12-30-2009, 04:11 AM
Dan, believe it or not, the actual law exempts owner/builder from licensing requirements as a general engineering contractor, general building contractor, and specialty contractor. It does not exempt an O/B from electrical or plumbing contracting.
The wording (and in reading the testimony submitted during legislation on this chapter) clearly states that an O/B can perform all the duties of those three without needing a license. It doesn’t say the O/B must hire only license contractors to do or supervise the work, it says that you as an O/B essentially are one of those contractors and you are exempt from licensing. You can do it yourself, you can hire a licensed contractor to do some of it, or you can hire a licensed contractor to supervise your work.
It is only in the area of electrical and plumbing where you have absolutely no options. You can't under O/B perform any electrical or plumbing. It is technically against the law if you hire an electrical/plumbing contractor who lets you run the wires/piping but they pull permits, supervise your work, inspect/correct any mistakes and accept responsibility. You can not do anything according to the law.
That raise a significant question of why? What about these two trades, are so specialized that it carries more weight requiring only a licensed contractor to perform? Is just pulling wires that much more specialized than foundations work? Are those two that much more a safety concern over structural elements of a building? Is the risk to the public greater with electric/plumbing than foundation or structural elements?
Let’s say you do the foundation and structural elements yourself. The judge of quality & code adherence is the building inspector. If those two items can be performed by an O/B and accepted based on the inspection, why can't the same be applied to electrical/plumbing? This is not hidden work where it can't be inspected.
So the law puts a burden on the O/B for electrical/plumbing that is not consistent with any other major component of the building process. Whatever justification for electrical/plumbing that was made could just as well and certainly be as important as the foundation and structural elements of that building. All the reasons that could be used for justifying this restriction on electric/plumbing would equally apply to many other parts of the building process, yet is does not.
This is not about you the O/B or your perceived rights. It’s about protectionism of a trade that is being denied to other equally important trades. The process of determining the requirement to use only licensed electric/plumbing for an O/B is inconsistent with not requiring equal protection to other trades of the building process. There is nothing in past testimony that applies to electrical and plumbing that could not or should not be applied to all other trades of equal complexity. There is also nothing in the performance of electric/plumbing that would render standard building inspection processes unable to judge the work like any other trade.
So, I ask, were these two trades provided a protective benefit by government that is denied all other similar contractors and is that a violation of Hawaii’s Constitution?
The wording (and in reading the testimony submitted during legislation on this chapter) clearly states that an O/B can perform all the duties of those three without needing a license. It doesn’t say the O/B must hire only license contractors to do or supervise the work, it says that you as an O/B essentially are one of those contractors and you are exempt from licensing. You can do it yourself, you can hire a licensed contractor to do some of it, or you can hire a licensed contractor to supervise your work.
It is only in the area of electrical and plumbing where you have absolutely no options. You can't under O/B perform any electrical or plumbing. It is technically against the law if you hire an electrical/plumbing contractor who lets you run the wires/piping but they pull permits, supervise your work, inspect/correct any mistakes and accept responsibility. You can not do anything according to the law.
That raise a significant question of why? What about these two trades, are so specialized that it carries more weight requiring only a licensed contractor to perform? Is just pulling wires that much more specialized than foundations work? Are those two that much more a safety concern over structural elements of a building? Is the risk to the public greater with electric/plumbing than foundation or structural elements?
Let’s say you do the foundation and structural elements yourself. The judge of quality & code adherence is the building inspector. If those two items can be performed by an O/B and accepted based on the inspection, why can't the same be applied to electrical/plumbing? This is not hidden work where it can't be inspected.
So the law puts a burden on the O/B for electrical/plumbing that is not consistent with any other major component of the building process. Whatever justification for electrical/plumbing that was made could just as well and certainly be as important as the foundation and structural elements of that building. All the reasons that could be used for justifying this restriction on electric/plumbing would equally apply to many other parts of the building process, yet is does not.
This is not about you the O/B or your perceived rights. It’s about protectionism of a trade that is being denied to other equally important trades. The process of determining the requirement to use only licensed electric/plumbing for an O/B is inconsistent with not requiring equal protection to other trades of the building process. There is nothing in past testimony that applies to electrical and plumbing that could not or should not be applied to all other trades of equal complexity. There is also nothing in the performance of electric/plumbing that would render standard building inspection processes unable to judge the work like any other trade.
So, I ask, were these two trades provided a protective benefit by government that is denied all other similar contractors and is that a violation of Hawaii’s Constitution?