Say "NO" to Grandfathering

[Dan Bowers, CMI]

I understand what everyone is saying. What I've heard many legislators say is along the lines of:

"We're not here to put anyone out of business". In some parts of the country you'll find home inspectors that got into this, blazed the trails, developed the standards, fought to get the profession recognized, built the profession, etc when there were really was no state or nationally recognized rules.

Many legislators feel its unfair to the pioneers in our business (or any business) that have been in the work place 15-20-30 years to expect them to have to do what the new intern does to prove his/her worth.

Just a thought.

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by dbowers

Many legislators feel its unfair to the pioneers in our business (or any business) that have been in the work place 15-20-30 years to expect them to have to do what the new intern does to prove his/her worth.

It is a fleeting thought at best once the legislators realize that the new intern and the pioneer are both equal once they step inside the voting booth. A thought that should not be easily dismissed by the pioneers in our business.

The point that inspectors on both sides of this issue will exercise their satisfaction with their legislators should be stressed at each stage of the licensing process.

Those who want to play in the big league should remember to wear long pants.

[James H. Bushart]

When licensing imposes itself upon the home inspectors of a state, among the first to arrive are the vendors of licenses...or "schools" that crank out graduates qualified for licensing.

An interesting phenomena can be found in this: In an unlicensed state, we have "home inspector schools" where folks get additional training added to their backgrounds to become home inspectors. Once the state requires a license, this changes and the schools become "licensing courses" where interested applicants are simply prepared for licensing.

No way...call them "pioneers" or anything else...should a practicing home inspector have less than a graduate of a "licensing school".

BTW, in the State of New York (who recently introduced licensing of home inspectors) one school....I repeat that only one school, alone...has cranked out 273 licensed graduates into the market place in the last 60 days. Marketing was part of their training, and all of them know quite well that the fact that they are licensed has put them on equal footing with any competitor established before them.

What if they could also add that..."My competitor, Joe Schmoe, was not required to meet the same high standards that I was. Because he was in business shortly before me, he was able to lobby the legislature for a special 'grandfathering' clause that would award him his license...without having to meet the criteria that I did. Thus, with my inspection fee of $49, not only do you get a less expensive inspection but you get it from a more highly qualified licensed inspector."

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jburkeson1

It is a fleeting thought at best once the legislators realize that the new intern and the pioneer are both equal once they step inside the voting booth. A thought that should not be easily dismissed by the pioneers in our business.

The point that inspectors on both sides of this issue will exercise their satisfaction with their legislators should be stressed at each stage of the licensing process.

Those who want to play in the big league should remember to wear long pants.

Is anything being done in Florida, right now, to attack the "grandfathering" clause in the proposed bill, Joe? (If there is, please don't expound upon it.)