Do you think that there should be a test in each state to acquire a roofing license?

Do you think that there should be a test in each state to acquire a roofing license?>>>

I dont know about the States but in the province of Ontario we have to prove 4900 hours of work then pay 100 or so bucks then you get to write the test.Oh ya you need a 73% to pass also.>>>

There are positives and negatives either way. The more government regulation the more expense to the homeowner and the more aggravation and inconveinence for the contractor. At the same time it stops a lot of the guys who don't do so well on quality from doing roofs at all which is good for the roofing trade as a whole. Another problem with a lot of regulation is you end up with a bunch of people that barely know what they are talking about trying to oversee lifelong roofers who have already forgotten more than these people will ever learn which usually doesn't work out very well. After 25 years of roofing everyday of my life asking me to take a roofing test would be like asking Micheal Jordan to prove he can play basketball. I think he already did that! lol>>>

i would be all for testing in order to get your license in a craft. the new law about to take affect in pa. invloves no testing what ever. a roofer needs to know about roofs, not concrete or electric and such.>>>

Well i guess Mike J wouldn't mind proving it again! lol>>>

In the city where I live they require you to take a test to get a license... here's the kicker.. IT'S AN OPEN BOOK TEST :huh: MULTIPUL CHOICE :laugh: And there are dummies that still can't pass it! To me, if you're gonna make it that easy why bother.>>>

Yep, same here, it's an open book test... just a money grab... B)>>>

I think there should be a test.Actually if i was a property owner before awarding a contract i'd ask all the foremen , supers and other key men on the job to take some training or a test to make sure they know what they're doing.It's amazing the amount of stupidity one encounters even among workers who have been roofing for 20-30 years.>>>

Yes. In my state, the water often flows UPHILL. You wouldn't know that unless you had studied and taken the test. :lol:>>>

Well here, I had to know how deep a trech could be without requiring retaining walls. How much ditch could be open at one time. How and which taxes must be filed, when and where, and what agency. I had to fully understand erosion control, how and where the anti erosion fences go.>>>

Here in Florida if you don't have a licence and are caught you go to jail and are fined 5,000 dollars for each offence. They are busting people all the time , and for anyone who wants to know, enforcement is real. It really hasn't helped with the roofing problems , It just incarcerats offenders caught>>>

The Illinois test is tougher for roofers than for people with good memory. It does not help however with the labor restrictions. Still almost none of the subcontractors has a state license but these are the guys doing the job. Good for the roofing market though :) -there are many roof replacements here B)>>>

I not only think that there should be a test for the company, but also a requirement for testing of the individual workers performing the tasks.

It is WAY TOO easy for one administrator or in some instances, a paid for Qualifying Party, to take and pass the test, yet does that prove that any single individual in the company in charge of the actual performance of the roofing tasks knows what they are doing?

Other trades require testing and certifications, probable initially stimulated by the unions, which is a good thing, but now needs to be followed in earnest by the open and merit shop entities.

But, as always, what would the enforcement be?

Who would be penalized the most if caught not playing by the rules?

In Illinois, you can check on the IDPFR site, (Illinois Department Of Professional and Financial Regulation), and view the violators and their penalties.

It is amazing that those that are caught not being licensed at all, do not suffer any more than a cease and desist order and a reprimand, yet those that have gone through the licensing process and did something wrong, are penalized to significant greater impact. Shouldn't the penalties, at a minimum, be equal to all? Or, conversely, for those that did not take the time and effort to even put on the front of portending to be in compliance, should they not be stricken down more harshly?

Enforcement is more of the issue than the licensing itself.

Ed>>>