Licensing Customers

The idea behind licensing is that customers can be assured that the contractor has met certain standards. But what guarantee does the painting contractor have that the customer has met certain standards? None.

Therefore, I hereby propose that customers must obtain a license before they can hire a contractor. They must demonstrate that they have the financial ability to pay for the work, that they will be decent and respectful, and that they don’t know more than the contractor they wish to hire (and recognize this fact). There should probably be more criteria, but that’s what I came up with off the top of my head.

Contractors often complain about nimrod customers who have no clue. Such people waste our time, create stress, and do as much to lower the image of our industry as the low-ball contractors they ultimately hire.

Many people argue that if we take away the incentive for illegal aliens—employers who will hire them—the “problem” will go away. Why don’t we do the same for low-ball contractors—i.e., do away with the people who will hire them?

Think about how great it would be to ask a customer for their license number when they call for an estimate. “I don’t have one,” she answers.

“Oh, I’m so sorry. But you aren’t qualified to be our customer.” Click.

I am opposed to any form of licensing. But I find it interesting that such policies are always aimed at the producers and never at consumers. In other words, such restrictions are always directed at only one party to the transaction. That should tell us something about the true motivations of those who advocate "protecting consumers". Why are there no "protections" for producers?

© BEP Enterprises Incorporated 2008