Lead law - a possible economic solution

[e57]

As some of you may have found out the news that the Fed Gov is getting tougher on lead paint - to include registration, heavy fines - the whole nine yards...

I had a thought about it today - as "states" can create their own equivalent laws to opt out of Fed involvement... A few have their own already...

So what does that have to do with economics...

My experience with a law in CA about Journeyman Certification pointed out some serious problems with having just a slight agency separation within my own state creating problems that gave serious economic benefit to those who flaunted the law. The problem was and still is that certification for employees, handled by the CA DAS is separated from the California State Licensing Board... What it lead to was/is "Licensed Contractors" who operate without legal labor - i.e. uncertified... They still appear legit in the eyes of the consumer - still legally hire and pay employees, but since there is a separation between the DAS and the license board it is not enforced, and they are allowed to continue to operate on an unlevel playing field. (That law has a lot of union/merit issues which rightfully makes that separation a good thing. Lets avoid getting into that...)

This law is nationally mandated - requires a minimum standard for "firms" - and means absolutely nothing without enforcement. Yet - there will be legitimate contractors who either will knowingly or unknowingly not comply and prey on the consumer. This will put every legit licensed contractor who does comply at a disadvantage.

So the question is - would it be a good idea for your state to have their own lead law, and tie that law to licensing and renewal? A one stop shop for the firm licensing, required CEUs etc. This way - every licensed contractor is on the same playing field. (Yes - I know the unlicensed will still exist - but those with a license will be equal - instead of licensed and those in compliance and those non-compliant with the Fed lead stuff...)

Another benefit might be easing the PITA of the fed law....

 

[iwire]

So the question is - would it be a good idea for your state to have their own lead law, and tie that law to licensing and renewal?

No, that would not be a good idea.

Many of us licensed electricians have no contact with lead paint so why should we have to learn about it to keep our licenses?

 

[e57]

No, that would not be a good idea.

Many of us licensed electricians have no contact with lead paint so why should we have to learn about it to keep our licenses?

Yeah not saying need to get certified or take special classes - or have the law expanded to you.

But maybe you get a little red flag you're forced to carry into a residential property (or required contract language) that says 'I'm not allowed to do work on residential structures or daycare facilities, etc. built before '78?' - and maybe Joe Schmoe has 'I'm allowed to do work on residential structures or daycare facilities, etc. built before '78?' In other-words - you state 'I'm exempt from a federally mandated - but state enforced requirement' or I am following a federally mandated - but state enforced requirement' The alternative is the consumer never knows there is a federal requirement. The unlicensed contractor is not having this information in their contracts, and the licensed (apparently legitimate) contractor is someplace in the middle between those who are operating on a legitimate basis... Who benefits from that? It is not the contractor following the law. So there would not be change or expansion in the law in that respect...

On top of that - who gets the mula for this as it stands... The fees, the fines? The feds... And for a rather draconian law with great risk in the terms of fines, and if one were to get litigious about a perceived violation - its federal.

And previous to this CA required lead paint consumer education was a single page tri-fold available anyplace that sold paint - now its a 20 page book you need to provide at cost. The previous laws on lead in my state did not require a bunch of hearty fees to the Fed EPA to recover costs of running a national program and putting that money in the hands of the US Treasury - all of whom are unconcerned with fair business practices. And leaving consumers with no one but a call to 1-800-law-suit to guide them to initiating the process of getting you fined $30K, then sued for damages.

Mississippi for example the fee for a Firm is $350, Supervisor $150, Worker $35. NC - Firm is $300, Supervisor $150, Worker $50... Consumer education is 3 pages... Iowa - $60 apparently across the board? But I just word searched their entire law - it does not have the word "FINE" - 'a civil penalty' may be imposed, but that also progresses from 'may issue a warning'...

My point is - the fed law sucks eggs... You might get a better one out of your state...

 

[goldstar]

I'm not sure how I feel about the question you've posed. Nor am I confident that my state govt. would develop a law that would be better than the one the Fed puts out. They usually model their laws around what the Fed puts out with some modifications. I think there needs to be more questions asked and answered about the current EPA regulation instead of just putting out information like "Fines start at $37,500.00/day for non-compliance."

The Fed has done a terrible job on publicity regarding this law. I spoke to my insurance agent yesterday and he knows nothing about this law nor do most real estate agents in my town. Probably just another 2000 page bill that no one at the federal level has read.

 

[ceknight]

My point is - the fed law sucks eggs... You might get a better one out of your state...

You obviously don't live in New York, we don't share that sort of optimism here. What we would end up with is a 3-tiered regulatory system that wasn't connected to anything, and didn't bypass the federal system.

 

[GUNNING]

Force the insurance companies to cover lead and it will go away!

Force the insurance companies to cover lead and it will go away!

Writing laws is like making sausage, you just don't want to know how its done. I talked to a contractor who is lead certified and he said its encompassing and encumbering for the owner of the property and the contractor.
There is a good point in all this. If you follow the rules it abrogates your liability. It's an out. There is a cost, $600. There is no inherent dangers unless the lead is disturbed and consumed by a child under 6. Its the government protecting the next generation, thats what they do.
That said, it's an opportunity! Tell people you care about their health and more importantly their kids health. Its a value selling point! We can pray on those that have been exposed to lead and are not as smart as the rest of us. ( ok that was mean) We can legitimately ask what the value of their kids health is worth. Its important. When they took lead out of gasoline it was said to raise the average IQ of this country 10 points. I think $600 is ok to increase my quality of life and increase the quality of life of my customers.
Not that they are going to do anything about having lead paint around unless they are forced to do it, or there insurance company is forced to remove it. Hmmmm... better check the ol home owners policy.

 

[One-eyed Jack]

North Carolina is one of the two or three states that is going to administer the EPA law on LBP. That being said and after attending a meeting hosted by a NC State rep I got the impression that it is going to be a revenue generator for the state under the guise of protecting everyone. The amount of lead that it take to allegedly cause harm to an adult can not be seen with the naked eye. Most of what will happen is remediation, ie cover it up and wait for the next person to come along and disturb it. "I-wire" as an EC you are affected as much as anyone else in the trades. If you cut out a piece of drywall with lead paint on it for a new panel you are very near to the six square feet. They are looking at the total area,not the saw cut. Take out a piece of drywall at the bottom to drill holes for new wires and you have reached the threshold for license requirement. Before it is over Code Enforcement is going to have it dropped in their lap to be the watchdog for the State arm of the EPA. They don't have the resourses to police it and it has already been hinted at that the local code enforcement can issue a stop work order on the job,then call the State to come and investigate the alleged violation. In other words tree the racoon and they will come shoot it out.

 

[e57]

I'm not sure how I feel about the question you've posed. Nor am I confident that my state govt. would develop a law that would be better than the one the Fed puts out. They usually model their laws around what the Fed puts out with some modifications. I think there needs to be more questions asked and answered about the current EPA regulation instead of just putting out information like "Fines start at $37,500.00/day for non-compliance."

The Fed has done a terrible job on publicity regarding this law. I spoke to my insurance agent yesterday and he knows nothing about this law nor do most real estate agents in my town. Probably just another 2000 page bill that no one at the federal level has read.

I 100% agree there. But looking into some this law - only recently because I had no real clue it was coming - I found that there are a few states that wrote their own... I read a little few of them. And what I was reading sounded much less expensive, and easier to understand than the Fed EPA. And in the 'guidelines for State to write their own law' - there doesn't seem to be specific wording that says you have to exclude the construction industry for backing a law that is run by an agency closer to them, and understands their needs better.... And I would rather be dealing with my license board - that the Fed EPA. I would rather pay say an extra $50 to them to add some "Lead certified" flag on my license - instead of duplicated costs at a Fed level. And their version of enforcement is progressive, i.e. warning > fine > suspension > revocation. Instead of massive fine - then bankruptcy though civil action - for leaving a little dust on the floor....

 

[GUNNING]

Time to buy a hepa filter vacuum I guess and dump the canister vac

 

[e57]

Time to buy a hepa filter vacuum I guess and dump the canister vac

And buy stock in Xerox because you can't leave a 20 page PDF with every client.