Replies

1. 
   brownbagg | Oct 20, 2003 07:53pm | #1

   is that a bad thing?

1. 
   catfish | Oct 20, 2003 09:51pm | #2

   Well, yes it is considering that the costs of doing business is going to go up and prices usually don't.  Small business has built most of this country.  I am a trim carpenter, only needed a business license, general liability and comp. exempt.  Now I must incorporate , can't be a sole propreitor in construction.  Most license laws in this state just drive the price up for everyone except the guy that does the work. Plus GC or builders will hire unlicensed help in a minute.  We are in NW Florida so a lot of people are going to Alabama to work.

2. 
   florida | Oct 20, 2003 11:31pm | #3

   Yes, it's true. Just for the record builders are still required to carry comp on their employees. The exemption allowed the owner or 3 corporate officers to opt out of insuring themselves. Keep in mind that this rule only applies to builders, not to any other business.  When the state first started requiring exemptions you filled out a form, paid $50.0 and had a lifetime exemption. That lifetime exemption lasted about 2 years and then a new law was passed that required the exemption be renewed every 2 years. I renewed mine in June and now I find out that my 2 year exemption will only be good until 1/1/04 at which point I have to either be incorporated or start paying comp on myself. It's no small matter. The state 'assumes' that you earn $37,500 at a minimum and you get billed for that amount. My carrier screwed up last year and billed me for comp for myself. The bill was $11,600. That means that if I were to make $100,000.00 the comp bill for myself would be about $33,000. I am now being forced by economics and the state to incorporate. 

1. 
   catfish | Oct 21, 2003 12:32am | #4

   A lot of the people I work around are only one person.  Most states I've been in only require comp with 3 or more employees.  That is true in Florida except in construction.  I was told that comp isn't applicable to business owners, only to employees.  (When I first inquired about it in the early 90's) Is this the reason for the corporation rule?  Some one enlighten me as I see the rod a coming my way and am looking for wiggle room.

1. 
   florida | Oct 21, 2003 11:53pm | #6

   You're cortrect in that that is the way it used to be and still is up until 1/1/04, after thta th enew rules take effect. Every state licensed construction company will have to be incorporated and exempt or unincorporated and carry comp. That includes one man companies too so there is no escape. It doesn't look like the Builder's Associations are going to make any noise since most of their members are already incorporated and every one man operation that goes under is a potential new lead man for them.......

1. 
   catfish | Oct 22, 2003 02:11am | #7

   My insurance company said that my premiums would not change just bring them my new business license. 

2. 
   RalphWicklund | Oct 21, 2003 08:19am | #5

   Don't forget the rest of the story.

   Someone (the state, among others) is still going to get your money.

   Incorporation fees $345

   State application fees (change of status) $109

   Credit reporting agency fees ($50 per report) $100

   Workers comp exemption re-issuance $40

   Professional assistance to jump through the hoops $155

   Annual re-registration of your new corporation $150

   New Federal Employer Identification Number

   New checking account (Got to have an Inc. on it)

   Liability Insurance change (watch them sock it to you)

   The reasoning behind this is to lower the cost of workers comp insurance by widening the base. Fat chance there.

3. 
   Tapcon | Oct 22, 2003 02:43am | #8

   I got the notice not too long ago too.

   There seems to be a considerable amount of difficulty for the small construction firm these days. I incorporated last year in an attempt to gear my co. up for growth. My license is clean and I have never made a claim on my liability.

   First I got shafted by the liability underwriter to the tune of a 233% increase. Which, mind you was a far cry from the 833% increase my underwriter at the time required. 

   I have been denied work at a large commercial project b/c a new law ststes that comp exempt workers are not allowed to participate in commercial projects over $250,000 (no hard feelings there, I didn't really want that one anyway). Now my research to gain coverage for workers is not panning out so well either. I may not be able to get coverage.

   Thats my rant.

   Life goes on.

   I'll just pass the savings on to Mr. and Mrs. Homeowner.

   CARPEnter DIEM
4. 
   Tapcon | Oct 24, 2003 03:54am | #9

   Come to thing of it, this new law is probably a strategic tool intended to close one of the loopholes in workers comp. I have known of other companies that have their employees go out and get an occupational liscense and comp exemption thereby removing the employers duty to provide comp coverage.

   There are specific rules on what constitutes an employee/employer relationship but the burden of proof is on the accuser 

   CARPEnter DIEM