…since he has pointed out how associations cannot be counted on to verify an inspectors qualifications, and the market can only disprove them after the damage is done. So in order to protect the consumers and agents from fraudulent inspectors, who could endanger their lives or end their careers, licensing of inspectors should be, not only be a states requirement, it should be nationwide also. Furthermore, inspectors should not be allowed to cross state lines. Licensing solves everything! Thanks JB
Or consumers could stop being lazy and actually screen their inspectors, so that the government doesn’t have to “save them” from themselves …
How does that solve “everything”. You mean a licensed HI is automatically not a rube?
Licensing would solve some of the inter-association peeing matches but it does not make automatically make someone a good inspector. And it would set minimum standards. But you can not legislate quality anymore than you can legislate morality.
I live on the border of two states. MD requires licensing (which I am), PA does not. Your reasoning would restrict my commerce to one state.
What would you do? Not perform an inspection in the neighboring state?
Nationwide HI licensing? Patrolled by who? Just what we need. Big government looking over our shoulders. Who is going to pay for the new agency you suggest must be created to enforce this nationalization that you advocate? Taxes are high enough, and licensing fees are just another form of taxation.
PA just instituted a new fee structure to maintain Radon certification. More than double. That doesn’t do anything except increase state revenues.
I don’t mind the notion of licensing, but that will not increase the quality of inspections.
Im pretty sure Ken is being facetious.
Then what purpose does licensing serve other than to fill government coffers and limit our freedoms to be entrepenuers?
I understand the filling govn’t coffers part, but can you explain how licensing can “limit our freedoms to be entrapenuers”?
I speak from the perspective of Pennsylvania. I agree with your premise 100%.
PA however is such a bassackwards state. Right here, PHIC and its associates try to limit my freedom to associate as I wish and licensing would shut them up and with any luck it would shut them down.
I am no advocate of government interference. If licensing is mandated, hopefully they keep it simple.
ROFLOL - Too funny.
For instance, my state forbids me to provide what RR calls WALK inspections. All of my “inspections” must provide a written report and abide by the SOP and one could argue that a WALK is an inspection, not a consultation or whatever you want to call it. Not worth the risk of losing my ability to practice in my home state to provide them.
What if I and the public want an inspection report that lists major defects and nothing more. Too bad, the state of WI doesn’t allow it.
What if there aren’t 20 hours worth of quality education in a given year. Too bad, the state mandates I must waste my time and money sitting in 101 level inspection seminars.
What about the guys that find E&O to be a rip off. Too bad in states that require it.
Licensing solves nothing but serving the carpetbaggers who seek it.
None of that “limits your freedom to be an entrepenuer”.
It does specify how the state wants you to conduct an inspection, and maintain your eductaion.
Nothing you’ve posted limits your freedom to choose home inspection as a profession.
I don’t want to get into a licensing debate - there are certainly enough of those on the board not to re-hash each sides argument for the umpteenth time.
My point was that this statement…
Is not a valid argument.
If I wanted to be a Doctor, the medical licensing laws don’t prevent me from being a doctor.
I, right now, have the “freedom” to be a doctor, if I so choose.
How can I more clearly illustrate how my freedoms as an entreprenuer are limited? I can’t provide services such as WALK’s because big brother doesn’t allow it. I can’t provide the type of report that I described because big brother doesn’t allow it. I must waste overhead and time because big brother mandates education even if it is needless. I would lose significant controls over my liability and incur substantial overhead if I was in a state that mandates E&O. Big brother has taken away various entrepenuerial freedoms from me to run my business.
Why are you repeatedly making the point that licensure doesn’t restrict me from choosing to be a home inspector? My objections are to government dictating what I can and can’t do to operate my business. It bothers me that a bunch of beaurocrats, many who know little or nothing about our industry outside of the carpetbagger propaganda, decide what I can and can’t do to put food on my family’s table.
I’m kinda just busting your chops a bit, here Nick.
was not your original statement.
I see a difference between “limiting your freedom to be an entrepenuer” (start a business) and passing laws as to how the entrepenuer must run the chosen business.
Perhaps its simply a matter of sematics.
To me, there is nothing stopping you from becoming a HI, doctor, lawyer, whatever. If there were, you would certainly have an argument that the govn’t is limiting your freedom to be an entrepenuer.
You can be an entrepenuer in whatever business you choose.
If you choose, auto mechanic, lets say, would it limit your freedom that you couldn’t simply dump old oil onto the ground, or burn the old tires out back?
Laws on the books as to how you must run your business, to me, is a different argument.
It might work, I’d be especially convinced if you were refused a license and had to once again revert to flippin’ burgers.
What’s up with this flippin burgers stuff? Did you see me in a McDonalds somewhere…when you were sizing it up for a shootout joey? BTW, you really need to quit fantasizing joey, I can pass any test or get any license I need. oh yeah…I can get on all the rides at Six Flags too! :mrgreen:
You need to look up the definition of, “limit” in the dictionary.
Ah, I see the disconnect now. My bad.
Regulations such as prohibiting the mechanic dumping oil into the ground IMO are necessary. But then again, regulations like that apply outside of licensure because they apply to everyone. I’m sure that licensing impose mandates on professionals such as doctors and engineers that are absolutely necessary but that’s a completely different subject. They are also saddled with plenty of BS mandates that do nothing more than needlessly increase their overhead, restrict their quality of service, etc because greedy special interests got their way. That is especially true in the medical field.
I’m at a loss to find any meaningful mandates that licensing demands of a HI. All I see is mandates placed upon an inspector to favor carpetbaggers and dupe many in the public into thinking we are all created equal, all under the guise of “public protection”. We inspecting homes and folks are hiring us out of their free will. Its much different than administering emergency medical treatments or designing buildings that could cause the death of hundreds if they failed …
Welcome back, Ken.
Answer this for me.
What limits someones freedom to become a Home inspector (or any other licensed profession) in a licensed state?
Who cannot become a home inspector (or any other profession) because of licensing?
Someone who doesn’t have access to the 120 hours of CE’s in a state that mandates it to get the license. Someone who can’t convince one of his future competitors to provide him (even for handsome compensation) with the amount of ride-alongs necessary to become licensed in a state that mandates it. An inspector who lost his E&O and can’t find another carrier to pick him up, in a state that mandates it.
:freaked-:Oh No You Didn’t!!!#-o
What a way to start a Sunday!](*,)