Do we REALLY want regulatory control?

[treesquirrel]

OK first, I am not certified. I've thought about it but with my focus being on removals and pruning I have not yet accepted it as a significant business booster.

I am about 70% self taught and to this day have zero incidents worth mentioning.

The point of my thread is do we really want some kind of government regulation of our industry? Notwithstanding OSHA we currently have a lot of freedom in how we perform work and how we use equipment. A high level of regulation could micro manage our work procedures to a point that we would be under a microscope and if there were ever an incident who knows what decisions could be rendered based on a tunnel vision view of "acceptable" practices.

I get as frustrated as anyone else when I bid a 2k job and get underbid by 50% by bubba and his pickup. I do try to price my services competitively based on what this market will bear without going broke. But it seems there are some individuals that feel regulation is a solution to the fly by nights.

Actually, I'm sure there a dozens of certified Arborists that would consider me a FBN even though I work safely, smart, and have all the right equipment. I also won't do a job that I am ill equipped for. I have colleagues in the biz I refer work to that is outside my ability to do safely. We will join forces regularly to get tough jobs done. A fly by night will look at almost any job and say "yup, we can do that fer ya!". and then proceed to destroy property.

Anyway, while OSHA pretty much is not going to show unless someone loses a limb or life, and ANSI is pretty much just a "guideline" for smaller businesses I don't particularly care for anyone regulating what I do. Once you jump into the realm of working power lines then it is a different story. I'm focused on residential services and I do not undertake work around primary lines and only work around secondaries if the situation is relatively easy to keep hazards to a minimum.

In a manner of speaking I self regulate based on my experience and skill level.

How do you feel about this?

 

[Sunrise Guy]

This topic has been just about beaten into the ground in here. I come from an industry, the tattoo and body piercing biz, that is regulated very little, for the most part. The result: Too many shops have sprung into existence, leading to the pie being sliced too thin, then, for anyone to make a good living. The only ones to make great livings in the tree biz, consistently, are those in bed with governing bodies via sweetheart contracts that most of us do not have the finances to pursue. Strict regulation of the residential/commercial tree work market would help keep the hacks out, but many in here just can't seem to understand that. They would rather rag on and on about the hacks and this has no effect on the prevailing situation.

 

[Grace Tree]

I saw the transportation industry in the the 1970s prior to deregulation. The layers of regs only served to protect the larger companies and that became so ridiculous and transparent that the entire industry was deregulated.
It's not the initial regulation of an industry that's dangerous. It's the influence that larger companies have in controlling reg that may prevent competition from smaller, new start companies.
This may be a bad example but let's say as an applicator you're required to carry xx amount of insurance specific to that part of your work. Big Tree Company uses it's dollar influence with regulators to increase the requirements for the insurance amounts to the point where it's no longer profitable for you. Big Tree Company can, because they've essentially written the regs for themselves, have high insurance amounts but pool the costs among multiple operators in their company. They've eliminated competition by regulation.
It would probably be more fair to the industry long term to send out goon squads and bust some kneecaps. Regulation usually starts out well intended but ends up being suffocating.
Phil

 

[outofmytree]

I saw the transportation industry in the the 1970s prior to deregulation. The layers of regs only served to protect the larger companies and that became so ridiculous and transparent that the entire industry was deregulated.
It's not the initial regulation of an industry that's dangerous. It's the influence that larger companies have in controlling reg that may prevent competition from smaller, new start companies.
This may be a bad example but let's say as an applicator you're required to carry xx amount of insurance specific to that part of your work. Big Tree Company uses it's dollar influence with regulators to increase the requirements for the insurance amounts to the point where it's no longer profitable for you. Big Tree Company can, because they've essentially written the regs for themselves, have high insurance amounts but pool the costs among multiple operators in their company. They've eliminated competition by regulation.
It would probably be more fair to the industry long term to send out goon squads and bust some kneecaps. Regulation usually starts out well intended but ends up being suffocating.
Phil

Valid point here SW.

I am pro regulation but I hear your point. I think that it is less a problem with industry regulation than it is with the method of enforcement. I would suggest that the first and most obvious step would be to regulate at local govt level. Require any work on trees over a given size to be subject to the issue of a permit at a nominal value. The only persons able to gain said permit would be those businesses with the appropriate certification.

I think it is safe to say that the majority of tree professionals want the hacks out of the market. Regulation is ONE way of achieving this. I would be really interested to hear of other ideas that could be implemented with a minimum of cost to all.

 

[mckeetree]

The point of my thread is do we really want some kind of government regulation of our industry?

In a nutshell, yes. The playing field is just too unfair the way things are now for the guys that are seriously trying to make a real business and a real living out of this deal and not some cat just fool assing around.

 

[lumberjack333]

I'd be happy if they made it a REAL trade... Here in Canada I'd call that a Red Seal trade. Something that would require a three year apprenticeship and 7000hrs of work experience to acquire your ticket. Instead I'd put the qualification standards of this industry somewhere similar to that of roofing, joe blow jumps up on the roof with a hammer and a couple bundles of shingles... looks over and sees you up in a tree. He says, "Hell Mayble, I can do that there trimming for nuthin!" next thing you know hes taken his ladder, propped it up against a tree and hikin up with a chainsaw on his shoulder. But you'd never see Joe pullin wire or running pipe on a big commercial jobsite right? Because you need ticketed qualifications that state "I know these rules, i know this code." Before you can get your hands on something deadly or job-critical (or at least be under the supervision of someone that does.) I just finished my first week of College for the Arborist apprenticeship here in Ontario, and I can say that I'm with a great group of like-minded individuals, the teachers are all very experienced and I've already learned at least one new thing, in each class every day that I didn't know at the beginning of the week. School is great, licenses are great and nobody is every too old to stop learning. The only problem with all of this, is that I'll be coming out of school next winter, educated and qualified to be working in my chosen trade. However nobody out there currently recognizes that qualification because the training is not standardized across Canada, and the trade remains unregulated. There is a whole section on this site dedicated to deaths and casualties of our trade, what do you think the best way to prevent these in the future is? Most of the mistakes made that lead to these deaths are simple things that can easily be taught over two or three winters at college. I say educate and regulate, only then will we be paid what we deserve and cease to be generalized as a group of crazy tree guys that just cut and hack their way through peoples backyards... Thanks to the ladder scrambling, chainsaw shouldering yuppies out there.

Stay safe everyone.



(Not saying anything bad about roofers, its hard honest work and in my opinion is dangerous enough to justify more regulation as well.)

 

[Hddnis]

Every time I've seen regulation it ended up biting the little guys that did the best work first.

Big companies have deep pockets and pay lobbiests big money to make the regulations the way they want them. They always have them rewritten to squeez out any smaller than they are. They drown you in paperwork and meaningless stipulations.

I've seen it happen a couple times in the past and it will happen that way again.

The other thing you see is that regulation won't stop hacks, it just makes them change names and move more often. They work for cash and then they're gone.




Mr. HE

 

[Bermie]

I've said my bit on this topic before, I'm in the pro regulation camp, for the reasons others have expressed...there are too many landscapers flinging a ladder against a tree and hacking everything at head height holding on with one hand and swinging a 200t with the other and calling it tree work.

Here is a link to all the UK standardized certificates of competence in tree work. Check them out, to be legal to do tree work you have to pass these assessments. They form the basis of getting qualified, they are the minimum practical standards. http://www.nptc.org.uk/assessment-schedules/
scroll down till you see the chainsaw qualification on the right side

 

[D Mc]

I am pro-certification but anti-regulation. It is protection money. Whenever you pay someone to protect your interests you will lose freedom.

That is a very good point that Bermie pointed out on the stringent UK regulatory system. They are one of the most regulated countries out there. Just ask them if it has had any affect at all in stopping the hacks or to help stabilize their work through reduced competition of said hacks.

It has not.

Dave

 

[treesquirrel]

So in support of regulation it seems that a lot of competent business owners will need a grace period to gain the proper certifications. It would be kinda harsh to all of a sudden inform folks they can no longer feed the family or pay the mortgage because they are not certified even thought they have 10 plus yrs in the industry.

And again, how far will it reach. I'd worry about it becoming much much more than a simple license procedure. this is a dangerous biz. every employee that picks up a chainsaw or runs a chipper may be required to be educated in some form of class monitored by the licensing agency.

On the flip side, I would rather be small and deal with these kinds of rules than to have to keep track of 20-30 emp[employees and all their certs, or training.

 

[lxt]

I dont think you can regulate by Certification??? what certification would be the standard? ISA & TCIA would have a field day lobbying for control.

Line clearance already has a certifying body & is a recognizable trade, though mostly through bargaining units...but none the less it was Unions who helped get this field recognized!

I am in agreement with regulating this field...but, it would have to be done at a local level.....we have a town locally who requires permits for tree work but that doesnt insure the contractor is good, however the town manager is an arborist & has a referral list of recommended companies to do the work, kinda little favoritism there...but I am on the list!!

Im not sure in our trade how it would be regulated & if it was....those who are the hacks we complain about would probably be "grandfathered" like the Truck drivers & the CDL situation!! SOooo what then?



LXT.............

 

[danieltree]

My state(Louisiana) requires licensing and encourages certification. It all looks good on paper but has no teeth. Primarily it is to guarantee that the company is insured. We have to take one continuing education class a year and pay for the license renewal. I find that the only way this helps is if the customer is aware of the license requirement. I would like to see a little more regulation but only if it drops my insurance rates considerably. Our state does educate the consumer some so that helps.​

 

[southernoutdoor]

Shouldnt need the govt to tell us what we should and shouldnt do. Just burn the hacks out!!! Run em out of town! Start taking this country back!!!

 

[BRCCArborist]

There is another thread going on right now that describes an "Arborist" in CT spiking up a pine prune. The poster also states that CT has an arborist license requirement. I think this pretty much sums up the ineffectiveness of regulation.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

I am pro regulation for where there is a minimum knowledge level required to perform as a for-hire service. How can we kvetch about hacks lowballing and messing up work if there are no consumer protection laws?

 

[fishercat]

all these folks who are pro reg...............................

will be anti reg as soon as it happens.

the government can' friggin regulate itself,let alone anyone else.

it gets regs, i'm out of this industry.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

will be anti reg as soon as it happens.

I'm sure I would disagree with some of what they require, but I would much rather have some controls then letting the lawnmower men hack trees up.

I do not fear government as much as I would fear the anarchy some libertarians think we should have. Whether it be the wild west, or the days of Standard Oil and the slave labor in eastern coal mines.

Those who whine about regulations do not study history.

 

[Bearcreek]

I have not had a chance to read through this thread yet but my answer to the original question is, no way. The government has no business telling people when or how or by whom their trees can be cut.

 

[treevet]

We have been discussing this on a Linkdin group I am in and they are mostly management muni arbs. They are all for it of course. The nature of the beast prevents a good system by lacking the ability to be equitable.

I am on my towns Forestry Board and because of this I witness on a daily basis just how much graft and corruption exists everywhere in this small government let alone bigger ones. It is ugly.

Who issues licenses but more important ....who is able to rescind them. That person has corruptible power. But, hey, if you are this person or the ones in the favor of this person, life is all good.

The ISA system is the best out there in establishing a minimum level of knowledge and better yet requiring periodic credit accumulation to stay current and increase knowledge or get booted. After that "let the buyer beware"....forget about government handling anything like this in a positive manner.

And Squirrel, if you cannot pass this entry level test, then you should not be making decisions on what trees should be removed that are not dead and you certainly should not be up there pruning trees.

Also, Treeco, I am amazed you would not support the ISA and dropped your membership. You seem way too smart to not recognize that this the best game in town.

 

[jomoco]

Why are you guys averse to letting your work speak for, and sell itself?

If a hack can do your work cheaper, you are at fault, either from a skill perspective, or an uneducated client base perspective.

If you can't out perform a hack?

jomoco