4800 Vermont Workers Face Mandatory Registration and Fees

May 21, 2019

By David Flemming

About half of U.S. workers need an occupational license to do their job, a huge increase from the one in twenty workers in 1950. 2020 Presidential hopefuls Donald Trump and Joe Biden have denounced this encroachment on labor freedom in the past several months. Yet Vermont legislators aren’t keeping with up with the times.

Our legislators are seeking to add residential contractors to the growing list of low-middle income occupations in Vermont that are license-to-work. The Vermont Senate narrowly passed the contracting bill a few weeks ago, over objections from a bipartisan group of Senators. Now, the bill is being considered in the Vermont House.

This seems especially incongruous if we recall that many of our legislators have recently attempted to show high school graduates the value of choosing trade school over 4-year college degrees that often give graduates massive debt with little guarantee of getting a job.

In 2017, Vermont had almost 4800 residential contractors who made an average of $42,000 last year, some of whom made more than $58,000 a year. These are good paying skilled jobs that need younger workers. By imposing a certification process with an added fee, Vermont will in effect be discouraging recent graduates from considering becoming residential contractors. Or perhaps, these graduates might choose to take their talents outside Vermont.

If a contractor receives at least $2500 to do a job such as putting in a window , they must register to continue legally working in Vermont. An individual self-employed worker would pay $75 every 2 years, while a business would need to pay $250 every 2 years.

In order to have their license issued or renewed, each contractor is required to have “professional liability insurance,” to cover $1 million of damages. Witnesses testified that buying this insurance would cost around $600 annually for a self-employed individual.

In an earlier version of this post, I had claimed that the bill was truly licensure: putting in place tests from the government that are necessary to do your job legally. In fact, the bill was actually mandating State Certification, the slightly less restrictive government intervention on the Institute for Justice’s “Hierarchy of Alternatives to Licensing.” In other words, the bill’s State Certification component would restrict Vermonters from advertising that they are a “certified residential contractor,” unless they pay a fee to have their skills tested. So rather than the worst type of occupational licensing, we have the 2nd most onerous. And just so we’re thorough, we’re also throwing in Registration (3rd most onerous) and Mandatory Insurance (4th most onerous). Might it be better to try Mandatory Insurance before we go all in with Registration and State Certification?

Add this all up: a self-employed contractor without insurance would need to spend an additional $650 annually for registration and insurance. They would pay even more if they wanted to take test(s) for certification(s). A larger contractor would cough up more overall, but less per employee.

Contractors would also be told what constitutes a legitimate contract with their customers, down to the line item.

These stipulations may just be the beginning. Rep. Marianne Gamache (R-Swanton) suggested that the contracting bill may just be “laying a base for the building industry” to pass “license rules and regulations that don’t exist now.” Let’s hope we don’t get full on licensure in the coming years.

David Flemming is a policy analyst at the Ethan Allen Institute

 

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

Mary Daly May 22, 2019 at 12:00 pm

What will they think up next? At age 74 and living alone, I depend on these type of contractors to do work around my home that I no longer can do for myself. To increase the cost of these services will make it harder for me to maintain my home. So STOP already with the new rules and TAXES.

Reply

gdp May 26, 2019 at 9:08 am

More fascism – government control of the means of production.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post:

About Us

The Ethan Allen Institute is Vermont’s free-market public policy research and education organization. Founded in 1993, we are one of fifty-plus similar but independent state-level, public policy organizations around the country which exchange ideas and information through the State Policy Network.
Read more...

Latest News

GWSA Passes Out of Energy & Technology Committee

February 14, 2020 by Rob Roper The Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) bill passed out of the House Energy & Technology Committee on a 7-2 vote and moved...

VT Childcare Policy: Make it more expensive and less accessible!

February 13, 2020 by Rob Roper The House Education Committee is busy formulating the next steps in what is and has been a long-term, hostile takeover of a...

$200 Million Worth of Climate “Spaghetti”

February 10, 2020 by Rob Roper In a recent interview with VPR, Rep. Tim Briglin (D-Norwich), who chairs the House Energy & Technology Committee, admitted that the state...

Commentary: Vermont Needs School Choice to Fight Racism

February 7, 2020 By David Flemming While Vermont has less of a problem with racism at school than many states, it is still a problem. Recently, some Vermont...

Vermont’s Climate Crusade is Futile with or without GWSA

February 6, 2020 By David Flemming Under the GWSA, Vermont looks to continue its crusade to end climate change. But such weapons are far more likely to be...

Video