It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Contractors can't work unless certified by EPA

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   
here goes:

EPA passed a law in 2008 that is inacted in april 2010 basically saying contractors cannot conduct any work on any project older than 1978 without permission from the EPA via training course & liscening. they must be trained in use of lead based paint safety. a liscensed contractor can only perform the work, and must perform it according to EPA guildelines & you must provide paperwork to the customer informing them on the dangers of lead based paints. You Must also keep detailed paperwork on each project. If a customer is damaged as a result of led based paint exposure because of your work then you will be liable and you must have paperwork in order or there from what i hear could be jail time or up to a $30,000 fine. You have to pay for the lead course and liscense and maintain it every 5 years. what does this mean to the average joe blow contractor? just another expense courtesy of the government that guarantees income every 5 years from contractors. I've been a contractor for 12 years working on custom homes of which a lot are before 1978 so this hits home to me its just one more expense on a man who has already tightened his belt when Obama is fattening his belly buying bigger belts inflating our debt. It almost seems like just another scheme to get money from the people to pay for their fat trips and fat budgets. here is a link to the Law.


EPA Lead Based Paint Law




posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
All this does is raise my rates. I spent over $8000 to send my employees for training and the atta-boy card we now carry along with several other cards.

6 sq ft of sheet rock or 20 sq ft of external scrapping for paint. Need an EPA permitted contractor.

This will not stop jackleg contractors from doing rat work. This will not stop unlicensed contractors hiring cheap help for homey depot repairs.

It just makes legitimate contractors charge even more and the homeowner/business wanting work done looking more and more at unlicensed contractors and handyman companies.

The absolute best part of this new law is that warning signs must be in the primary language of the occupant. Only in America, would the government require signage not in the predominate language of the land.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Keeper of Kheb
 




I've been a contractor for 12 years working on custom homes of which a lot are before 1978 so this hits home to me its just one more expense on a man who has already tightened his belt when Obama is fattening his belly buying bigger belts inflating our debt. It almost seems like just another scheme to get money from the people to pay for their fat trips and fat budgets. here is a link to the Law.


Well since you have been a contractor for 12 years ill take it that you are new to polotics. Because that law is from april of 2008 and Obama was not in office till january of 09. I also take it that you did not go to business scholl either, so i will give you a quick lesson. Since you are a contractor of 12 years i have no idea how you have made it this far. I have read into the law a little bit it is kind of long but i get it. If you are going to be renovating buildings with lead paint you have to do it responsibly and dispose of lead safely. See now the cost of doing this you factor in to your quote to submit to the client, see easy business 101.



a liscensed contractor can only perform the work, and must perform it according to EPA guildelines & you must provide paperwork to the customer informing them on the dangers of lead based paints.


As opposed to what? Un unlicenced contractor performing the work and just throwing lead paint into a river?


[edit on 9-6-2010 by zaiger]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by zaiger
reply to post by Keeper of Kheb
 




I've been a contractor for 12 years working on custom homes of which a lot are before 1978 so this hits home to me its just one more expense on a man who has already tightened his belt when Obama is fattening his belly buying bigger belts inflating our debt. It almost seems like just another scheme to get money from the people to pay for their fat trips and fat budgets. here is a link to the Law.


Well since you have been a contractor for 12 years ill take it that you are new to polotics. Because that law is from april of 2008 and Obama was not in office till january of 09. I also take it that you did not go to business scholl either, so i will give you a quick lesson. Since you are a contractor of 12 years i have no idea how you have made it this far. I have read into the law a little bit it is kind of long but i get it. If you are going to be renovating buildings with lead paint you have to do it responsibly and dispose of lead safely. See now the cost of doing this you factor in to your quote to submit to the client, see easy business 101.



thanks for talking down to me as if you were better than me. i appreciate condescending attitudes. Doesn't matter its still truth. the government spends more while they ask for citizens to tighten their belts while they figure new ways to tax the people. that is a fact. Since you are well knowledgeable about business and contracting and a genious at politics and may I mention a prophet seeing you know so much about me I will give you the benefit of the doubt you know what your saying. First off you can't compete if you have to factor in additional charges to clean up lead paint. quite frankly customers don't care and if i go in and start spouting words like EPA and Hazmat suits and Toxic materials i'm going to get laughed off the job or scorned either one. All that means is that much more for the customer and they will go to the lowest bidders which are the less than reputable contractors usually and almost always illegal to peform their work without the costs of toxic cleanups which the government thinks is such a serious issue to impose blanket restrictions on all contractors. On top of that its just shady business to impose new laws for the sole purpose of increasing government income and thats exactly what it is, if this was a true genuine program it would be offered for free. That is if they really cared about kids and lead poisoning which they don't. Its all about power and greed. Its not my responsibility to tell the customer they have lead paint, its disclosed to them when the purchase,rent, or lease the property, Nor is it in my business to be in the "toxic" cleanup line of work. I will leave that for obama when he gets done kicking ass on the Gulf of Mexico.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Keeper of Kheb
 




First off you can't compete if you have to factor in additional charges to clean up lead paint. quite frankly customers don't care and if i go in and start spouting words like EPA and Hazmat suits and Toxic materials i'm going to get laughed off the job or scorned either one.

Really? You can't factor in the clean up and get jobs? So what do you normally do stiff people and tell them at the end oh yeah by the way thats going to be an extra $$$$$$ dollars because i forgot to tell you on my quote thati have to get this cleaned up right because it is lead paint. The idea is EVERYONE has to do this. If your client mentions the price being higher you tell them about the mandatory lead paint clean up and how the otherguys are leaving that out of the quote.



All that means is that much more for the customer and they will go to the lowest bidders which are the less than reputable contractors usually and almost always illegal to peform their work without the costs of toxic cleanups which the government thinks is such a serious issue to impose blanket restrictions on all contractors


People who always go for the lowest bidders want crap work done, try getting clients that are more worried over quality of work rather than price. And illegal contractors without licences have nothing to do with this, those guys do not even have to do the job they can just take the money demolish 1/2 the house and if the homeowner did not check for a licence than they are goiing to get screwed.



On top of that its just shady business to impose new laws for the sole purpose of increasing government income and thats exactly what it is, if this was a true genuine program it would be offered for free.


Welcome to the world of business, it is your job as a contractor to pass the job onto your customer. If the customer is poor than they should not be looking at contractors for the remodel and should be looking up how to do it themselves.



Its not my responsibility to tell the customer they have lead paint, its disclosed to them when the purchase,rent, or lease the property, Nor is it in my business to be in the "toxic" cleanup line of work. I will leave that for obama when he gets done kicking ass on the Gulf of Mexico


It is your job to tell them that you are going to be disturbing the areas with lead paint in there and the lead will spread to other areas of their house. If you do not want to do the toxic clean up then sub contract that work out or give your client the option to get a clean up quote from someone else. Once again obama has nothing to do with it there have been similar laws for asbestos that have been around for years.

[edit on 9-6-2010 by zaiger]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by zaiger
 



I'm not knocking you Zaiger, because I understand the principle you are arguing. Unfortunately that's not how the real world works.

It seems to me you have not attempted to make a living as a contractor and bid on a job. The real problem here is contractors being asessed yet another fee to get another feel good certification.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Protostellar
 




It seems to me you have not attempted to make a living as a contractor and bid on a job. The real problem here is contractors being asessed yet another fee to get another feel good certification.


I have worked as a contractor and have bid on jobs. The licence through the EPA costs form 75-500 and are good for 3-5 years depending on state. If you can't afford 75-500 bucks then you are taking small jobs that are not making you enough money and you will go under soon enough.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Fair enough. I'll agree with that. I'm just having a problem with yet another fee and licensing from big government.

For the record I'm not a contractor anymore. It wasn't my thing. In principle everything should be operating by code. It doesn't. Illegal contractors still get the jobs that legitimate contractors are bidding for because they can undercut.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
My father was a contractor for decades until his retirement (he still give advise on construction and at 74 still in demand for his expertise).

Still he never went to any schools, got any licensees or have to be certified for anything.

And he knew all the safety protocols needed in his jobs to ensure the safety of his people and those involved.

Nothing but bull crap if you tell me.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


A guy could do that years ago and make a decent living. Only in the larger cities did you run into problems with licenses and permits. This was usually driven by labor unions protecting their home turf.

Now days, the little guy is regulated to death if he tries to be legitimate. Even small towns are getting into the act with codes and trade licensing (plumbing, electrical, etc). The day of the legal, unlicensed builder is just about over for most parts of the country.

Your father went to the school of hard knocks. I know many old builders who went to the same school. At times, I would like to be from that era, but that is for another thread, and besides, I'm closer to that era than I want to admit.

Is this EPA thing a good thing, probably. It is a safety issue, but that doesn't stop contractors with fake credentials and little to no insurance from under bidding jobs.




top topics



 
2

log in

join