I see your still talking out your a$$ Dan.
If so, I think that Dan’s a$$ is making a whole lot of sense. 
Quote: Most guys I see or talk to across the country in favor of licensing are either: (1) new and naively think it will bring credibility to them; (2) old dogs having a hard time holding ground and hoping licensing will eliminate some of the competition - especially if they can make it very costly (fence me in - fence you out); (3) people that train HI’s for almost 100% of their revenue (if licensed - every new swinging weewee will have to go to HI school, so more bucks for them than if its optional as now); and finally (4) our great white father HI Association that seems to think if they can push us all into regulation AND hopefully get their Stds in play AND their 3rd party Test shoved in maybe they can stack the state HI Board and gain more control.
Gee Mr. Anderson I guess we will have to agree to disagree .
I think Dan can see the true picture .
Roy Cooke I am an old Guy who thinks Dan can see what you do not want to see.
David, I am disappointed in you. You gave us great thoughts to ponder - then went from “Diplomat” to “Moron.” Did you get into some Jack Danial’s? Does everyone really have to agree with you or they are ignorant? Has insulting people in the past worked well for you? Should we all respond this way? … :shock:
Why this thread is helpful:
The State of Washington has tabled until February its legislation to force Licensing of Home Inspectors. The thoughts put forth in this thread I and others in Washington will use to defeat or support this initiative.
If licensing is a good thing, how is BEST employed and regulated?
If licensing is a bad thing, what facts, and in Lu of facts, observations, support this position?
Thank you all!
</IMG>
Best of luck, Dennis.
I would invite anyone considering favoring a license bill to correspond with Joe Burkeson. Joe was one of the staunchest supporters for legislation in his state and was involved, behind the scenes, in many activities leading up to the bill’s passage in the house - only to see it vetoed by the governor. In this regard, not too many folks have taken such an active roll or had the inside perspective as he had…only to, today, feel that licensing is not a good idea.
His perspective on the issue would be of interest to opponents and proponents, alike, IMO.
Perhaps he would favor us by sharing his thoughts in this forum.
Sure would like to hear what Joe has to say.
David -
AS you know I have taught CE training classes both locally and nationally for ASHI, NACHI, NAHI, FHA, the state appraisers associations, the state realtors associations and varied other groups. What I hear our HI’s say to legislators, the general public and realtors is one thing and what we say in meetings between ourselves is another. I can remember a whole lot of meetings in places like Chicago for example, where we talked about “licensing” being a high-stakes poker game and how to improve our hand in the game - BUT - try as I may, I can’t remember any conversations talking about how this was vitally needed for the consumer’s best interests.
I do however recall a lot of conversations on how certain clauses in these licensing bills could help some of us more than others.
I think the time has come for us to alert all of our media contacts as to how special interest groups within our (and related) professions are actually duping and manipulating state legislatures into actions that actually work against the best interest of the consumer.
I’m working on a press kit. Any and all contributions of supporting materials will be appreciated.
Sorry Dennis! I was having “one of those mornings”. I didn’t have much time, and I quickly scanned through some posts and some of the things that I read had no substantiation, even though they make sense. I don’t see myself fitting into any of the scenarios in this post and I felt offended, but I guess I don’t fall into a category as Dan didn’t talk to ME.
We cannot fight licensing with innuendo and fairy tales. We must fight the fight with facts.
I will have to agree with those that say that licensing is insufficient to weed out that inspectors. However, that is not necessarily the intention of licensing. My opinion, licensing puts everybody on the same standard and is a vehicle which will improve with time and allows monitoring our performance through receiving client complaints.
Maybe they should start there. But that is not a stance for not licensing home inspector. It could be perceived that home inspection should be required on all homes. It could be perceived that the home inspector should be monitoring the plumbers and electricians. Maybe it could be perceived that seeing there is no license for plumbers and electricians, home inspections are necessary and home inspectors should be licensed to insure that they know what they are inspecting.
How can you support a stance stating contractors, plumbers, electricians are not licensed in the state therefore home inspectors should not be licensed. We let a bunch of contractors do a bunch of crappy work and you want to continue by allowing home inspectors to do crappy inspections on the crappy work?
How does having a license reduce fees? It’s still going to be controlled by supply and demand and nutrition.
Looks like you have to go about raising your prices a different way. As James B. posted, licensing does have a potential to lower your prices and lower the bar. I did not lower my prices, but I did lower the bar. I now do as Russel Ray suggested, offer different levels of inspections. I offer a Tennessee chapter 65 basic inspection for the same price that I did a more comprehensive inspection. I broke down additional services that require other licenses or certification and added my fees that way. Because I travel a substantial distance to my service area I plan to abandon this change and only offer technical inspections. I cannot seem to bring myself to do a substandard inspection and not pull out the thousands of dollars of test equipment that I carry in my truck to do some basic inspection. But then, I’m trying to retire! An article I read from this bulletin board from a seasoned retiring veteran inspector said he raised his prices astronomically when he wanted to retire to slow business down. The result was an increase in business, so he raised his prices again! This worked for him because he was a seasoned well entrenched veteran and the client base understood the differences between him and the newbie lowball inspector. This will not work for everyone. But when you get to a point where you don’t want more work, you end up getting more. If you’re smart you’ll also make more.
New home inspectors with a licensed might think they are equal to a veteran home inspector. There just legends in their own mind.
Client choice: Find a home inspector in the Yellow Pages and call them and ask them how great they are. No certification required, no testing required, no association or affiliation with home inspection associations required, no education requirements, no continuing education. These are the things that make better inspectors better. When everybody in the state has to have a license, what is the difference than everybody who doesn’t have a license? The same scenario above. Just that now the client knows that we went to school or had three years of experience, passed a test, have insurance, continue with education, and know that there is a governmental body who knows who we are and knows how to find us and has a vehicle to implement enforcement of accepted standards. Now, seeing we all have these things, isn’t our bag of tricks a little more empty to entice the client to select our services over another company? No longer can we say we’re insured! No longer can then we say we passed the national home inspector test! No longer can we say we went to ABC home inspection school!
As humans we are inherently lazy. Continuing education as a lot of work and a substantial commitment for some. If it’s not required, why do it? " I have better things to do with my time". “I’m too busy for that”. “I know everything!”.
The function of government is to bridge jurisdiction boundaries between county, city, state, country. Posters have been in favor of a national inspection license so that we would all be on the same sheet of music.
I was not for licensing when I started this business. I was not for E&O insurance.
Many do not want licensing because they are required to have insurance. It’s expensive and when you don’t have a good income it’s hard to stay in business.
There are many inspectors on this site that think you’re crazy to go to work without E&O insurance. They may be right! There are others that think the client/lawyer will take advantage of the insurance as a pot of gold at the end of the home inspection rainbow. They are most probably right! Is that a reason for not being insured? I am being sued without having E&O insurance but I can afford to self-insure myself, many (or most) new inspectors cannot afford to do this. Maybe we need someone outside of our industry to ensure that we are properly insured for our own protection as well as the alleged clients protection. If we cannot control our own insurance issues, someone is going to step in and make sure it’s done (licensing). Today I have insurance because is required. The next time I get sued I’ll let you all know which way worked out the best. One thing I can tell you, all the other folks listed in the lawsuit have insurance. I have to remain active in my own defense, whereas they just let their insurance lawyers take care of it. Will they get the same legal protection that I will? Probably not. If they lose, will they be looking for a new job? Probably, they can’t work without insurance. Will I be looking for a new job? Not likely. I didn’t have insurance than so my current insurance is not at stake this time around. Maybe there was someone out there (government?) who sees things a little more clearly than we do. Even though we think we can control ourselves and do a good job and protect our client, maybe we can. There are a lot of people that feel home inspectors do a lousy job. Maybe it’s only 1% of the home inspectors. Do we need licensing to fix the 1% efficiency? Maybe not! Maybe we need to walk around in someone else’s shoes for a while and take a look around. Maybe all these reasons for not having licensing sounds sensible to you. Maybe that’s because you’re a good inspector trying to do a superior job in trying to learn and better at yourself through association and education. But then there’s the home inspector that doesn’t hang around on this bulletin board to learn from other peoples mistakes and learnings. Then there is the home inspector we hear about from the real estate agents and read about in lawsuits who are just in it for some money at any cost.
Very good point. However the basis of this point is that you are bringing in being self-insured. Should we have the option of being self-insured or carry E&O insurance? Answer, yes! This is where we need to get with the state who is making the licensing roles and bring up the option of bonding in lieu of of required E&O insurance. See? We’re not standing up saying we shouldn’t be required to have insurance, which sounds like unprofessional business practice to the state. We are presenting an alternate of choice remedy so that experience will entrenched home inspectors can offer a bond in lieu of insurance. I know that the state of Tennessee would allow this gift presented because you are not required to Automobile insurance if you produce a bond. For anyone not familiar with bonding, it is a license that says you can afford to cover a million-dollar loss in the event of an accident just like an insurance company can.
This is really not about to license or not license. It is unlikely that in the near future any of us are going to be able to work without having a license (except for us old farts who may retire). Instead of fighting to not be licensed, it would be more prudent to work on a good licensing program. If you stand up on Capitol Hill and tell somebody you don’t need licensing because it lowers the competitor’s fees, because no one understands the home inspection profession, because you don’t think you really need insurance, because nobody else has to have a license so why should I, you are not going to get very far. They will view your opinion as rubbish that needs to be overlooked. However, if you work towards a licensing program where you are not required , as a new inspector to ride around with another inspector and loses 90 percent of your income for a year, maybe our profession will be a little better.
It was posted that licensing is proposed by home inspection associations for control. And why not? NACHI did it in Tennessee. The majority of members of the board belong to NACHI. Is this control only not good when it’s not your team? In Tennessee they booted several board members (to make room for more home inspectors) that really didn’t need to be on the board because they didn’t understand the home inspection industry and had an agenda more than likely! I have not heard horror stories in Tennessee as I have read about in this thread. Maybe they exist, I don’t know. All I can report is that it is business is usual for me.
How can we self regulate without some sort of licensing procedure. Membership to NACHI is basically a licensing procedure. People tend to referrer as the government as a separate living entity. The government is supposed to be you and me. Government is a form of self-regulation, or is supposed to be in theory. The reason we sit around and complain about the government is because we didn’t get our way or we did not become involved to control the outcome of a particular bill. Obviously, none of us have the time when it’s your government on a daily basis. That is why we have associations and lobbyists. We pay them to keep an eye on things for us.
That is very true. The reason being we are expecting things that should not be expected out of licensing. Such as, price-fixing, weeding out bad inspectors, etc.
He had zero hour wonders with zero experience that were sitting up at three o’clock in the morning watching infomercials being told they could become home inspector. No licensing is required! The result of licensing: at least a minimum of 90 hours of education! Are you proposing stricter licensing requirements are no licensing?
There are people damning ride along inspections where the training home inspector is sucking revenues from the practicing inspector. Isn’t this a method of increasing controlled experience? Nobody seems to like it!
This is another reason not to have licensing? You think someone on Capitol Hill will listen to this strategy?
I would like a few examples of what the states say we cannot do. Other than ethical violations, and having sex with your client in the house (as written in the article by my friend Walter Jowers) I’m not aware of any “you can not” in my state. I’m sure in New York State there may be some, so please enlighten me. If this is the case, this is one of the battles that should be waged upon the licensing front!
Unless you’re asleep in class, you’ll get something out of it.
Anyone can sue you, but when you get to court and quote the state inspection law and show that you performed in accordance, what’s the lawyer got to say then? When you didn’t find the hole in the wall that was covered by personal property and the national home inspector associations say it’s not required to move personal property and the state government says it’s not required?
David,
Your post seems to lack the same substance you criticized Dan’s for lacking. Your opinion that licensing has merit, as an opinion, is noted - but where’s the beef?
I do not have a beef for or against licensing.
The people that are posting to this thread are the people that will be standing up for or against state licensing when it arrives at their door. An effective means of controlling how you will be affected by licensing when it arrives is through the use of substantial facts. Understanding what licensing is all about is imperative to combat it. You must know your enemy. Expecting licensing to be a “save all” or expecting licensing to provide you a vantage point in business is not what it’s all about.
The point I’m trying to make is that we can control the end result of our individual state licensing requirements through active participation. In order to effectively win in this endeavor we must not look at licensing as the looming evil that will cover the sun. To fight licensing just because it’s licensing will get you nowhere. Someone out there has an agenda, as it has been pointed out. Controlling who’s agenda wins the greatest ground is what it’s all about.
I have no substance to base my opinion on because I don’t have a complaint about licensing. I am also not supporting licensing, so I have no substance there either.
I’m asking for some examples with substance to support claims like lowering prices and lowering the bar, Licencing lowers the HI Standard. I am only pointing out perceptions from the anti-licensing group that can be argued by the licensing board. "No contractors need licensing in our state so why should we? " is not a very good stance against state licensing of home inspectors. Would you agree?
This is what I am talking about.
Get in there and work with these people. A Bill IS comming, but which one will it be?
Absolutely untrue.
This reasoning is favored by those pushing legislation - trying to get people of the mindset that opposing legislation is a fruitless effort. It is not. As you stated in an ealrier post, you “woke up” one day and there it was. The idea is to “stay awake” and fight it, and you will win.
Florida home inspectors have successfully fought off very strong and well funded legislative efforts for 15 years.
Socialization of the industry is only there if you want it.
Time will answer that one.
David,
Thank you. We benefit from the substantial effort you have put into your posts. But, without all the other posts you likely would not have had so much to say - so all contributions are good and helpful.
It is convenient for us to engage ‘simple thought’ as if it is the end-all to our concerns (by simple I don’t mean stupid.) It seems that often we don’t have time to follow the depth of the many avenues where a thought may take us - so we take a path that most likely will benefit in the near-term (and why I don’t normally take rigid positions on most subjects.)
I have to agree that whatever is said to Legislators best be well thought out because the Industry with an agenda is comming with “both barrels loaded.”
These special interest groups have money and time working for them to create persuasive arguments that often win their support. This is why I feel I (or we) need these BB discussions.
I have to believe that facts, such as those garnered from research, will be hard to come by and only personal experiences will provide helpful defense against the special interest groups. The New Hampshire experience shows us how legislative results could have went badly.
I don’t have a problem with “minimum” standards. In WA. State Real Estate sales people (Realtors) must be licensed. In Spokane, we have about 1,500 licensed agents and about 1,800 properties on the market. The Realtor still makes an unbelievable amount of money for each sale under the vail that a sell for them doesn’t come often. Well, true for most. I hear that 90% of properties are sold by 10% of Realtors. To add insult to injury, every Realtor must work for a “Broker” (another licensing level.) It seem’s that the winners are the Training companies, Insurance companies, and 10% of the licensed Realtors.
Do you guys think we will ever get to this point - where we see unlimited job postings for “Home Inspectors Wanted” and one available HI for every home on the market? And only 10% of doing really well? (As I look at the 10% of Realtors doing well I think ‘charm’ outweights superior intelligence or long lists of credentials.) If anyone has worked on how to prevent the HI industry from becoming what the Realtor industry has become we need to hear from you? (Maybe this subject deserves its own post?)
I can only speak for myself when I say, again, thanks David for your time commitment to this post and the rest of you as well. Lets keep it up.
I like Frank Carrio.
We speak on the phone and correspond by email, frequently. He is a highly qualified home inspector and a successful businessman.
Having said this - I now will go on the record to say that I disagree with his legislative efforts.
Last session, he led a group that successfully defeated a very “ASHI-fied” bill and, this year, brought to light and defeated an effort to revive it. This is fantastic and qualifies him for “Man of the Year”.
Now, instead of holding on to his ground, he threatens to lose everything by submitting an alternative measure.
Why is that a loss of ground? Especially when it is such a friendly bill?
Because this bill will go into committee where opposition will result in compromise, which results in revisions. The bill comes out of these committees rarely in the same form that they entered.
Next step is the interpretation of the bill, once it becomes law. New York inspectors discovered this malfunction when they were surprised to learn that their new law prohibited them from inspecting their own properties or those of their children, friends, mothers…etc.
Good intentions going in are not always rewarded by what comes out. That is why it disappoints me to see Frank pollute his previous successful efforts with a new bill.
James,
Is this Franks fault? Could our efforts to control the end results prevent disaster?
I don’t think so.
It’s similar to the concept of marrying an ugly woman so that, if she leaves you, you won’t care as much…or digging through your laundry pile for your cleanest dirty shirt. There are alternatives.
If you want legislation, lobby for it. If you don’t, lobby against it. Legislators will do what it is they believe their constituents want.
David “woke up” and found it thrust upon him - but, believe me, those who led the fight for it did not sleep. Likewise, in Florida, the diligent who did not want it fought a legislature that actually passed a bill in both houses - and convinced their governor to veto it.
Proponents want you to believe that resistance is futile. This changes the debate from “bill, or no bill” to “which is the better bill”, knowing that things can still be manipulated toward their end in committee or by interpretation.
Interesting - food for thought.
Yes, I woke up to it. I was not for it or against it. I monitored it as many of us tell our clients.
I saw changes and they were good!
I feel that in TN we have a good and fair HI Law.
I have not felt any rebound from the bill, other than the $660 I lost while I took the test!!!
I must inject that the state of TN is known for not putting people out of work. Thus all the Mexican issues here. We are not as liberal as states that want them on welfare just for showing up (see the Tenncare issue). We don’t look well upon freeloaders either.
I may be out of line by supporting state control when there are states like NY that have Hillary Clinton at the helm that may be destroying HI’s. I must plead ignorance here. Jim, I will not joust with you on this licence thing. I am sure that you are much more versed in what is about than I. This is evident in your rock solid stance on the issue. I applaud you! Folks like you are needed.
Let me tell you a story of someone that does not get involved in politics (me)!
Back on the farm, my family homestead. There was a great fishing lake that I grew up on adjacent to my grandfathers small farm in Massachusetts. Our clan owned over half of the town, all were Norwegian immigrants and farmers. MA is not the industrial place it is believed to be. A school mate of my Dad was attempting to “try out” low income housing on 7 house lots that was formerly a holding of my clan. Instead of 7 house lots at $90k each, he wanted to put in an entire complex which was not in the best interest of anyone, would damage the city water supply and my life long fishing lake. But, he was putting on a good show. He was going to house teachers, police and fire officials in the 5% occupancy of this type that was required by the state. Initially there were so many people against the proposal, they had to move the town meeting from a 4 story town hall to the school. At the end, several months later, myself and two other conservation types were all that were left in a supposed closed door meeting to finalize the bill. The few, were able to require a sewerage system so extensive, with underground fuel storage for back up power (and you all know where that leads, EPA) to the private sewerage system that was so extensive that the developer, who had more cash in his wallet than the town budget, but was “testing” the plan he intended to capitalize on state wide, could not produce a cash flow and abandoned the cause (he still had to answer to the stock holders, even when a negative cash flow is PLANNED). Only three of us were left!
Then there was Grace Chemical Corp whom I took on at the age of 11 yrs, but that is another story! Currently it is under a 2 square mile slab of concrete, monitored by EPA testing, and water filtration plants for two town water supplies.
Ya’ll hang in there with James B. !!!
Someones got to do it.