I’d like to talk with some people who have recently taken the California Contractors License test.
Did you use a test study service?
Was it worth it?
Did they help you fill out the application?
I’ve been doing Handyman work for the last six month and keep running up against the $500/project rule. I’d like to get my license to avoid this $$ cap and make my customer’s more comfortable.
My experience is over 6 years with Habitat for Humanity building over 13 homes and multiple DIY projects. I have a contractor that will sign off on my experience and numerous customers.
What are my chances?
Peace,
Martin
Replies
I have heard that they actually only check about 20% (if that) of the applications.
They also will accept working on your own house as building experience.
I have looked over the application and it seems like it would be very easy to justify the 4 years of experience needed. If you have a college degree they will also count that as 2 of the 4 years of experience needed to qualify for a license.
With your experience and having a contractor sign off on it, you will have no problem getting approval to take the tests.
Edited 7/18/2002 12:42:00 PM ET by 27SEAN
take the prep course, it will get you up to speed on things that are on the test that you do not normaly do and it will also prepair you for the contract law segment of the test.
Martin
You may not need a contractor's license. You stated that you have been doing work as a handyman. There is no limit under California law that puts a cap on the amount of your contract. There is no law in California that requires you to obtain a license to perform labor.
I suggest you read your state mechanics' and materialmen's lien laws to ascertain the distinction your state makes between a contractor and a mechanic. You should also read a case called City of Milwaukee v. Rissling, 184 Wis. 517, 199 N.W. 61 to illuminate the distinction. In that case the city of Milwaukee required licenses of electrical contractors but not of electricians. The defendant's lawyer argued the law must be unconstitutional on the grounds that it failed to provide for the licensing of the very men who do the work - the electricians. The reasoning of the Wisconsin Supreme Court was that the occupation of electrician was different from the occupation of electrical contractor. Therefore, the one occupation was licensed while the other occupation was not. The law only requires all members of the same class to be treated alike. The decision was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. It is a fundamental principle that every person has the right to follow any occupation he chooses and to make contracts in his occupation.
Numerous cases have provided the rule that individuals, firms, and corporations must be treated alike. Under California law pursuant to contractor licensing, the qualifying party for the license may be the individual or someone employed by the individual, a member of the firm or someone employed by the firm, or in the case of a corporation, a corporate officer or someone employed by the corporation. Such a provision was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Arizona in City of Tucson v. Stewart (1936).
You should also be aware that it is unconstitutional to use the police power to license and regulate carpenters, painters, paper hangers, bricklayers, plasterers and other similar occupations. They are protected by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The reasons are laid out in Dasch v. Jackson, 183 A. 534.
Is this one of those situations where even though under california law Business & Professions code 7000-7173 requires that anyone doing a job over $500 requires a license it is in some kind of reality illegal to require the license and then you get to spend a couple 100k on lawyer fees to prove your point all the way up to the supreme court in the interest of the principle of it when in the beginning you could of just got your license like everyone else and avoided the hassle?
My advice, just go get your license.
Also, you will need to get your home improvement license in addition to your general or trade specific license if you want to contract directly to home owners.
There are stipulations in the code that if you meet certain requirements you do not have to take the test to get your license. Look them up on the california contractor license website, you might qualify.
You can also read up on the laws here.
http://www.dca.ca.gov/legal/m-1.html
look under Contractors.
27SEAN
Under California law a home owner must have a contractor license if he contracts with a mechanic to have the mechanic perform labor on his property if the property is for sale or rent.
Your phrase 'if he contracts directly with the home owner' is vague. Who else would a tradesman contract with. Logically, if a home owner needs work done then he would contract with a tradesman to perform the work. If the owner does not do the work himself, then the person who makes the contract to do the work must do it. Under your scenario a tradesman would have a contract with someone other than the owner and the owner would have no contract with anybody to do the work.
If you are a contractor (ie. licensed drywall contractor), and only do jobs for a licensed general contractor, then just having the drywall contractor license is enough.
Now if you want to contract directly with a homeowner then you need to have a home improvement license in addition to your trade specific license.
" On and after July 1, 2000, a contractor may not engage in the
business of home improvement or provide home improvement goods or
services, as defined in Section 7151, unless the contractor is
certified as a home improvement contractor.
7159. This section applies only to home improvement contracts, as
defined in Section 7151.2, between a contractor, whether a general
contractor or a specialty contractor, who is licensed or subject to
be licensed pursuant to this chapter with regard to the transaction
and who contracts with an owner or tenant for work upon a residential
building or structure, or upon land adjacent thereto, for proposed
repairing, remodeling, altering, converting, modernizing, or adding
to the residential building or structure or land adjacent thereto,
and where the aggregate contract price specified in one or more
improvement contracts, including all labor, services, and materials
to be furnished by the contractor, exceeds five hundred dollars
($500)."
Go ahead and read all about it.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=07001-08000&file=7150-7168
Also notice, that if you have a sales person working under you that that person needs to have a home improvement sales license.
You can go here and get all the info you want about california contractor requirements.
http://www.cslb.ca.gov/
27SEAN
Section 7018.5 of California law states that contractors and laborers who contract directly with the owner need not give a preliminary lien notice since the owner is directly aware of their contracts. In this context, laborers means carpenters, plumbers, masoms, et cetera.
Section 3110 states that mechanics and materialmen shall have a lien for labor or materials furnished whether furnished at the instance of the owner or his agent and that all contractors and subcontractors are agents of the owner.
Sections 7068, 7068.1, and 7068.2 of the contractor licensing laws all pertain to the individual who qualifies for the license. Each section states that such person shall directly supervise the work and is always referrered to as the responsible managing employee, officer, et cetera.
Combine all these sections and you have distinctions between labor and management. The qualifying parties for contractor licenses are management required by statute to supervise. Labor is not licensed. When the property owner does not act in the capacity of contractor and contract directly with persons furnishing labor or materials, then his agent contracts on his behalf.
I think in the original posters circumstances, owning and operating a handyman business who intends on doing projects over $500, he should get his license.
Why try to find a way around it, just go get the license. Besides not putting yourself in a legal situation that could be risky for you, I am sure all his clients will feel much better knowing he is licensed.
Here is a little Q&A off the CA contractors license website.
After reading the below I do not see how it is legal for someone who owns and operates a handyman business to enter into a contract with a homeowner for more than $500 and still be legal.
2. Who must be licensed as a contractor?
All businesses or individuals who construct or alter any building, highway, road, parking facility, railroad, excavation, or other structure in California must be licensed by the California Contractors State License Board (CSLB) if the total cost (labor and materials) of one or more contracts on the project is $500 or more.
Contractors, including subcontractors, specialty contractors, and persons engaged in the business of home improvement (with the exception of joint ventures and projects involving federal funding) must be licensed before submitting bids. Licenses may be issued to individuals, partnerships, corporations, or joint ventures.
3. Is anyone exempt from the requirement to be licensed?
Yes. Here are some of the exemptions:
1.Work on a project for which the combined value of labor, materials, and all other items on one or more contracts is less than $500 falls within the minor work exemption. Work which is part of a larger or major project, whether undertaken by the same or different contractors, may not be divided into amounts less than $500 in an attempt to meet the $500 exemption. Unlicensed contractors must provide the purchaser with the written disclosure in B&P Code
section 7048 stating that they are not licensed by the CSLB, or the $500 exemption does not apply and a citation can be issued for unlicensed activity;
1.An employee who is paid wages, who does not usually work in an independently established business, and who does not have direction or control over the performance of work or who does not determine the final results of the work or project;
2.Public personnel working on public projects;
3.Officers of a court acting within the scope of their office;
4.Public utilities employees working under specified conditions;
5.Contractors operating on federally-owned property;
6.Oil and gas operations performed by an owner or lessee;
7.Owner-builders who build or improve existing structures on their own property if they either do the work themselves or use their own employees (paid in wages) to do the work. This exemption is only valid if the structure is not intended or offered for sale within one year of completion;
8.Owner-builders who build or improve existing structures on their own property if they contract for the construction with a licensed contractor or contractors;
9.Owner-builders who improve their main place of residence, have actually resided there for one year prior to completion of the work, and who complete the work prior to sale. This exemption is limited to two structures within a three-year period;
10.Sale or installation of finished products that do not become a fixed part of the structure;
11.A seller of installed carpets who holds a retail furniture dealer's license but who contracts for installation of the carpet with a licensed carpet installer; Security alarm company operators (licensed by the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services) who install, maintain, monitor, sell, alter, or service alarm systems (fire alarm company operators must be licensed by the CSLB); and
12.Persons whose activities consist only of installing satellite antenna systems on residential structures or property. These persons must be registered with the Bureau of Electronic and Appliance Repair.
27SEAN
Like doctor licenses for M.D.s, contractor licenses are individual and are good only for the individual named as the qualifying party. No partner, corporate officer, or employee may do what the qualifying party for the license does without taking the license examination.
Pursuant to California law, each partnership and each corporation can have only one individual do what the qualifying party does. All other partners or corporate personnel must do something different than the qualifying party.
Another way of stating this would be: "Every contractor, or his qualified representative who shall be a contractor" shall .....
Since individuals, firms and corporations must be treated alike, every individual would have one licensed individual do all the work required of the qualifying party and each partnership or corporation would have one licensed individual do all the work. Otherwise there would be discrimination in favor of firms and corporations against individuals. State ex rel. Grantham v. City of Memphis, 151 Tenn. 1 and cases cited therein announcing the rule.
Because the qualifying party is for all practical purposes the contractor, the law does not allow two contractors per license. Therefore, only one person in the firm or corporation may do the licensed activity.
Edited 7/22/2002 12:22:46 PM ET by ROBERTHAUGEN
"
"Combine all these sections and you have distinctions between labor and management. The qualifying parties for contractor licenses are management required by statute to supervise. Labor is not licensed. When the property owner does not act in the capacity of contractor and contract directly with persons furnishing labor or materials, then his agent contracts on his behalf. "
In CA, a property owner is legally liable for all work done on his property unless he has properly contracted wih a licensed contractor, who are required to hold them free of liability (through insurance) This is the major issue with contracting--liability. As a contractor, you are liable and you buy insurance to offset this--this is just growed up bidness. This is why you charge more and deserve it.
Buying a license, gtting the insurance (About $200/mo for me) means you want to invest enough inn your career to consider yourself a professional. Everybody else does it, including lawyers, and those that don't, while saving a few nickels, are possibly setting theselves up for some real liablity issues--Ive seen this happen also, more than once.
What possible reason could you have, other than this Posse Comitatus BS, for NOT getting licensed in your profession?
Like I said, you get to pe in the Mens Room
James
.
Edited 9/30/2002 11:43:18 AM ET by EXLRRP
Read City of Milwaukee v. Rissling, 184 Wis. 517, 199 N.W. 61. This case concerned the licensing of electrical contractors and the constitutionality of the Milwaukee ordinance pertaining to the licensing.
The argument was made by the defendant's counsel that the ordinance failed to license the electricians who perform the labor - the journeymen (mechanics) and therefore must be unconstitutional.
The Court said that there are two distinct classes (occupations) - contractors on the one hand and journeymen (mechanics) on the other. Use the visual imagery of the language of the Court. Imagine the fingers of your left hand represent those who follow the occupation of electrical contractor and the fingers of your right hand represent those who follow the occupation of electrical mechanic.
The Court stated that all members of the same class (occupation) must be treated alike. Journeymen electricians (mechanics) did not follow the same occupation as electrical contractors. It is a constitutional right to be able to make contracts in the occupation one chooses to follow.
California law relating to the licensing of electrical contractors is similar to the Milwaukee ordinance. The Milwaukee ordinance required each individual, partnership, or corporation to obtain a license and to designate in the application a supervisor. "Such supervisor shall be subject to examination as provided for a contractor" was the language used. California law requires each individual, partnership, or corporation to also obtain a license and to designate a supervisor who shall be subject to examination.
If the Legislature of California chose to require a license of those on the other hand - the journeymen electricians (mechanics) - they could have also done that. They chose not to. Indeed they could not do so under a title called "Contractors" because the State Constitution requires the title to be indicative of the Legislation. For example, legislation pertaining to real estate sales cannot be enacted under a title called "Barbers".
Just remember that if the fingers on your left hand represent electrical contractors, then they can make contracts in their occupation. If the fingers on your right hand represent journeymen electricians, then they can make contracts in their occupation. Licensing laws restrict following the occupation.
Those of us in states that don't require licensing don't need to pee yet. When we do, we'll come pee in California. I'm wondering which fingers of which hand I need to use, tho'.
;)
You make a big deal out of being licensed to be validated. Maybe it's necessary to get that validation in the land of fruits and nuts. There are other states that trust individuals to be responsible for themselves though.
As I understand it, the constitutional protection comes in when you are working individually for the owner. Mano e mano.
It is when you hire or subcontract with others that there may be a way for the state to become involved. It sounds like what your state is saying is that should an owner and a carpenter have a falling out, they lost the help of the state to deal with either in managing the problem and finding a resolution in court if they chose to work outside the state governed licensing system. Right?.
Excellence is its own reward!
Are you advising this guy to buck his state's system on your understanding of law and your handshake look em in the eye principles? I do that , too, but it's not for everybody...and there are limits by states for the dollar amount of work one can do with and without approved credentials.
get a license and be a happy chappy It's okay, I can fix it!
No, what I'm doing is to point out that his attitude that anybody who doesn't have a liccense is gyping customers is crappy. Especially for those who only get a license out of fear of govt response. Something there projects a "bow to the power of the state" thing that gets my back up.
If someone wants to take training to better themselves in their craft and advance their skills, that's good. But to do it out of fear that the state will make him knuckle under and lose everything if he doesn't reeks.
Excellence is its own reward!
I'm not arguing on your take, philosophically...here, any work over 30,000 willies and you've gotta have a contractors license, doesn't matter whether I think it's worth a flyin' fig, or not. It's a law, and I'm thinking Maine and California are pretty far apart in in some of those ways...okay, a lot of those ways;) It's okay, I can fix it!
You should also be aware that it is unconstitutional to use the police power to license and regulate carpenters, painters, paper hangers, bricklayers, plasterers and other similar occupations. They are protected by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The reasons are laid out in Dasch v. Jackson, 183 A. 534.
Ahh, are you sure about that? I did a quick search and found several references to Dasch, none of which represented it as making such a sweeping statement: Dasch appears to be a decision by a Maryland court regarding some weird distinction between "local law" and "general law" in Maryland, but doesn't appear to stand for the proposition you've set forth. (Especially as it is a State Court decison, which generally are given a whole lot of precedential weight for US Constituional issues.)
I didn't find the actual case though, so maybe there was more than what I saw
Where did you find that interpretation of Dasch?
Later: I did find a couple of sites which put forth the proposition that many business practices can't be licensed:
http://www.doprocess.net/articles/artic~15.htm
http://www.constitution.org/becraft/limits1.rtf
The cases they cite are all very old (the latest was 1948, may were in the 1800's.)
I strongly suspect that those cases don't stand for the proposition put forth by whoever maintains those web sites, and that those which do have probably been overruled.
A couple of the cases cited rely on the "freedom of contract" argument which was laughed off of the scene in the early 1930s. (The early opponents of unions argued that unions were unconstitutional because they interferred with the workingman's right to freely enter into any contract he wanted with employers.! Right, like Joe Scmoe had equal bargaining power with US Steel and "freely" enetered into an emplyment contract with them!)
Before anyone acts on the claims of those sites that occupational licensing is unconstitutional: consult with a lawyer!
Edited 7/22/2002 7:37:50 PM ET by Bob Walker
Bob Walker
The emphasis of Dasch v. Jackson was the constitutionality of a statute which required licenses of paper hanging contractors and paper hanging mechanics in the city of Baltimore pursuant to the police power.
The Court reasoned that the licensing of those engaged in paper hanging was not a proper use of the police power and the statute was declared unconstitutional. The Court stated that carpenters, painters, bricklayers and the like have followed those occupations from time immemorial without regulation or interference from the government and are constitutionally protected by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Unlike plumbers who deal with the water supply and sewer gas or electricians who could pose a danger of fire or electrocution because of faulty wiring, the Court in Dasch v. Jackson proclaimed the trades listed in their decision as harmless and useful and therefore outside the scope of the police power. I do not have the cite in front of me at the moment for Dasch v. Jackson. However it is either 170 Md. 251 or 171 Md. 250.
Check it out.
The test kits with almost to exact examples of test questions which one only needs to get 60% right to pass the test is a good and cheap way to start. They are multiple choice, so one is way wrong, two seem close and one is right. You need the license to aquire the credibility you need to work for the general public and to bid jobs for general contractors. The state wants to pass you on the test. They just want some form of control over contractors to protect the public. GW
A friend of mine took the CA electrical test, found it to be quite easy, finished it early. In one part of it, they gave him a list of materials and a floorplan, and the job is to design a system that meets code. He was kinda worried by the fact that he had so much stuff left over from the list, but he got a perfect score on that one. The other thing he was worried about was breadth of knowledge, since his company specializes exclusively in outdoor lighting, parking lots, tennis courts, etc. But he remembered enough about the rest of it.
-- J.S.
1. Self employment is a red flag on the application. Don't put it down if you don't need it.
2. The cslb is now under the Department of Consumer affairs. Its no longer concerned with the protecting the contractor, its all about the consumer.
3. The 500.00 limit is absolutely correct for contracted work. Under the law contracted work and work performed within the relms of a specific trade are one in the same. Are there ways around it. I suppose but I'm not risking my assets on it.
Go take the test, why risk it. You can fight government but you better have deep pockets.
Just for fun, go check out Washington States Laws then jump over to Nevada. Nevada will scare the heck out of you, they are tougher than California.
I am not a lawyer, I think thats pretty obvious. But I do have to work to make a living and I cant do that sitting in courtrooms.
As was recommened before, go to http://www.cslb.ca.gov and read the information there. Then get the study guides that they recommend not from some fly by night company that will guarantee you a license. Only you can pass the test.Steve - in Northern California
Interesting comment regarding Nevada and how 'tough' they are....look at this, for example.
Nevada places limits on each license while California does not. The basis for determining the limit is how much cash the applicant has available. So what's a guy to do? He borrows the hell out of things, takes his test, gets his high limit and then pays it all back. Nevada seems to value easily liquidated assets over any others (such as real estate) compared with California which measures all assets. Go figure.
I don't think Nevada is any tougher than California, but I do think the place is run by and for the Good Old Boys. And, yes, I have licenses in both states, and I don't buy Nevada's ludicrous brag that it's tougher than California. There's certainly more shoddy work done there, if that means anything....
Don
Edited 7/23/2002 12:23:49 AM ET by DBERINATI
Martin,
I took the test about 5 years ago and it was easy for me but some people taking it didn't pass.
The experience you have will fly I believe. I had similar experience and passed through fine.
Buy a test book / tapes course. Don't pay over $350 for it. Builders Booksource in Berkeley has some books on taking the test.
I highly advise studying like hell, patiently and then just showing up at the test place two hours early and reviewing the practice book.
Much more importantly is to figure out what all the extra crap of having a license will be costing you (overhead) per year and being ready to raise your rates to cover your costs. It sounds like you've done bidding and work for people enough. Get your biz skills down.
Mike Butler
Berkeley Craftsmen
Berkeley CA
I have been a licensed CA General Contractor since 1981. I work in The East Bay Area I do home remodels and repairs as a licensed contrcactor.
You are defintely better off getting your license and proceeding legally, it is the more expensive way, but it is the RIGHT way and will protect you legally,protect everything you own.
Its also more of a hassle, more paperwork but you can buy insurance, contract with others legally, etc. Its a pain in the a$$ but you sleep a LOT better at nights, esp if you work on a LOT of jobs, like home repair /remodelers do. You can put it right on the card: Bonded licensed and insured and at this point you get to look every other contractor in the eye, even Bechtel. Your bigtime now, you pe with the big dogs. Untill that time, youre gyppo in this state and I'll be trying to turn you in.
Don't let the guy above kid you, in this state, ANY contract for home improvement (covers all the trades) above $500 requires a licnse. ANother guy said you could spend a couple $100,000 trying to beat it and he's right--why bother. Why WOULDN'T you do this but to go the gyppo way. You really are restricting yourself by not getting it, a licensed contractor can't contract with you in ANY capacity.
I got my license before they revised the test but I bet its close to the same. I had plenty of documntation of experience but I know someone who was caught fakiing it so it does happen. I went to a school--it was worth it, go to one that guarantees you pass. They may have these Online now. They give you the answers to the test and you memorise them--phony, but there it is. Just memorise em, don't try to figure them out is what they told me. I couldn't believe it untill I took the test--the exact same questions, all multiple choice and one "estimating diagram, again multiple choice. When I went thru, they said, just pick the answer with the 7s in it and they were right there too. I'm sure this has changed
(Ex: What do they call th member over a framed opening? ans: a lintel)
Two words, just two words here: Flash Cards
get your license, its worth the trouble, You can put a sign on your truck and be proud of it.
James
Edited 9/30/2002 11:05:04 AM ET by EXLRRP
Edited 9/30/2002 11:16:46 AM ET by EXLRRP