ATTENTION COLORADO ROOFING CONTRACTORS

Rockydog Said: Its alright to be an onerous one once in a while as long as youre not a buckeye. quote]

:silly:

While I hold licenses in WV and AL, I have fought licensing in my home state of Ohio, and will continue to do so. Having been through one hailstorm and the storm chasers that follow, and witnessed the hogs at the trough mentality of homeowners begging for a "free" roof, I have no simpathy for the consumer.

I do, and will always, resent the notion that any government agency filled with incompetent lackeys sucking milk from a tit that I have to keep full will provide a piece of paper to any moron that meets the minimum requirements for licensure that basically states "XYZ Roofing is just as qualified as Hicks Roofing, in the eyes of this agency, to provide you, the dumbass consumer that's too obsessed with price to do your homework, with a quality product". I have worked too hard to build a reputation to lay down and die on the steps of the statehouse, just because there are criminals in my industry, contractors that don't know how to compete on anything other than price, and established companies that want to stifle the American Spirit by making entry to our industry harder for the new guy than it was for them.

No Sir, I will detest state and local license programs till the day I die, and I hope my sons have the same level of conscientious integrity and pride in their past to agree.

But, as usual, I seem to be a minority on this issue. That's OK with me.

I like the licensing, but here, the emphasis is on 'business accounting' not what I call practice.

I'm licensed, but not much of a businessman. I'm a roofer and prefer that to being in an office and I suck at the paperwork. It does halp identify the hacks, but many of them are licensed too, sad to say.

twill, good, I m glad to hear that that is really you. Its alright to be an onerous one once in a while as long as you're not a buckeye. Stalin, They have a few statues of him.

I'm headed to Conifer. Will be there around 12 noon tomorrow. Stop by say hi. B) :) :) B) Deep Down In Florida Where The Sun Shines Damn Near Every Day

"twill, you seem to be on edge about almost everything lately and it leaves me a little concerned Is your health okay? Im still a rookie here, as only being with the site for a couple 3 months but it seems to me your tone has change. Hey , if this is you, have at it." Yeah, this is me....

"Doing the IRS job?" Most definitely. Proving that someone is an employee and not a sub? Cmon Rocky. The IRS sets the guidelines. Its a done deal. Why does the State of Colorado and CRA need to make a requirement of a requirement? HOW MANY LAYERS OF THIS DO WE NEED? Maybe we should get the VNA to help w/ enforcement. Or the YMCA to lobby for another law saying the same thing... Sorry. Sometimes a normal reaction to abnormal thoughts and behavior strikes people as.... abnormal. We have come full circle.

I know it seems like I am irrational and that I exaggarrate. When I look at what the sane and rational people are doing........Stalin. Been reading up on him lately. Prolly the most sane and rational of all

BUILD MORE PRISONS: America Needs more Convicts

Rockydog Said: twill, you seem to be on edge about almost everything lately and it leaves me a little concerned Is your health okay? Im still a rookie here, as only being with the site for a couple 3 months but it seems to me your tone has change. Hey , if this is you, have at it. Yeah, this is me....

Doing the IRS job? Most definitely. Proving that someone is an employee and not a sub? C'mon Rocky. The IRS sets the guidelines. it's a done deal. Why does the State of Colorado and CRA need to make a requirement of a requirement? HOW MANY LAYERS OF THIS DO WE NEED?

.

I know it seems like I am irrational and that I exaggarrate. When I look at what the "sane and rational" people are doing, I am certainly NOT the crazy one ;)

BUILD MORE PRISONS: America Needs more Convicts

Yea and they call this the wild, wild west. I guess Colo. fits the mold :laugh:

I think contractor licensing would be taken more seriously by the legislators, if it were for ALL contracting; General, Roofing, HVAC, Plumbing, etc.....Roofers aren't the only crooks out there....

Colorado is a "buyer beware" market...There is absolutely no consumer protection, other than the standard lengthy legal system available. I'm sure attorneys, are very much opposed to state contratcor licensing, as it would drastically inhibit their livelyhood. Big home builders are against it as well, as it would mean playing by the rules, as far as employment practices and consumer protection.

It puts too much power in the hands of the consumer....Why should they be entitled to what they bargained for?

I can't get over the fact, there is viable state licensing, (consumer protection), west of the CD....Once you cross-over to the east-side...All hell breaks loose.

twill, you seem to be on edge about almost everything lately and it leaves me a little concerned Is your health okay? I'm still a rookie here, as only being with the site for a couple 3 months but it seems to me your tone has change. Hey , if this is you, have at it. Doing the IRS job? I didn't see that in the conversation anywhere other than some Senawhore tired to pile on to a State bill that might have had some teeth in it for roofers and homeowners. I think roofers need to be licensed. Reduces the amount of competition, drives margins up, puts out better service and produces a better name for roofers as a whole with the public. I don't want to battle a carpenter at the kitchen table for low bid jobs. I dont want a mason telling HO'S "Oh yea,I can fix that for you". or an elctrician saying, It's a simple thing to do, I do it all the time. I know there are some guys out there that are well versed, I've seen your pic's and Old school"s pic's but you guys are the exception to the rule. We don't want other trades on our roofs, just like they don't want us in theirs. the only way to accomplish that is thru legislation at the state level and a lacal trade association to set and police the rules.

So, uh, yeah like, why are the states and a trade organization going to do the IRS jobs for?

Unless State law trumps federal tax law, I don't get it.

Hi, There was a bill written and forwarded last year (SB11-207). We went through the Dept. of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) Sunrise Review process in order to gain approval for a licensing bill - DORA came back with a recommendation for Registration instead - a less restrictive form of regulation. They definitely felt there was enough evidence of consumer harm, that they agreed the roofing industry in Colorado needed some guidelines. Our purpose was to elevate the Colorado roofing industry (consistently in the top 10 for complaints with the BBB) by creating a uniform process through which those who represent themselves as being a roofing contractor would have the proper experience, background and qualifications to perform work here. The bill was killed on the floor of the Senate after a Senator added some impromptu language that turned it into an immigration issue (tacking on an e-verify mandate) - nothing related to the merits of the bill itself. It was discouraging to say the least. There was wide support for the bill within the CRA but a number of contractors pulled away, forming their own coalition to fight it. We believe the main brunt of their argument stems from companies that have their business set up to utilize subcontractors or independent contractors as their only source of labor. Under the new law, those independent contractors would have fallen under the Registration guidelines and been required to take a test, have the appropriate insurance and register with the state. This was seen as an onerous provision to the workings of those types of businesses. As we learned last year, it will be a tough battle to fight when so many roofers utilize exactly that kind of work force. It is more important than ever, therefore, to let homeowners realize the value in working with contractors who have employees - for quality control purposes, for insurance purposes as well as scheduling purposes. And aside from what the homeowner sees as value in having actual employees work on their home, it's imperative to recognize the legitimacy of companies who utilize employees by paying the appropriate unemployment taxes, workers comp taxes, allowing for benefits for their workers and beyond! That was a long-winded answer to your question! We (the CRA) decided not to re-pursue the bill in an election year. Are you still a CRA member? It's certainly a long and difficult process to get the right things done down at the Capitol! Thanks for your interest!

Amy,

Has there been any interest in state contractor licening? Possibly might be a good time, as the major oponents, (big home builders), aren't so active these days. I may have sat on a committee with you, in the early 90's that the CRA had formed to push state licensing?????.....Obviously, it didn't go anywhere.

Larry - Boulder Roofing has completely thought through what this bill is all about! Is the 'No Negotiating' language you are referring to in SB38, that which states: 'a roofing contractor could not claim to be or act as a public insurance adjuster adjusting claims for losses or damages.'? You'll note that an amendment was added, that allows a roofing contractor to discuss the scope of repairs and work with the P&C Insurer on behalf of the property owner. There is no language that says "NO NEGOTIATING". Please clarify. What this bill is about - is setting some minimum guidelines for roofing contractors in Colorado to operate under, and to give consumers some level of protection as well. This bill requires that roofing contractors provide a contract that clearly states what materials they will use, what work they will perform, an approximate cost for same, and their contact information. It eliminates the practice of having a homeowner sign a blank contract in a high pressure situation with the roofing contractor promising to give them a new roof for whatever the insurance proceeds are. This bill reiterates the already existing Colorado Statute under which a contractor cannot pay or waive or rebate a property owners deductible as well. It allows the contractor to communicate with the insurance company on behalf of the homeowner if necessary - code issues, new plywood, etc. There is really nothing onerous in this bill. I am interested in your response.

Vickie,

Sounds like Boulder Roofing has not completely thought through what this bill is all about. While most of the bill's language which is based on a national template being pushed state by state by the P&C insurance lobby is acceptable to all contractors I've talked with from across the country, the "No Negotiating" language harms rather than helps consumers with ins covered damage in that it takes from them the right to choose who they want to assist them with their ins claims. If CO is successful in getting the entire bill passed into law, cunsumers will be forced to either pay a PA a 10% to 15% fee or trust that their insurance company will deal fairly with them and that's never a good bet to make.

Minnesota just defeated the "no negoating" language that friends of P&C ins industry legislators tried to add to the present law. Once they thought through the consequences of taking that right away from several million tax paying, premium paying and voting homeowners in MN, they decided it was best to let the bill die in committee.

For more on this go to www.iccoa.com and read about what and who is really behind the "no negotiating" portion of the bill.