Help me understand - Licensing is bad?

[Rick Maday]

After reading the ASHI / ITA thread it seems there are several (or perhaps a few with several posts) members who are opposed to any type of state lic / reg. I don’t understand why anyone would be opposed to licensing statues IN GENERAL.
A GOOD Statute should:

1. Require an exam for all inspectors (perhaps yearly – bi-yearly)
2. Require initial education (60-80-120 hrs?)for new inspectors
3. Waive the initial education requirement for experienced (100-200-300?) inspectors WHO PASS THE EXAM.
4. Require continuing education for ALL inspectors
5. Allow current and future inspectors a choice in where to receive their education
6. Have a SOP that must be followed by all inspectors
7. Have the "teeth" to hold Inspectors accountable for their actions / inaction’s

So my questions to you:
Are you opposed to all legislation regarding HI?
Or
Are you opposed to BAD legislation?
What constitutes BAD legislation in your eyes?

[Michael Larson]

I see you are in the licensed state of IL and I am in the state of WI which also requires licensing/registration.

I am still opposed in principle to government intrustion in private business.

What problems do any of the requirements you have listed solve?

One result of licensing is the proliferation of HI "schools" popping up assuring a supply of minimally trained and now state sanctioned inspectors.

We both have the state requiring licensing but offering the inspector nothing.IMHO

[Rick Maday]

Originally Posted by mlarson

I am still opposed in principle to government intrustion in private business.

Would you be in favor of "de-licensing" Doctors, Dentists, Lawyers, Stock brokers, Mortgage brokers, etc?

Originally Posted by mlarson

What problems do any of the requirements you have listed solve?

It will mandate a MINIMUM level of competence in anyone calling themselves a HI. There will still be lousy inspectors, as there are lousy MDs, Lawyers, Mechanics, Relators , etc

Originally Posted by mlarson

One result of licensing is the proliferation of HI "schools" popping up assuring a supply of minimally trained and now state sanctioned inspectors.

Ahhh.....therein lies the problem.

My cousin had gone to an "IT school" 5-6 years ago and became Microsoft "Certified". Long story short, he got a job and realized he knew next to nothing about what he was supposed to be certified in - but he passed the test.

I imagine it will be the same for some new HIs now,with the lowly (60 hrs)education requirements. However, it must be better than anyone who "thinks" they know something about houses - imagine Uncle Bob who double taps breakers, vents the dryer to the attic and doesn't connect the auto reverse on the garage door opener because "it's not a big deal" being responsible for reporting on the safety and function of a home for a single mom with three kids.

Originally Posted by mlarson

We both have the state requiring licensing but offering the inspector nothing.IMHO

In the first part, I think the laws are supposed to benefit the CONSUMER, not the inspector. Secondly, it will help the GOOD inspectors by eliminating those who don't have the knowledge and skills.
Interstingly I heard that 40% - 50% of inspectors in Illinois who had the chance to be "grandfathered" by passing the test without the education part (I think it was 200+ inspections to qualify) actually failed the test.


</IMG>

[ekartal6]

One benefit. It may have prevented the entire Illinois population from being a home inspector.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by Rick Maday

Would you be in favor of "de-licensing" Doctors, Dentists, Lawyers, Stock brokers, Mortgage brokers, etc?

Then must also be in favor of licensing gardners, home stagers, sprinkler techs, tv repairmen, cooks, butchers and candlestick makers. Where does it end? What's special about home inspectors that dictates state licensing?

Originally Posted by Rick Maday

It will mandate a MINIMUM level of competence in anyone calling themselves a HI. There will still be lousy inspectors, as there are lousy MDs, Lawyers, Mechanics, Relators , etc

If there are still lousy inspectors after licensing what problem has been solved?

Originally Posted by Rick Maday

My cousin had gone to an "IT school" 5-6 years ago and became Microsoft "Certified". Long story short, he got a job and realized he knew next to nothing about what he was supposed to be certified in - but he passed the test.

The market is a more efficient mechanism for weeding out the unqualified. Licensing puts everyone o a level playing field in the public's mind and the market still has to do it's job of trimmin the now increased rankd of HIs. The "problem" hasn't decreased but rather increased.

Originally Posted by Rick Maday

I imagine it will be the same for some new HIs now,with the lowly (60 hrs)education requirements. However, it must be better than anyone who "thinks" they know something about houses - imagine Uncle Bob who double taps breakers, vents the dryer to the attic and doesn't connect the auto reverse on the garage door opener because "it's not a big deal" being responsible for reporting on the safety and function of a home for a single mom with three kids.

Again what problem has been solved by licensing with minimal requirements?

Originally Posted by Rick Maday

In the first part, I think the laws are supposed to benefit the CONSUMER, not the inspector. Secondly, it will help the GOOD inspectors by eliminating those who don't have the knowledge and skills.
Interstingly I heard that 40% - 50% of inspectors in Illinois who had the chance to be "grandfathered" by passing the test without the education part (I think it was 200+ inspections to qualify) actually failed the test.

Laws are supposed to benefit society general. It looks more like you desire to control the market and increase you market share than protect the consumer. If that's the case just say so.

[Joseph T. Burkeson, CMI]

Rick,

You are new here, I suggest you research home inspector licensing and get back to us with a list of all the benefits it has brought our profession.

The thing about being against home inspector licensing is that you are never in favor of it no matter how it's dressed up or what wonderful claims are made in it's name.

Joe - Licensing solves nothing.

[Dan Bowers, CMI]

Rick -

Joe said it. We've seen nothing good out of licensing.

[Rick Maday]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Then must also be in favor of licensing gardners, home stagers, sprinkler techs, tv repairmen, cooks, butchers and candlestick makers. Where does it end? What's special about home inspectors that dictates state licensing?

Interesting question at the end. I believe home inspectors ARE indeed special in that the client is putting thier trust in us to be an unbiased party in what is the bigest financial transaction of thier lives. In adition to the $$$ involved there may be some real safety and health issues that Uncle Bob wouldn't even be aware of.

Originally Posted by mlarson

If there are still lousy inspectors after licensing what problem has been solved?

There will always be lousy inspectors. If someone (in any field) is the best then logic dictates that someone else mus tbe the worst. License or no license.

Originally Posted by mlarson

The market is a more efficient mechanism for weeding out the unqualified. Licensing puts everyone o a level playing field in the public's mind and the market still has to do it's job of trimmin the now increased rankd of HIs. The "problem" hasn't decreased but rather increased.

The market doesn't go away just because licensing is in place.
I guess I don't understand how licensing = more HIs?
"trimmin the now increased rankd of HIs"

Originally Posted by mlarson

Again what problem has been solved by licensing with minimal requirements?

SO it's beter to have NO requirements? Interesting. Perhaps we should do that for Drivers - just give anyone a license who wants one.

Originally Posted by mlarson

Laws are supposed to benefit society general. It looks more like you desire to control the market and increase you market share than protect the consumer. If that's the case just say so.

How does licensing let ME or anyone control the market? How does that also increase anyone's market share?

Actually I believe the whole concept of Home Inspection is to do exactly that - Protect the Consumer.
</IMG>

[Rick Maday]

Originally Posted by jburkeson1

Rick,

You are new here, I suggest you research home inspector licensing and get back to us with a list of all the benefits it has brought our profession.

The thing about being against home inspector licensing is that you are never in favor of it no matter how it's dressed up or what wonderful claims are made in it's name.

Joe - Licensing solves nothing.

Joe,

Yes, I am new here - I hope that doesn't preclude me from asking questions and trying to learn.

I was hoping to get some of your opinions about WHY your against licensing. Not simply that "you are never in favor of it". I have listed some of what I thought good licensing guidelines could be. What is detrimental about licensing?

Illinois has required licensing for a few years now, so I'm stuck with it for now. If, however, someone can explain the truly detrimental effects of licensure then perhaps we can fight to have it repealed.

[Paul Sabados]

Interesting question at the end. I believe home inspectors ARE indeed special in that the client is putting thier trust in us to be an unbiased party in what is the bigest financial transaction of thier lives.

That does not come from licensing. Where do you actually believe licensing comes from? The consumer group? Legislator's thinking that this is the way to protect the consumer? All you really got to do is LOOK every carefully at who is pushing a bill, why its being pushed, do a little background check and the light bulb should go off

Passing a test and paying a fee doesn't make the inspector. Licensing does not solve anything. For instance do a little research on just the real estate agent problems that are out there. And NO, not all contractors are licensed and in many areas, standardized building code enforcement and inspections are not mandated.

But then again, some people need the government to tell them what to do and how to live and what to think.

Paul

[Michael Larson]

Rick, The question that Joe asked remains-
What have been the positive efects of licensing?

And Pauls-
Who is behind licensing legislation when it is proposed?

[Rick Maday]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Rick, The question that Joe asked remains-
What have been the positive efects of licensing?

And Pauls-
Who is behind licensing legislation when it is proposed?

And mine -
Who has licensing hurt, and how?

As for Joe's:
Makes the HI have at least some knowledge of what they doing by having at least sat through a class and taken a test.
Also I'm sure there is a family somewhere in Illinois who has had a home inspection where something life threatening was brought to their attention and they either had it fixed (although it's been "like that" for years) or chose not to buy the house. I'm sure they have benefited from the fact that:

A) They didn't get a "drive-by" report from a HI who was "reccomended" by a realtor (and receiving a kickback for every "passing" home)

or

B) John Doe home inspector, who has done 300 inspections, is a very good inspector and truly cares about his clients and their well being had to sit through a class. In this class he learned that something he thought was allowed was actually a safety issue or something else was learned that he didn't know.

As for Paul's:
I don't know who was behind Illinois law when it was passed and as long as it's good legislation.
You seem to imply that there is someone behind the laws that is sinister and will profit from the law. Who is this and what do they stand to gain?

Here's the Illinois Req. in a nutshell What do you find objectionable and why?

Must be 21
High School Diploma or GED
60 Hrs Pre-licensing Education
Pass a State exam
6 CE units per year

The Inspector must :
Have a written contract with the client
Follow the Standards of Practice
Disclose any financial interests or conflicts of interest

[wforsyth]

In the first part, I think the laws are supposed to benefit the CONSUMER, not the inspector. Secondly, it will help the GOOD inspectors by eliminating those who don't have the knowledge and skills.

Here is where you are wrong.

Licensing won't eliminate these people. All it will do is shuffle all of these people in along with the qualified people. None of the consumers will be able to tell the difference between the two groups, and the consumer is harmed greatly in the process. Inspectors are harmed because the well qualified inspectors have to bring their rates down to the rates of the low-balling newbie inspectors who lower their rates in an attempt to garner business. Thus destroying the entire industry in the process.

Trust me.

Licensing solves nothing.

Even I know that.

[Joseph T. Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by Rick Maday

I was hoping to get some of your opinions about WHY your against licensing. Not simply that "you are never in favor of it". I have listed some of what I thought good licensing guidelines could be. What is detrimental about licensing?

What good would be for you to know the reason that I am anti-licensing? I am not interested in providing a platform where licensing proponents can debate the so-called merits of licensing. I am not concerned in hearing what you have to say, today I limit my discussion to other like minded folks who are against licensing and see no need for the government socialization of our profession. Really, I don't give a dam what you think, my position is set in stone and nothing you can do or say will change anything, case closed.

[Rick Maday]

Originally Posted by wforsyth

Here is where you are wrong.

Licensing won't eliminate these people. All it will do is shuffle all of these people in along with the qualified people. None of the consumers will be able to tell the difference between the two groups, and the consumer is harmed greatly in the process. Inspectors are harmed because the well qualified inspectors have to bring their rates down to the rates of the low-balling newbie inspectors who lower their rates in an attempt to garner business. Thus destroying the entire industry in the process.

Trust me.

Licensing solves nothing.

Even I know that.

Wendy, thank you for a reply with something more than "it's bad" or , "why is it good?"

My purpose in asking this question is to learn a bit. I don't know much about the politics of law and I want to try to understand both sides of the issue.

You have laid out a fine point about consumer assuming that license = qualified and we all know that NOT to be true. I agree that the low-ball inspector could cause others to lower their rates in order to remain "competitive", however the client looking ONLY for the "cheapest" HI may not be the best client to have.

My next question then is, how do the consumers know who is / is not qualified IN THE ABSENCE of licensing?