Ruminations on construction quality

[rnen]

[quote=briansd1][quote=rnen]Folks need to make sure their contractor is licensed and not settle for anything less than a quality job, even if that means getting the State Licensing Board involved. That is what they are there for.[/quote]

All licensing boards do is create barriers to entry and protect their members.

A license is no guarantee of quality services.

Licensing does however provide some recourse in case of disputes.

I have a handyman who does my work. He’s not licensed because he doesn’t speak English well, but I’m perfectly happy to pay him. I’d rather pay him than some licensed schmuck.

The licensed contractors use unlicensed workers anyway.[/quote]
Being one of those “licensed schmuck”s I will agree that the board does little to enforce quality but it does provide a valuable resource for those that do experience difficulties with their job.

As far as creating barriers and protecting their members I can tell you they do little to protect me, I still have to compete with unlicensed and unqualified individuals. Not all contractors use unlicensed workers but way to paint us all with the same brush.

Hmmmm… maybe you are on to something here Brian, why not eliminate licensing for every trade or profession…. starting with yours. Why let pesky things like skill and knowledge get in the way. Lets just open the doors for anyone to do anything regardless of qualification. Brilliant!

Or maybe you are just refering to blue collar work, after all what do you need to know to build a house or repair a car??

Gee Brian, us low life “licensed shmuck”s would apologize for the inconvienence we cause you if only you would jump down from your ivory tower for a minute.

[briansd1]

[quote=rnen]
Being one of those “licensed schmuck”s I will agree that the board does little to enforce quality but it does provide a valuable resource for those that do experience difficulties with their job.
[/quote]

I shouldn’t have used the term schmuck. I misspoke.

That’s what I said; licensing does provide some recourse in case of dispute.

[quote=rnen]
As far as creating barriers and protecting their members I can tell you they do little to protect me, I still have to compete with unlicensed and unqualified individuals.
[/quote]

In order to become licensed you need to take the exam. Not everyone can take the exam, especially if one has limited education and English skills. But one can still do great work.

[quote=rnen]
Not all contractors use unlicensed workers but way to paint us all with the same brush.
[/quote]

The licensed contractor’s employees are not required to be licensed. They generally are not.

I’m saying that if you’re lucky to find a good person who does good work, stick with him, licensed or not.

A license is no guarantee of quality work.

[quote=rnen]
Hmmmm… maybe you are on to something here Brian, why not eliminate licensing for every trade or profession…. starting with yours. Why let pesky things like skill and knowledge get in the way. Lets just open the doors for anyone to do anything regardless of qualification. Brilliant!
[/quote]

I would support that. I think that skills come from experience more than licensing.

Up until the mid 20th century, most professions were unlicensed.

[briansd1]

[quote=rnen]
Being one of those “licensed schmuck”s I will agree that the board does little to enforce quality but it does provide a valuable resource for those that do experience difficulties with their job.
[/quote]

I shouldn’t have used the term schmuck. I misspoke.

That’s what I said; licensing does provide some recourse in case of dispute.

[quote=rnen]
As far as creating barriers and protecting their members I can tell you they do little to protect me, I still have to compete with unlicensed and unqualified individuals.
[/quote]

In order to become licensed you need to take the exam. Not everyone can take the exam, especially if one has limited education and English skills. But one can still do great work.

[quote=rnen]
Not all contractors use unlicensed workers but way to paint us all with the same brush.
[/quote]

The licensed contractor’s employees are not required to be licensed. They generally are not.

I’m saying that if you’re lucky to find a good person who does good work, stick with him, licensed or not.

A license is no guarantee of quality work.

[quote=rnen]
Hmmmm… maybe you are on to something here Brian, why not eliminate licensing for every trade or profession…. starting with yours. Why let pesky things like skill and knowledge get in the way. Lets just open the doors for anyone to do anything regardless of qualification. Brilliant!
[/quote]

I would support that. I think that skills come from experience more than licensing.

Up until the mid 20th century, most professions were unlicensed.

[briansd1]

[quote=rnen]
Being one of those “licensed schmuck”s I will agree that the board does little to enforce quality but it does provide a valuable resource for those that do experience difficulties with their job.
[/quote]

I shouldn’t have used the term schmuck. I misspoke.

That’s what I said; licensing does provide some recourse in case of dispute.

[quote=rnen]
As far as creating barriers and protecting their members I can tell you they do little to protect me, I still have to compete with unlicensed and unqualified individuals.
[/quote]

In order to become licensed you need to take the exam. Not everyone can take the exam, especially if one has limited education and English skills. But one can still do great work.

[quote=rnen]
Not all contractors use unlicensed workers but way to paint us all with the same brush.
[/quote]

The licensed contractor’s employees are not required to be licensed. They generally are not.

I’m saying that if you’re lucky to find a good person who does good work, stick with him, licensed or not.

A license is no guarantee of quality work.

[quote=rnen]
Hmmmm… maybe you are on to something here Brian, why not eliminate licensing for every trade or profession…. starting with yours. Why let pesky things like skill and knowledge get in the way. Lets just open the doors for anyone to do anything regardless of qualification. Brilliant!
[/quote]

I would support that. I think that skills come from experience more than licensing.

Up until the mid 20th century, most professions were unlicensed.

[briansd1]

[quote=rnen]
Being one of those “licensed schmuck”s I will agree that the board does little to enforce quality but it does provide a valuable resource for those that do experience difficulties with their job.
[/quote]

I shouldn’t have used the term schmuck. I misspoke.

That’s what I said; licensing does provide some recourse in case of dispute.

[quote=rnen]
As far as creating barriers and protecting their members I can tell you they do little to protect me, I still have to compete with unlicensed and unqualified individuals.
[/quote]

In order to become licensed you need to take the exam. Not everyone can take the exam, especially if one has limited education and English skills. But one can still do great work.

[quote=rnen]
Not all contractors use unlicensed workers but way to paint us all with the same brush.
[/quote]

The licensed contractor’s employees are not required to be licensed. They generally are not.

I’m saying that if you’re lucky to find a good person who does good work, stick with him, licensed or not.

A license is no guarantee of quality work.

[quote=rnen]
Hmmmm… maybe you are on to something here Brian, why not eliminate licensing for every trade or profession…. starting with yours. Why let pesky things like skill and knowledge get in the way. Lets just open the doors for anyone to do anything regardless of qualification. Brilliant!
[/quote]

I would support that. I think that skills come from experience more than licensing.

Up until the mid 20th century, most professions were unlicensed.

[briansd1]

[quote=rnen]
Being one of those “licensed schmuck”s I will agree that the board does little to enforce quality but it does provide a valuable resource for those that do experience difficulties with their job.
[/quote]

I shouldn’t have used the term schmuck. I misspoke.

That’s what I said; licensing does provide some recourse in case of dispute.

[quote=rnen]
As far as creating barriers and protecting their members I can tell you they do little to protect me, I still have to compete with unlicensed and unqualified individuals.
[/quote]

In order to become licensed you need to take the exam. Not everyone can take the exam, especially if one has limited education and English skills. But one can still do great work.

[quote=rnen]
Not all contractors use unlicensed workers but way to paint us all with the same brush.
[/quote]

The licensed contractor’s employees are not required to be licensed. They generally are not.

I’m saying that if you’re lucky to find a good person who does good work, stick with him, licensed or not.

A license is no guarantee of quality work.

[quote=rnen]
Hmmmm… maybe you are on to something here Brian, why not eliminate licensing for every trade or profession…. starting with yours. Why let pesky things like skill and knowledge get in the way. Lets just open the doors for anyone to do anything regardless of qualification. Brilliant!
[/quote]

I would support that. I think that skills come from experience more than licensing.

Up until the mid 20th century, most professions were unlicensed.

[rnen]

[/quote]

I shouldn’t have used the term schmuck. I misspoke.

How do you “misspeak” typing? It takes more time and thought plus you have a delete button.
We all have our prejudices, mine is for “highly educated” folks who feel the rest of the “ignorant” masses need to be enlightened by them. Who model the ideal way of life based on chosen studies and theories and think they can apply it to all.

[/quote]

In order to become licensed you need to take the exam. Not everyone can take the exam, especially if one has limited education and English skills. But one can still do great work.

How many trades do you know of where you do not need to communicate or read? I guess that is why they work for someone who is licensed. BTW.. I do not advocate that all jobs need to be or should require a license.

[/quote]

The licensed contractor’s employees are not required to be licensed. They generally are not.

I’m saying that if you’re lucky to find a good person who does good work, stick with him, licensed or not.

A license is no guarantee of quality work.

Agreed, it is not a guarantee of a quality job, neither is not having a license.

The purpose of the employer having the license is so he can make sure the job is being done in compliance with current codes ect. While there are some that obviously do not follow through in monitoring the work of their employees there are plenty of us that do.

[/quote]

I would support that. I think that skills come from experience more than licensing.

I agree with this statement as well but how is one supposed to know that the person they have hired has the experience, knowledge and training to complete the task competently?

Which professions do you propose we remove the licensing requirement from? Auto mechanics? Engineers? Building contractors? Teachers? Nurses?
Lawyers? Accountants?

You know maybe it can work… after all you don’t seem to need much experience in anything to become president! 😉

Ughhhh… my stupid brain can’t figure out to use the “quote” thing. Sorry!

[rnen]

[/quote]

I shouldn’t have used the term schmuck. I misspoke.

How do you “misspeak” typing? It takes more time and thought plus you have a delete button.
We all have our prejudices, mine is for “highly educated” folks who feel the rest of the “ignorant” masses need to be enlightened by them. Who model the ideal way of life based on chosen studies and theories and think they can apply it to all.

[/quote]

In order to become licensed you need to take the exam. Not everyone can take the exam, especially if one has limited education and English skills. But one can still do great work.

How many trades do you know of where you do not need to communicate or read? I guess that is why they work for someone who is licensed. BTW.. I do not advocate that all jobs need to be or should require a license.

[/quote]

The licensed contractor’s employees are not required to be licensed. They generally are not.

I’m saying that if you’re lucky to find a good person who does good work, stick with him, licensed or not.

A license is no guarantee of quality work.

Agreed, it is not a guarantee of a quality job, neither is not having a license.

The purpose of the employer having the license is so he can make sure the job is being done in compliance with current codes ect. While there are some that obviously do not follow through in monitoring the work of their employees there are plenty of us that do.

[/quote]

I would support that. I think that skills come from experience more than licensing.

I agree with this statement as well but how is one supposed to know that the person they have hired has the experience, knowledge and training to complete the task competently?

Which professions do you propose we remove the licensing requirement from? Auto mechanics? Engineers? Building contractors? Teachers? Nurses?
Lawyers? Accountants?

You know maybe it can work… after all you don’t seem to need much experience in anything to become president! 😉

Ughhhh… my stupid brain can’t figure out to use the “quote” thing. Sorry!

[rnen]

[/quote]

I shouldn’t have used the term schmuck. I misspoke.

How do you “misspeak” typing? It takes more time and thought plus you have a delete button.
We all have our prejudices, mine is for “highly educated” folks who feel the rest of the “ignorant” masses need to be enlightened by them. Who model the ideal way of life based on chosen studies and theories and think they can apply it to all.

[/quote]

In order to become licensed you need to take the exam. Not everyone can take the exam, especially if one has limited education and English skills. But one can still do great work.

How many trades do you know of where you do not need to communicate or read? I guess that is why they work for someone who is licensed. BTW.. I do not advocate that all jobs need to be or should require a license.

[/quote]

The licensed contractor’s employees are not required to be licensed. They generally are not.

I’m saying that if you’re lucky to find a good person who does good work, stick with him, licensed or not.

A license is no guarantee of quality work.

Agreed, it is not a guarantee of a quality job, neither is not having a license.

The purpose of the employer having the license is so he can make sure the job is being done in compliance with current codes ect. While there are some that obviously do not follow through in monitoring the work of their employees there are plenty of us that do.

[/quote]

I would support that. I think that skills come from experience more than licensing.

I agree with this statement as well but how is one supposed to know that the person they have hired has the experience, knowledge and training to complete the task competently?

Which professions do you propose we remove the licensing requirement from? Auto mechanics? Engineers? Building contractors? Teachers? Nurses?
Lawyers? Accountants?

You know maybe it can work… after all you don’t seem to need much experience in anything to become president! 😉

Ughhhh… my stupid brain can’t figure out to use the “quote” thing. Sorry!

[rnen]

[/quote]

I shouldn’t have used the term schmuck. I misspoke.

How do you “misspeak” typing? It takes more time and thought plus you have a delete button.
We all have our prejudices, mine is for “highly educated” folks who feel the rest of the “ignorant” masses need to be enlightened by them. Who model the ideal way of life based on chosen studies and theories and think they can apply it to all.

[/quote]

In order to become licensed you need to take the exam. Not everyone can take the exam, especially if one has limited education and English skills. But one can still do great work.

How many trades do you know of where you do not need to communicate or read? I guess that is why they work for someone who is licensed. BTW.. I do not advocate that all jobs need to be or should require a license.

[/quote]

The licensed contractor’s employees are not required to be licensed. They generally are not.

I’m saying that if you’re lucky to find a good person who does good work, stick with him, licensed or not.

A license is no guarantee of quality work.

Agreed, it is not a guarantee of a quality job, neither is not having a license.

The purpose of the employer having the license is so he can make sure the job is being done in compliance with current codes ect. While there are some that obviously do not follow through in monitoring the work of their employees there are plenty of us that do.

[/quote]

I would support that. I think that skills come from experience more than licensing.

I agree with this statement as well but how is one supposed to know that the person they have hired has the experience, knowledge and training to complete the task competently?

Which professions do you propose we remove the licensing requirement from? Auto mechanics? Engineers? Building contractors? Teachers? Nurses?
Lawyers? Accountants?

You know maybe it can work… after all you don’t seem to need much experience in anything to become president! 😉

Ughhhh… my stupid brain can’t figure out to use the “quote” thing. Sorry!

[rnen]

[/quote]

I shouldn’t have used the term schmuck. I misspoke.

How do you “misspeak” typing? It takes more time and thought plus you have a delete button.
We all have our prejudices, mine is for “highly educated” folks who feel the rest of the “ignorant” masses need to be enlightened by them. Who model the ideal way of life based on chosen studies and theories and think they can apply it to all.

[/quote]

In order to become licensed you need to take the exam. Not everyone can take the exam, especially if one has limited education and English skills. But one can still do great work.

How many trades do you know of where you do not need to communicate or read? I guess that is why they work for someone who is licensed. BTW.. I do not advocate that all jobs need to be or should require a license.

[/quote]

The licensed contractor’s employees are not required to be licensed. They generally are not.

I’m saying that if you’re lucky to find a good person who does good work, stick with him, licensed or not.

A license is no guarantee of quality work.

Agreed, it is not a guarantee of a quality job, neither is not having a license.

The purpose of the employer having the license is so he can make sure the job is being done in compliance with current codes ect. While there are some that obviously do not follow through in monitoring the work of their employees there are plenty of us that do.

[/quote]

I would support that. I think that skills come from experience more than licensing.

I agree with this statement as well but how is one supposed to know that the person they have hired has the experience, knowledge and training to complete the task competently?

Which professions do you propose we remove the licensing requirement from? Auto mechanics? Engineers? Building contractors? Teachers? Nurses?
Lawyers? Accountants?

You know maybe it can work… after all you don’t seem to need much experience in anything to become president! 😉

Ughhhh… my stupid brain can’t figure out to use the “quote” thing. Sorry!

[sdrealtor]

[quote=AN][quote=sdrealtor]A few years back AN and I were going round and round so I picked a few streets in established neighborhoods and found far greater longevity.[/quote]
Are you sure that was me? I could have sworn I had similar conversation w/ sdcellar but I was the one who say the majority stayed in their homes much longer than 5-7 years. I know I always have this stance on this topic because my parents bought their house over 20 years ago and they’re still living in it right now. A lot of their neighbors are still there as well.[/quote]

Maybe it wasnt you but I thought it was. Could have been anyone I guess. It was at least 2 years ago.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=AN][quote=sdrealtor]A few years back AN and I were going round and round so I picked a few streets in established neighborhoods and found far greater longevity.[/quote]
Are you sure that was me? I could have sworn I had similar conversation w/ sdcellar but I was the one who say the majority stayed in their homes much longer than 5-7 years. I know I always have this stance on this topic because my parents bought their house over 20 years ago and they’re still living in it right now. A lot of their neighbors are still there as well.[/quote]

Maybe it wasnt you but I thought it was. Could have been anyone I guess. It was at least 2 years ago.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=AN][quote=sdrealtor]A few years back AN and I were going round and round so I picked a few streets in established neighborhoods and found far greater longevity.[/quote]
Are you sure that was me? I could have sworn I had similar conversation w/ sdcellar but I was the one who say the majority stayed in their homes much longer than 5-7 years. I know I always have this stance on this topic because my parents bought their house over 20 years ago and they’re still living in it right now. A lot of their neighbors are still there as well.[/quote]

Maybe it wasnt you but I thought it was. Could have been anyone I guess. It was at least 2 years ago.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=AN][quote=sdrealtor]A few years back AN and I were going round and round so I picked a few streets in established neighborhoods and found far greater longevity.[/quote]
Are you sure that was me? I could have sworn I had similar conversation w/ sdcellar but I was the one who say the majority stayed in their homes much longer than 5-7 years. I know I always have this stance on this topic because my parents bought their house over 20 years ago and they’re still living in it right now. A lot of their neighbors are still there as well.[/quote]

Maybe it wasnt you but I thought it was. Could have been anyone I guess. It was at least 2 years ago.

[Author]

Posts