No registration for Texas roofers.

I'm on the fence. We've been licensed since 1987, even before it was mandatory in IL. I lose jobs to unlicensed guys enough to notice, but not enough to complain. I get my share.

I also clean up after licensed guys quite often. A license does nothing for the crew's ability to put on a roof, it only says that one party can pass a test. The biggest problem with licensing is that it's not upkept, and it's not enforced. I'd gladly take a test every four years to prove I'm still knowledgeable, whereas there are many guys out there have been grandfathered in and would have no chance at passing the test.

If we didn't have a licensing system already in place, I'm not sure I'd want one. We had at least five commercial jobs done by unlicensed outfits in my town over the past two years, a town of 10,000. That kind of burns my bum. The town 10 miles away and three times as big has a great inspector and you don't get by with that crap there.

If that's truly how they, (larger contractors), feel - They're cutting off their nose to spite their face.....The reality of it, is that licensing promotes increased trust from the consumer base.

In a non-licensed environment. the big, long established outfits have an advantage, as the consumer typically feels safer going with the big/established contractor, and may be far less-likely to engage a younger or smaller-sized outfit, regardless of authentic knowledge/credibility.

If all, (contractors), are held to like criteria; Trade knowledge & business management abilities/testing, as well as financial stability, a consumer is far more likely to give the younger &/or less experienced outfit a shot, whereas w/o licensing, it's a total crap-shoot, and any reasonable/fair-minded consumer would most-likely not even consider the smaller guy.

Licensing puts the hurt on the good ole boy network, as well as the main-stream unscrupulous types. It does promote consumer confidence of the industry, as well as afford smaller or less experienced contractors more opportunities.

TomB Said: The absence of licensing allows for the established to maintain dominance, as well as afford opportunity for the unscrupulous, which some might classify in the same crew.

...

At least in my experience, in Ohio, it is the establishment, ORCA, the board of which is comprised of contractors all much larger than I, that has promoted the licensing.

I think more often than not, they want it to eliminate the competition.

The absence of licensing allows for the established to maintain dominance, as well as afford opportunity for the unscrupulous, which some might classify in the same crew.

Add the fact people are generally less inclined to change - are difficult to pry from their comfortable situation, miserable as it might be.

It's comfy to those powers at be - to the established outfits - I can say with much confidence that Texas will never, ever employ state licensing - Likewise, neither will Colorado.

As far as I'm concerned, licencing is just another example of state sponsored, state approved and state promoted incompetence.