Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32

Thread: using one's own or employer's license on home vs. owner builder

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NE Nebraska
    Posts
    38,252
    Quote Originally Posted by gadfly56 View Post
    If the work requires opening a wall or two, you could very quickly hit the 6 sq ft limit. I very much doubt the EI will simply ignore the issue under the guise of "it's not electrical work".
    In some places you are probably right.

    I can promise you the State EI's here only enforce the NEC and the State electrical act. They have no other authority. If they have concerns of someones health that is not directly impacted by things electrical in nature - they must act on their own and not as an Electrical Division employee. If one of them is concerned about lead or asbestos, they about need to contact the health department and let them handle it, they have no authority to shut down a project over such issues otherwise.
    I live for today, I'm just a day behind.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
    Posts
    4,745
    To each there own, personally I would find something else to worry about. The chances of some sort of liability/injury type issue are exceedingly small.
    Ethan Brush - East West Electric. NY, WA. MA

    "You can't generalize"

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NE Nebraska
    Posts
    38,252
    Quote Originally Posted by electrofelon View Post
    To each there own, personally I would find something else to worry about. The chances of some sort of liability/injury type issue are exceedingly small.
    Workers comp shouldn't cover this at all, unless you actually paid your employee to wire his own house. Most the time they are doing it on their own time though.

    General liability - I suppose could be more complicated - but again the insurance company will likely want to reject any attempt at a claim, it would possibly take some litigation to get any kind of claim payment to ever happen, or involve litigation directly against the employer. Some employers are good to their employees and let them use business equipment, and provide all kinds of comforts while on the job that aren't otherwise required. Only takes a backstabber or two and all that can go away, especially if insurance tells them it has to go away.

    Working on your car in your employer's shop because you don't have a decent place to do it - I'm fine with that. Hurt yourself working on your car while in my shop and wanting my workers comp to pay the bill - just not cool, period. First, workers comp is rejecting it if they find out what really happened, second I never had to let you do it in my shop. You will never do such things in my shop again, partly because you won't have a job with me again.

    Want to take one of my tools home to do something at your house and injure yourself while using it - don't expect workers comp to cover that either. I could have charged you to rent the tool or made you rent one elsewhere, but letting you use it for free was a perk, supposedly for being a good employee.
    I live for today, I'm just a day behind.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Atlanta,GA
    Posts
    5,926
    Quote Originally Posted by electrofelon View Post
    To each there own, personally I would find something else to worry about. The chances of some sort of liability/injury type issue are exceedingly small.
    So are the odds of winning the Lottery but there are lucky winners out there. I would assume there are unlucky winners also when it comes to accidents.

    So each person gets to decide how many chances they are willing to take.
    The 95% of people that you can't trust give the other 5% a bad name.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,758
    Quote Originally Posted by GoldDigger View Post
    The solid limit (in most areas anyway) is that if you pull an owner permit you cannot have any other employees "help" you with the job.
    If you are not the boss, a permit in the company name should be legal but risk liability if you are the not one working .

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Not necessarily correct. It all depends as to the check-boxes made by the applicant.

    The permit can be owner builder where the owner hires only licensed contractors.
    or
    that the owner builder does all the work themselves or with their own employees.
    there are others.
    Today the applicant must sign and acknowledgement of all the disclosures and risks.

    And yes a contractor in CA is still responsible for work they perform on a Owner builder project of if work they do is not permitted.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    4,639
    Man, I wouldn't have thought I would have to do so much clarifying as to what I'm actually asking. Perhaps that's a bit on me, (although I would say I'm also getting some lecturing on stuff that is just contracting 101, which I already know, but is not actually relevant).

    So to clarify...
    For the employee part of the question, we'd be talking about a project that would involve only an employee or employees doing work that they normally do and are totally qualified to do for the company that regularly employs them. No subcontractors, no GC stuff, no house building or flipping, no multiple trades. (Is this forum focused on GCs and house flipping? I didn't think so.)

    Quote Originally Posted by kwired View Post
    Workers comp shouldn't cover this at all, unless you actually paid your employee to wire his own house. Most the time they are doing it on their own time though.
    That's sort of exactly it. Say the employer pays the employee to wire his own house, and possibly also some of his regular crewmates, and then the employee pays employer an agreed upon contract price for it. Although it mostly amounts to reimbursment, on paper it looks mostly like any other contract, and employee gets all insurance benefits of the company. Please allow me to simply posit that financially the employee and employer can come to agreeable terms on the cost, including covering insurance cost and risk. Is there anything illegal, unethical, or otherwise just stupid about that?

    And if you're wondering how this can be and what other ulterior motive there might be, okay, I'll be up front: Solar tax credit. By (re)paying his employer for his own work, employee gets to take 30% on a cost that otherwise doesn't exist. Illegal? Unethical?

    I think that even without that, employee might still find it worth it to pay his employer's cost for the use of the company's insurance for him and his crewmates. Easier than setting up your own, or spending time trying to be certain you're covered.

    Quote Originally Posted by __dan View Post
    It's not clear if you are proposing work you do yourself or work you will hire out.

    ... The lady who would not use her license likely was not performing the work personally herself and hiring it out. She was partitioning or isolating her risk. Any problem with the house or contractors should not also come with a one two blow and also cost her the professional position at work. It's the same reason you don't put your retirement money all into your employer's company stock. The risk of losing both the job and the equity.
    You're probably right that she was going to hire it out. That's not the kind of project I have in mind. Your comments helped clear that up for me a bit though, thanks.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
    Posts
    4,745
    I don't see any issue, but I'm not clear on how he will end up ahead. Say he pays the employer a grand, then he gets a $300 tax credit. He is still $700 in the hole over if he just did it himself. Not sure how the IRS handles figuring compensation for one's own time for an install.
    Ethan Brush - East West Electric. NY, WA. MA

    "You can't generalize"

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    4,639
    More like: He 'bills' his employer $900, which ends up on his W2. He pays employer $1000 to cover those wages and insurance etc., and ends up $200 ahead.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NE Nebraska
    Posts
    38,252
    Quote Originally Posted by electrofelon View Post
    I don't see any issue, but I'm not clear on how he will end up ahead. Say he pays the employer a grand, then he gets a $300 tax credit. He is still $700 in the hole over if he just did it himself. Not sure how the IRS handles figuring compensation for one's own time for an install.
    If he paid the employer a grand and it was mostly for materials he would have purchased elsewhere anyway....
    I live for today, I'm just a day behind.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
    Posts
    4,745
    Quote Originally Posted by jaggedben View Post
    More like: He 'bills' his employer $900, which ends up on his W2. He pays employer $1000 to cover those wages and insurance etc., and ends up $200 ahead.
    Ok, so basically he gets paid like a "normal" job, but he pays the employer about that same amount to "do" the the job? Seems like pretty much the same thing as doing it ones self, with the variable of if he can claim his own labor as part of the cost. I'm not sure on that but personally, I wouldn't be worried about it. As long as the claimed system cost is around market price the IRS won't care. They don't have the resources to audit small pv systems anyway.

    In NY, there is a state rebate but to get it you need an approved contractor. I am not an approved contractor just because I haven't gotten around to jumping thru those hoops to get on the list, so I may or may not have done something like you speak of, to get the state rebate
    Ethan Brush - East West Electric. NY, WA. MA

    "You can't generalize"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •