine; It's reaaly no big deal; Your simply pay a minimum premeium, ($600 +/- / yr.). (as everyone else does), if you have no employees.

California is far from perfect in other area's. However they've got the best contractor licensing program in the nation, that I've come accross; Other than Florida; I don't know much about Florida.

California, as I recall; Documented 4 yrs experience in the particualr trade license your applying for. Test involves trade knowledge, as well as business knowledge. Bond...was $10,000...probably twice that these days? WC ins.....for roofers only, I believe. The "sub-game" doesn't happen in Ca...That's cheat'n, You go to jail.

Rockydog....The Denver metro & all along the rocky Mountain "Front Range", is a real hot-spot for hail...and it's much closer! If you really want to play that is.

It appears Ill. feels only roofing contractors need to be licesnsed! The test appears to only cover roofing methodoligies and doesn't address what is REALLY needed...Business management knowledge.....What a typical waste of gooberment antics....

Did the implementation of this suedo-licensing do any good? Ill. guys?

Here is an update on Larry's issue It was dated yesterday and that maybe why we haven't heard from Larry

Update - March 21, 2012

Minnesota Association of Exterior Specialists - Contractor Legislative Alert

Today the State Capitol saw a victory for both Minnesota contractors and homeowners with the defeat of portions of Bill SF 2137. Sections 1, 2, 4 and 5, which were of most concern to contractors, were removed entirely, and the committee unanimously passed an amendment proposed by the author, Senator Dahms. Let me also note that Senator Dahms, who was very considerate and understanding, has expressed that he wants to work with us in the future.

Gkrfg, are you union? Not that it matters. Im flying into Chicago in a 6 weeks to take my roofing test. I have an architect friend that promises all kinds of work. Might need some advice when I get there.

After that huge hail storm we had, I kinda like the idea of chasing storms. But I'll set up a permanent office with sales and production. I m really ready to go nationwide. Just a question of putting the right people in the right places and hold them accoutable. All employees, of course. We'll see what happens in the next 2 years.

Alright. It looks like Larry is a lobbist for the Independent Contractors of America. Below is a copy of a proposal taken off of his URL he had posted. It took a lot of BS reading to finally get to his crux. His arguement it seems , is with the unions, when it really should be with the insurance companies. Unless this was reworded at press time,or when the ICCoA posted, I, too, don't agree with the proposal, but it has nothing to do with the unions. I'am the advocate for the homeowner, and I'll happily battle the ins.co's advocate(the adjuster). Actually I would help battle the State against such a proposal, but it's not the union's fault, even if they are strong at the state level.

"Negotiation with insurance provider. A residential contractor shall not represent or negotiate, or offer or advertise to represent or negotiate, on behalf of an owner or possessor of residential real estate on an insurance claim in connection with the repair or replacement of roof systems, or the performance of any other exterior repair, replacement, construction, or reconstruction work. Nothing in this section prohibits a residential contractor from discussing with an insurer the specific terms of a written contract executed between the residential contractor and a policyholder of the insurer once the claim has been accepted by the insurer."

Gee's, you wouldn't believe the reading it took to find this paragraph. save your time unless you like that kind of reading.

I'm with ya Rockydog....Glad you & GRFG got that worked-out...us dinosuaors need to stick together!

I'm as big an ignor-aim-us as anyone...To be honest, I only glazed over the original post, (sort of a pun - intended)....Quite possibly; I just assumed where it was headed....Ya know what they say about "assuming"?

These days, I'm just a little outfit fart'n around in the mountains....I've done the 80+ employee thing, (and yes they were EMPLOYEES)

Ok, so Im a thickheaded guy and couldn't see the humor through the rhetoric our buddy Larry has proposed, is endorsing and unwilling to disclose who he works for, whats his agenda and why he is pushing his platform upon us. I'd like it in American(English). Please.

GKRFG, wasn't my intent to blast you personally, but you had a comment there that didnt rest easy. I said my piece. It's Larry topic. and earlier I asked him to put it in layman's terms. Haven't heard anything.

GKRFG, I would like to think that I fall into the old fashion group as far as the way I operate my business and the way I go about selling and installing Roofs. Except I don't do any of it anymore. I have 50-55 employees,all legal. My job now is to make sure I charge enough money to pay comp, liability, taxes and still have enough money to drive to work everyday and keep my wife happy with her own car. You don't have to be a small conttractor to stay in line with the regulations put forth. Most of my Installers make a good wage(Piece work) with good benefits and bonuses. my turnover rate is extremely low except the sales force who are paid commission but they are employees. I give them a car, phone, fuel, advertising and a few leads the rest is up to them, but they are w-2 employees. I take offence to your statement, "Come-on, I can't believe we all dont do it that way" Yes, I do insurance work, but I use the same crews on those jobs as weel as my $100,000.00 custom home jobs. Some of us might not be as smart as others but some of us have self respect and are not full of covert greed.

I agree that passing a "law" everytime someone gets exited or existing laws are not enforced, (which is what is typically the case), is just plain idiotic & an unbelievable waste of time & $.....But that's how we roll here in the good ole USA......

To take it a step further; I believe we tend to make existing laws disingenuous by continuing to come up with "laws" of similar content/function....and then not enforce those either.... :blink:

The only reason one would misrepresent employees as "subs" is to cheat...That's greed....That's just a dinosaur's opinion though...

Larry, I am dumb as a roofer comes. Sometimes it's difficult to understand and digest everything you wrote and I read it 4 or 5 times. Maybe there is an easier way to explain it for us knuckleheads. The way I see it, every damn union empolyee can go get his license, pay his workers comp, liability, pay his taxes and become a sub contractor, I dont care. It's the ones that don't pay that we need to keep an eye on. We have to do that at the kitchen table and inform and educate the HO on all the ills that come with hiring the guy that doesnt pay his dues. Excuse the pun. That being said we will always have those kind of "subs" and those kind of "HO's" that want to save(cheat) the buck out of you. I do agree big brother is to big and the last thing we need is more legislation. Ps... that "HO'S" is for home owners, not our ladies friends of the night. :laugh:

Again, two different issues here. No problems with unions, a number of good friends are union guys - many who, btw, often do side work for cash.

With issue 1 - ICEC, carpenters union reps who are also state legislators are attempting to take away a workers free enterprise / free market choice to work as an independent contractor (roofer, sider, union carpenter doing side work, off duty cops, real estate agents, etc.) and that's just wrong. If I pay an ee and a sub the same, union or non-union, and all other things are equal, there should be no problem.

Issue 2 - "No negotiating" Sympathy? For who? What "no negotiating" legislation does is take away from insureds the freedom to choose who will assist them and negotiate on their behalf to make the repairs. Professional independent contractors know better than anyone what needs repair and how much it will really cost (not included under the "professional" banner - low ball hacks, free estimate guys who don't understand the ins process, etc.) are frowned upon by the Property and casualty insurance industry because, according to them, those pro contractors charge too much for the repair work. What passage of "no negotiating" legislation does is take away HO's freedom of choice regarding who they want to work with. The HO then has only two choices, either agree to pay a 10% to 15% fee to a public adjuster - from the proceeds of the insurance claim, or trust that their insurance company adjuster will account for all of the damage and pay at real, true and accurate rates that a pro contractor would charge. Unfortunately for the homeowners whose choices become limited by law, they'll all end up being underpaid 99% of the time and never be able to afford to pay a pro contractor to do the work.

Greed is the strong desire to have more money then you could possibly need and that does not describe a pro contractor who does everything they can to make sure that their insured customers are paid everything their insurance company owes them relative to the premiums paid. Keep in mind that top 3RS trained contractors who achieve the highest payouts only receive those payouts because the insurance companies have agreed to them. That's called good business.

A contractor can't, on the one hand, complain about low ball competition not charging enough then turn around and say that contractors who expect their customers insurance companies to properly and fully pay their insurance claims are greedy!? doesn't make any sense...

It's called greed.....

I'm with ya GKRFG