Please all members send emails to YOUR PARTICULAR Senator and congressman in support of “Home Inspectors” amendment to SB704.
The amendment provides for licensed home inspectors to send qualified employees to conduct wind mitigation OIR 1802 inspections. Please support Sen. Mike Bennett’s amendment to SB 704 allowing qualified employees of licensed home inspectors, architects and building officials to perform wind mitigation inspections.
The amendment is sponsored by Senator Mike Bennett to his own bill SB 704 related to Building Construction and Inspections. The amendment is being opposed by the insurance companies, OIR and wind certification entities.
This is a HUGE step in getting us looked at as EQUALS in the eyes of those who hold our profession and its future in their hands.
Two lobbyists worked hard on this for YOU. All that they ask is that you support them and call and email ASAP.
Send the emails this evening and the calls in the AM, this will get voted on tomorrow and as soon as I hear something you will hear something.
Please support YOUR future people are workign tirelessly at protecting it, now just do your part at bringing these efforts into fruition.
Russ, are you actually pushing for a home inspector’s empoyee to perform an increasingly complicated WM. Who would that be, an office receptionist? What kind of an employee, that is not already a HI, be qualified to do these. This will not prevail. JMHO
Do not even get me started. Now HI’s should be able to hire folks just like contractors. If you want the privileges of Contractors then earn the friggin license.
Yes, I would always agree to put us on equal status of those who do have authority to hire employees.
Why would you not want the opportunity to do so? It is not about what you would do with it, its about being viewed as an equal.
I do understand that several think these are absolutely difficult forms to fill out. I personally don’t, as with all things there are some sitatuions that can get questionable.
I am, and will ALWAYS be for the Home Inspector to get his due share. You are NOT going to stop contractors from hiring people to do them. So what better?
Now guess what instead of us always playing defense its nice to play offense from time to time and make them scramble. It is an unfair advantage, so why not level the playing field? If you choose to take part and hire people then that is up to you and a business decision.
But inspectors want to be viewed as more than how they have been viewed, this is one way of elevating the profession in the eyes of the legislature.
You want to bring home inspectors to the level of some contractors, and I am being nice here, who hire people off the street to build houses?
That is the kind of equality we don’t need.
Guys, I think you are missing the point. While we would rather have EVERYone doing wind mitigation inspections- and any inspections for that matter- be licensed- the contractors, engineers, and WCE’s were/are fighting that initiative and are currently enjoying an unfair market advantage the current language in the statute provides. This amendment recognizes the unfair trade practice that currently exists and levels the playing field. While I would prefer that everyone be licensed as well for wind mitigation inspections, at least this amendment removes the unfair trade practice that contractors and engineers are currently enjoying over the licensed home inspector, licensed code inspector, and licensed architect.
Dennis, if you can get an amendment that requires ALL inspectors conducting wind mitigation inspections to be licensed and have uniform standardized training, I would surely support that.
I would support it to. But now lets get to the heart of the issue. There are people for and against it. Where were these people when it was asked for their input? Where are they when we need assistance? Where are they now? Waiting for everyone else to do for them. In the absense of input then decisions have to be made and they will be made. You can be part of the solution, part of the problem or just watch and see what happens. I view this move as a HUGE success and I applaud Kari for the language she used in writing it.
I feel that there are a lot of very good and smart home inspectors here in these forums.
BUT
The great majority do not have the experience of Florida Licensed General Contractors and they have NOT earned the same rights.
Funny thing is there is not the money in them to make it a worthwhile endeavor anyhow.
I may just start doiung them at $50 to crush all those who do not do the inspections themselves anyway.
Something I have been considering lately do to all this type of crap.
If I was in the boat I would want it too. For my own benefit, but that sure as hell would not make it right.
Eric I see where you are going, but it is an unfair trade practice. But now if contractors are against this. Are the contractors saying they should NOT be allowed to hire people and have ONLY licensed people do the wind mitigation forms? IS that what I am hearing from those with a dual license?
http://www.flsenate.gov/Senators/Find
Here is a link to find your local Senator or Rep.
The idea that one group of businesses would be allowed to hire employees and another group would not when performing THE SAME JOB is just plain illegal and unconstitutional.
Hiring employees is the right of any business, not just some.
Here’s something interesting from the Florida Statutes:
501.204 Unlawful acts and practices.—(1) Unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.
(2) It is the intent of the Legislature that, in construing subsection (1), due consideration and great weight shall be given to the interpretations of the Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts relating to s. 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. s. 45(a)(1) as of July 1, 2006.
History.—s. 1, ch. 73-124; s. 1, ch. 83-117; s. 4, ch. 85-63; s. 2, ch. 90-190; s. 3, ch. 93-38; s. 2, ch. 2001-39; s. 23, ch. 2001-214; s. 2, ch. 2006-196.
