Liberals also say and do stupid shit

[Sharpe]

I want to mention that when talking about painting contractors and other construction contractors, there are actually two different aspects of licensing. There’s the occupational aspect which we’ve been discussing but there’s also an employment aspect. Relatively few construction contractors work as individuals - the majority are employers. For example in CA a LOT of the regulation of construction contractors revolves around the issue of regulating contractors to make sure they are insured for workers compensation.

So it’s not just about picking up a paint brush - it’s also about protecting workers.

[ShivaX]

@Aceris

A public non-political figure without partisan affliation is not going to give accurate results in this kind of head-to-head poll. It just becomes a proxy for approval of abbott. But that won’t be the case in the actual election.

He’s mentioned running.

But it’s more of the idea that no one in Texas really likes Beto, so maybe don’t run Beto.
Dude lost to Ted Cruz and the polling was a lot closer.

I’m sure he’s a great guy, but I’m also sure Texas is never going to elect him to a state-wide office of any sort.

[Thrag]

I actually have an old friend who is a hairdresser, has worked as an instructor too, and lives in California. I may be summarizing his general opinions incorrectly, but from my impressions of his often drunken ramblings on the subject; When he moved from OH to CA the licenses weren’t reciprocal and he had to do some seemingly excessive amount of time apprenticing or something for someone with a license. That person of course underpaid and exploited him. On the other hand he did tell stories of people in beauty school who shouldn’t be allowed unsupervised with scissors near paper much less near people’s heads, at least not until they had some safe and sanitary practices beaten into them. There was at least one that involved an unexpected ear reduction and fainting at the sight of blood.

So while I still don’t quite know how “liberals” are supposed to stereotypically think about licensing when the issue is counterproductively reduced to a basic black and white, or if everyone is just having fun talking past each other, there’s some useless anecdotal fuel for the fire.

[Dan_Theman]

@Thrag

there’s some useless anecdotal fuel for the fire.

It’s the best kind, and glad it could be added to mine!

[sillhouette]

@Thrag

unexpected ear reduction

never again asking for " a little off the sides "

[Tin_Wisdom]

@Aceris

Doctors. Pharmacists. Engineers. Architects. Gas fitters. People responsible for constructing or modifying load bearing elements. If they do something wrong, people die or at the very least serious and lasting damage occurs. Occupational licensing makes sense.

But barbers? Sanitary requirements can be controlled by licensing premises . No need to license individuals. If someone doesn’t know what they are doing? They’ll go out of business soon enough. Similarly with painters and decorators.

See I come from the other side of this – If I want to be a professional painter, it seems to me that I should be required to have some training or experience in how to properly dispose of toxic paint, properly dispose of lead paint chips that I’ve cleaned off of an old building, how to protect the customer’s pets and plants from fumes, etc.

Some guy “buying a brush” at Home Depot without this training and expertise is a potential danger to himself and (more importantly) to his customers and the environment. This amateur painter may in fact be a great painter – fast, skilled, and clean – but without regulations, such an individual will be able to undercut his or her competitors who DO take safety and environmental concerns into account… which means that everyone else would have to shirk such things to compete.

I fairly strongly believe that regulations on professionals who use toxic substances or who are directly involved in the health of their customers (hairdressers, masseurs, etc.) are necessary. But I have no real opinion on how such regulations are imposed – on the company, on the individual, on the job site, via a trade school… I’m sure there are pluses and minuses to each option.

[Thrag]

I mean if a painter has unsafe practices and contaminates someone’s septic system because they washed out all their brushes and dumped leftover thinner in the garage sink they’ll just go out of business some years or decades later when the groundwater contamination makes it way down to the water table and eventually someone detects it when getting their water tested and the contamination clearly points back to the painter.

[Mark_Weston]

@Tin_Wisdom

See I come from the other side of this – If I want to be a professional painter, it seems to me that I should be required to have some training or experience in how to properly dispose of toxic paint, properly dispose of lead paint chips that I’ve cleaned off of an old building, how to protect the customer’s pets and plants from fumes, etc.

Some guy “buying a brush” at Home Depot without this training and expertise is a potential danger to himself and (more importantly) to his customers and the environment. This amateur painter may in fact be a great painter – fast, skilled, and clean – but without regulations, such an individual will be able to undercut his or her competitors who DO take safety and environmental concerns into account… which means that everyone else would have to shirk such things to compete.

Except that the credentialism that is enforced by these kinds of regulations don’t force any change of behavior on that metaphorical painter. Once they have earned the right diplomas and certifications, they are still perfectly capable of undercutting the competition by skimping on safety. In order to stop that, one needs inspection and enforcement with teeth. But those are way more expensive than certification schemes, especially when certification schemes can fund themselves by charging people to be certified.

So what we often end up with is regulations that talk a good game about protecting public safety. But, in practice, their main effect is to discriminate against the poorest who just want to use existing skills to make a living.

[Thrag]

Training does change behavior. Perhaps not intentionally malicious behavior, but ignorant and irresponsible behavior. I’d like someone to sit the painting contractor down and teach him about the toxic chemicals he’s going to be using and how to handle and dispose of them safely, and then test him on that knowledge.

A lot of posts in this thread seem to be “profession X, I mean what harm can they do” without giving much actual thought to what harm they can do.

Edit: Also to add remember we’re not talking about a painter here, but a painting contractor. There’s a very large and important distinction between the two.

[Thrag]

@Mark_Weston

Once they have earned the right diplomas and certifications, they are still perfectly capable of undercutting the competition by skimping on safety.

And they run the risk of losing their license for doing so.

[Menzo]

@Thrag

I mean if a painter has unsafe practices and contaminates someone’s septic system because they washed out all their brushes and dumped leftover thinner in the garage sink they’ll just go out of business some years or decades later when the groundwater contamination makes it way down to the water table and eventually someone detects it when getting their water tested and the contamination clearly points back to the painter.

See? The system just works!

[Mark_Weston]

@Thrag

Edit: Also to add remember we’re not talking about a painter here, but a painting contractor. There’s a very large and important distinction between the two.

Are you allowed to earn a living in California by saying “I’m a painter, not a painting contractor”? I suspect not, but I’m open to new information never having lived there.

@Thrag

And they run the risk of losing their license for doing so.

Which requires the enforcement arm I talked about. But if you have that enforcement arm that’s capable of hearing and investigating complaints, you can enforce away without imposing the initial barriers to entry.

[Thrag]

Is this really a serious question?

If so, yes, you can work as a painter for a painting contractor. If you want to be a painting contractor you need to be licensed.

[scottagibson]

Which are the (non-liberal) states that don’t license painting contractors again?

[Thrag]

@Mark_Weston

Which requires the enforcement arm I talked about. But if you have that enforcement arm that’s capable of hearing and investigating complaints, you can enforce away without imposing the initial barriers to entry.

So you just let bad thing happen based on ignorance and issue fines later if they are noticed? You don’t see any problems with this process? So until a homeowner, who thankfully knows you’re not supposed to wash brushes and dump chemicals in the sink, actually sees the guy dumping dangerous chemicals on a path to the water supply and complains that ignorant guy will just be going around poisoning people’s property out of ignorance.

I appreciate how onerous licensing requirement can be a barrier to entry, but the “just let anyone have a go at it without any training or testing” plan seems a little reactionary and has large obvious flaws that after the fact enforcement can’t really solve. That said the idea of premise licensing rather than individual licensing probably can make sense in some places but is not necessarily a universal solution unless individuals are also tracked so they can’t just keep starting new businesses.

[Thrag]

According to the tweet that started this tangent, Texas. They have no statewide requirement but a very brief view through the googles tell me there can be local requirements.

[scottagibson]

Isn’t the single greatest political force behind licensing requirements most probably applied by the current license holders? Licensing requirements effectively create something akin to trade guilds, even if only informal ones, and the current holders of licenses have a massive collective incentive to keep the barrier to entry high.

[Timex]

@Tin_Wisdom

See I come from the other side of this – If I want to be a professional painter, it seems to me that I should be required to have some training or experience in how to properly dispose of toxic paint, properly dispose of lead paint chips that I’ve cleaned off of an old building, how to protect the customer’s pets and plants from fumes, etc.

Those kinds of things would be regulated at the BUSINESS level, not the painter level. You regulate the business and say, “You need to dispose of such stuff properly.” Then it’s on them to make sure that their employees actually do such things correctly.

Having a license doesn’t actually ensure any of those things get done anyway. You still need to have separate enforcement of the regulations.

In terms of enforcement, this ends up being the same. Some law that the government enforces. But it means that an individual person doing the job doesn’t need to pay fees and crap. Certainly, they COULD still go through classes and stuff. A barber, for instance, may still go to barber school, as they presumably still teach useful skills. But if someone already knows how to cut or braid hair? If they can already do the work, then there’s no reason for the government to get involved at that level and say that they can’t perform it.

[Thrag]

The confusion over the word “painter” continues it seems. A painting contractor is the business.

CA does not require any license to work for a contractor as a laborer doing painting. It’s the employer, the painting contractor, often also referred to as a “painter” even though he may not personally be handling the brushes, that requires a license.

[Tin_Wisdom]

@Timex

Those kinds of things would be regulated at the BUSINESS level, not the painter level. You regulate the business and say, “You need to dispose of such stuff properly.” Then it’s on them to make sure that their employees actually do such things correctly.

It certainly COULD be enforced at the business level, but that’s not the only path. And in today’s environment of very mobile gig economy workers, it may make more sense to license at the individual level. Most states require licensure of electricians and plumbers… not to mention nurses, teachers, doctors, CPAs, etc.

And as I said, I’m not necessarily concerned with HOW the regulations get satisfied/enforced, as long as the are.