Undercover Cops Hired 118 Handymen, Then Arrested Them for Not Having Licenses

I mean, it's not like planes are falling out of the sky, we don't need standards and licenses.

> The undercover detective[s] are just creating a crime that probably wouldn't occur otherwise.

Isn't that the definition of entrapment?

What about unhooking a toilet? Or installing a new kitchen faucet? Filling gasoline into your car is extremely dangerous too, which is why in Oregon and New Jersey trained professionals are the only ones allowed to perform the task.

I'm not following; you want separate plumbing lines entirely to feed sinks, outlets and toilets? I can't picture a single residential facility that doesn't have a shared feed, nevermind a corporate complex designed for efficiency.

>no vacuum breakers no RPZ's (reduced pressure zone devices) nothing to protect the water supply from siphoning Cyanide back into it

Not even the shutoff valve? There should be constant pressure behind the hose beyond it.

I don't understand. They had a machine for washing parts where the water intake for the machine was pulling from an open container with the plating solution? How does this contaminate the building's water?

>The reason is because although it is not technically difficult to "unhook a toliet" as you say it is even easier (especially now with the advent of Home Depot and Amazon selling all manner of "plumbing contraptions") to inadverntly create a potential cross conection.

Please tell us how one can screw up hooking up a toilet so badly as to create a cross connection. It's not easy to confuse a 3" or better closet flange with a 3/8" compression fitting, and it would be pretty obvious to anyone who tried it.

I get that, and I get the rationale behind it—legally speaking. I still don't think that this makes the preceding statement correct. ("These con men and women...", "...preying on innocent homeowners...")

What really happens is that homeowners (and renters!) don't want to spend too much money on what they consider small projects, and handymen, rather than "preying" on "innocent" customers, are offering simple services for a low price. They're not conning anyone. I'd wager that most of the time everyone knows what's going on.

The statement from HCSO is written as if they consulted the Hyperbole Thesaurus to edit the first draft into something with more "punch".

I mean, I'm sure some subset of this bunch are actual scam artists holding themselves out to be something they're not. But my money is on the majority of them simply getting caught without a license. No need for mug shots and handcuffs and pearl-clutching public statements.

Can't agree there.

You definitely want your doctor, optometrist, dentist to be licensed. You definitely want your wiring to be done by a proper electrician. You want your new building signed of by a licensed Engineer. Etc.. General carpentry is a little bit different, but those with proper apprenticeships are considerably more likely to be better, but in that case, it's not a guarantee.

The wikipedia article you presented as evidence has some troubling issues. Much of it is focused on the fact that 'without licensing' there's 'more growth' in the given field of employment, which is obvious and mostly beside the point: the issue is competence. When measuring quality they mention "find that occupational licensing of dentists does not lead to improved measured dental outcomes of patients, but is associated with higher price" - which is deeply disingenuous because it's likely related to specific kinds of licensing as oppose do the 'material issue of competence' which is the fact said dentists actually attended dental school. Can you imagine for a second someone giving you fillings, scrips, pulling out teeth, x-rays without having gone to dentistry school?

What the state needs to do is make clear which occupations are licensed, which are not, and the kinds of work that can be done otherwise. Replacing a doorknob or a water faucet may be a bridge too far for licensing requirements, but doing anything 'load-bearing' for example might be within the purview of regulation.

I suspect it's not true as long as licenses are required, but as soon as no licenses are required anymore, it could very quickly become true.

It is not necessary but the situation that the government sits at is tricky. Intervention like sending out fire trucks or giving health care is usually paid upfront by the government, as is social support aid in the case the homeowner become homeless. If neither the contractor nor the homeowner can pay it will be up to the government to foot the bill.

In theory, if insurance companies would give out public indemnity insurance to unlicensed contractors then it would lower the risk for the government, assuming the coverage is broad enough. It also assumes that the cost of getting such public indemnity insurance is lower than getting a license, or contractors would just get the license instead.

I would hazard a guess that the reason for the two licenses is different. For some reason braiding is classified under cosmetology, and cosmetology industry used to involve a lot of hazardous chemicals. In order to address health issue among employees who died an early death thanks to dibutyl phthalate, formaldehyde, lye, ammonia, and coal tar, the government stepped in a started to regulate the industry. It similar to how mining and particular coal mining has a lot of regulations.

Of course, one can braid hair without the employees being exposed to toxic chemicals. Still, cosmetology is even today regarded as one of the more dangerous jobs in terms of toxic exposure, and many employees do get exposed to nail polish, hair dyes, and nail polish removers.

There is also a cultural aspect to it. The demographic that work as beauty salons tend to be young women. Politician that drive harsher regulation in this area want to gain votes by being perceived as the champion and protector of women.

According to the article, it was 8. 8 had prior convictions. The other 110 were "first time offenders."

Maybe a bit better than an unknown murderer who may have recently committed a crime.

For an example a third of murders in the US now go unsolved:

https://www.npr.org/2015/03/30/395069137/open-cases-why-one-...

So run a background check on the people you hire, if that's important to you. But it has nothing to do with technical ability.

And do you think licensed contractors aren't hiring ex-cons to work for them? Generally only the owner or supervisors are required to be licensed, not all employees.

Hammer swingers don't legislate.

It also sounds like small office accounting.

It’s totally a scam, but it’s legal. If the entrepreneur has incorporated, he probably can’t be sued. What’s more, he doesn’t have to pay a penny in workman’s comp, because Florida has loopholes which permit multiple levels of “independent contractors” with only the top guy having a license, and a specific form letting the top guy absolve himself of responsibility for his “subs.” One guy got so good at this scam that he had a LinkedIn page and an IOS app you could download. Florida’s codes contain numerous devices like this. Most prominent is the “Notice of Non-Representation” that your buyer’s agent will get you to sign, just just just before closing.

I don't agree 100% on that because some crimes terrorize communities and nothing should be spared to fight them. But to jail house painters without a license? When one can go to Home Depot, buy the stuff and do it by himself.

They need to prioritize and if they have come to this, it means that the county is very safe and xx% of cops have nothing to do. So fire them.

Given this tidbit, it seems less clear cut:

Frequently, she says, officers will hire a handyman on the pretext of performing work that doesn't need a license, and then during the course of the job ask them to do something that does, like unhooking a toilet or laying some tiles.

"When the handyman says no, then the undercover detective moves the conversation to something else and then comes back to the question later in a different way," says Sammis. "By the time the handyman gets to the location, they want to make the homeowner happy and end up agreeing to perform work that they didn't intend on doing when they first arrived. The undercover detective[s] are just creating a crime that probably wouldn't occur otherwise."