| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
KGB-NP
Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 2856
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 7:46 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| pueno wrote: |
As I asked... why are some able to stick with it?
. |
As for regulations in the construction industry or in my case home renovations…..
The summer I finished high school and was to go to university I started framing houses with some friends of mine. I really enjoyed it and for that and other reasons I scrapped my plans to go to university. I framed houses for a couple of years and then later on my father’s advice I did my apprenticeship as an electrician. Now when I started framing houses we were in the midst of a boom and making money was not a problem at all. I was mechanically minded, a fast learner, and loved working. Throughout my apprenticeship I worked most weekends framing houses, and often my pay from framing on the weekends was greater than that of my apprentice pay cheque. Back then I would literally walk into the site supervisor’s trailer on Friday late afternoon and ask what they had for work. They would hand us roofs to frame, subfloors, rough ins, you name it, and the money was great. Nowadays, that would be impossible. Now the builder would need our business registration, insurance, and HST number. I had all this back then but was NEVER asked for it, and believe me I was the exception in that alone. The other thing that one would require now is a WSIB (workplace safety and insurance board) clearance certificate. Back then people realised that if they got hurt it was not a reason to sue someone else for their mistake.
When builders started to get concerned about the potential of getting sue by entitled morons they started to have us sign releases. That later turned into any type of disability insurance plus the release. I used to buy insurance on myself from Penncorp insurance that was around $500 - $800 / year and covered me 24/7. THEN the government stepped in and mandated that WSIB needed to be carried by larger companies. THEN (last couple of years) they made it so just about everyone has to have it. Last year they made it that everyone who works for another business including the business owner whether he’s swinging a hammer or not had to have it, BUT guys like me are exempt because our agreement is directly with the homeowner. Come 2014 it will be law that the homeowner get proof of WSIB coverage from their contractor or hefty fines will be charged to the homeowner and contractor. Doesn’t sound so bad right? NOT!
This is how well WSIB has managed to run their government insurance company:
http://www.cdhowe.org/the-hole-in-ontario-budget-wsib-unfunded-liability/16983
Every time you have to deal with them no one has a straight answer, there is NO level of common sense to the way things operate there. To confirm that, last summer I did their SCIP (Safe Communities Incentive Program) and the first thing out of the instructors mouth was, “I’m hear to teach you how to deal with the us and all the $hit we impose on you poor business owners.” The stories I heard from others in that class defied logic. I was the smallest business there, the bigger the companies the crazier the stories. What it basically came down to was if you own a business be prepared to be jerked over by your employees at some point because in today’s society no one is responsible for themselves. The labour law stuff was the best. Did you know if Bob grabs Jane’s butt at work and the business doesn’t have a sexual conduct policy in place that the business owner is liable. WHAT THE…?!?!?! Are you starting to see the insanity of all of this?
In 2005 I had a guy who knew he was going to get let go “claim” he hurt his shoulder moving a beam on Thursday. On Sunday he called to let me know he hurt his shoulder and “told” me I should pay him out of pocket so as to avoid a WSIB claim. I told him I don’t do extortion. He went on WSIB and still is to this date. WSIB was harassing me to get him back on the job with lighter duties. This was impossible due to the nature of the work and because I had figured out he was a moron and an extortionist. In my mind he was safer not being close to me or the guys who worked for me who hated his type. I later played along and said sure I’ll get him back to work because I heard he moved out of town. In the process I found out he moved 2 hours away, he registered a business name, registered an HST number, had a yellow pages ad, and his business address was a commercial unit. When I shared this information with my WSIB rep. he said, “that doesn’t mean he’s working.” Nice huh? My idiot rep. kept on harassing me until I tore into his stupidity and unwillingness to investigate my documented claims. I guess he didn’t like my tone so he had me audited. It didn’t bother me one bit because I have nothing to hide. Getting it yet? I have another prime example but it’s along the same line of stupidity as that story.
I also have to file T5018 forms that list all my subs and what I paid them. Recently one of my subs had tax problems so Revenue Canada told me I had to garnish his wages. Luckily he was not in the midst of working for me, because I they would have put me in quite a predicament.
Can you see why some tradesman who is self employed, with one or no employees, might not want the hassles? It has nothing to do with their work ethics, or unwillingness to conform but the imposed costs and time required to conform. I spend around $10K a year for accounting services. I used to do my own paperwork when I started out. It was a freaking nightmare! I did it wrong, I paid late, I was frustrated as hell, and it cost me lot of time and money to do so.
So why do some stick it out?
In my case I made a conscious decision when I had children that I would never stick them in day care so that my wife could be home to raise the children, and I’m glad I did. My wife is an awesome mother and my children are much better for it. I worked my ass off to make that possible. I stuck with it because quitting was not an option. I also came from a line of self employed people. My father was a medium sized electrical contractor, and I saw the benefits of that growing up, and he provided some moral support.
I came close to giving up in 2005 since it was my year from hell. I got God smacked though when I broke my ankle windsurfing in late October. It was a wake up call to stop working 70 and 80 hour weeks and stop micromanaging and relying on my great employees. Fortunately for me that is when I really started making a better income and the income wasn’t attached to always being exhausted and frustrated so I stuck it out. Some never get there, and unfortunately they give up. I’ve tried to give advice to some of my subs who are on that fringe but it is hard to see past all the negatives when you’re knee deep in poop.
Others give up because they bought the lie. The “make your own hours” and “make tons of money” lies. They soon realise that making your own hours is work all the hours you possibly can, and the good money is non existent for at least the first five years and often it is less or next to no money when figure out on a per hour basis. I’m fortunate to have stuck it out. I still work more hours than most and definitely more than those who work for me, but I take more time to play during the day when I can, and I’m fortunate that all that lead to a decent income. My business is nothing spectacular either. I have four employees, and my gross revenue hovers between $750 and $1 million per year – no big deal by any means. I’m sure some of you have figured out or visited my website from information I’ve shared – nothing too exciting here.
I’m also self employed because the thought of being “stuck” at work while it is honking winding would be way too painful for me….and I’m not even that great of a sailor, but I sure do love it. Without windsurfing I swear I would have gone insane years ago and I sure wouldn’t have recovered so well from all my stupid injuries. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2807
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| reinerehlers wrote: | | pueno wrote: |
As I asked... why are some able to stick with it?
. |
Blah, blah...
..blah, blah...
..blah, blah...
..blah, blah...
So why do some stick it out?
In my case I made a conscious decision...
I came close to giving up in 2005 since it was my year from hell... ...it is hard to see past all the negatives when you’re knee deep in poop...
Others give up because they bought the lie...
I’m also self employed because...
|
OK... I asked why some stuck it out compared to those who gave it up.
You answered: ...complain, complain, complain...
And then "it's all about me."
But, kudos to you for sticking it out.
Also, kudos to you for taking the time to compose a long, coherent answer to a question that I didn't ask. Still, you put in significant effort and wrote thoughtfully and well.
I want to examine the relationship between these supposedly onerous regulations and the allegedly horrendous effect they have on small businesses and learn why some business prevail while others "throw in the towel." My hypothesis is that the quitters never belonged in business in the first place because they don't have the persistence, the wherewithal, the knowledge, the training, the fundamental resources and infrastructure, or the ethics to be in business.
I believe that stiff regulations have a "Darwin-like" effect on business. The weak and misdirected are pushed aside and the hardy and well-organized persist. And while many complain that regulations drive up prices, I believe that regulations actually keeps prices down, because the shoddy and dangerous work (that must be repaired) is greatly reduced. In other words, customers pay once for a job well done rather than multiple times for work that must be redone.
And regulations help improve safety and well being of customers and society. (Remembers the buildings that fell down because of shoddy work and very substandard concrete?)
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KGB-NP
Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 2856
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 9:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
LOL! BTW, the blah, blah, blah part was to give the background on what I and others have faced, and some here like specifics, data, anedotal support not just "my opinion"
I don't agree with your hypothesis. I think there is room for the "small guy" because in reality I was and still am the small guy. I understand there is some good that comes for these mandated regulations and agree there is an element of benefit to the general public. I don't think that government should make it an outright pain in the arse for some to just stay in business. I think that if some guy choses to stay small, make his $50K, be self insured through disablility insurance then he should have that option. I think there is definitely room in the market for such people. It doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the service he renders or his business ethics, it is about his personal choice to stay small. Let's face it not everyone has the personality to run a business with employees and increasing levels of responsibility that comes with that. That doesn't mean they need to be eliminated. Unfortunately it pushes them to quit or go underground and get mixed in with the unscrupulous types you described performing shoddy work leaving the public in desperate situations as displayed on shows like "Holmes on Homes". Let's not forget, Mike Holmes was a nobody contractor at one point too with a tiny little business before he was noticed by HGTV. FYI, I see things on that show that I shake my head at, and really I wish he would address more often that if people pay "cash" that they get what they deserve. I saw one show where he fixed a whole neighbourhood of fences and asked "who paid this guy cash?" 70% of the people put their hands up. I would have said, "then screw you, fix it yourself!" and walked off the job. Now THAT, would drive the message home, don't you think?
As far as WSIB goes. To give a suggestion on how to better the system in general. They need to change the mindset. Dan Weiss referred to Worker's Comp. as insurance against getting sued by your employees. I agree with him but it is insane that is what it has become. I pay 9% on my employees income to insure them, or so I thought, but I guess I'm insuring me against entitlement mindedness (BTW, I don't see my guys that way). How about using logic and common sense. WSIB protects the employee. How about the business pays a portion as a "cover my butt" portion and to promote a save work environment, AND the employee pay a portion for "their" insurance via source deductions to provide themselve with income in the event of an injury. This would promote personal safety, afterall they are the ones who will suffer the most in the event of an injury. It would be an incentive to WORK SAFE. I have bought my guys all the safety devices for our job, put it in a box, put labels on the tools of what safety measures "should" be taken when using that tool. Do you think they use that stuff? NO! Who gets penalised? ME! WSIB should look at that logically and say, "did you do ABC? Did you exercise right to refuse? Did you suggest a safer way of doing this?" If the answer is NO, NO, NO. Then their premiums should go up, not mine! I should not be pestered to get them back to work. They should be held responsible to their own stupidity just like someone speeding getting into a car accident would.
MY $0.02 worth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2807
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| reinerehlers wrote: | | LOL! BTW, the blah, blah, blah part was to... |
Let me give you an example.
I live in a small town with significant ponds and lakes -- two of these have become reservoirs for adjacent cities. In years past, small summer communities grew up along the shores, and the dwellings are "grandfathered" -- they can remain, but no new building can occur since the lakes became reservoirs.
Many of these small neighborhoods have summer cottages... they're little more than unheated shacks that once served families that wanted to spend a week by the lake in camp-like conditions. Those shacks that even have sanitary facilities are often plumbed to 55-gallon drums in the ground rather than genuine septic systems. Today, raw sewage will sometimes run down the hill into the reservoir.
Local developers (these are the "small businessmen" you speak of) buy these shacks, do modest upgrades, and try to flip them for BIG bucks by claiming that the dwellings now have "year-round" status. (Since no new development can occur, these so-called homes can be extremely desirable and thus command high prices.)
Those developers loudly and vigorously oppose the regulations that require proper and modern septic systems. Not only does a well-engineered system cost money, but sometimes they're difficult to install, because the lots are tiny and don't provide the necessary space between a septic system (leaching field) and a well for potable water.
But modern engineering has an answer -- new designs permit efficient waste treatment in smaller spaces... but at MUCH higher cost (and ongoing maintenance).
So there you have it. Tighter regulations intended to benefit society hobble the small businesses that don't have the wherewithal or ethics to do the right thing. These small business expire, while the ones that are able and willing to follow the rules will prosper.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2807
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| reinerehlers wrote: | | I think that if some guy choses to stay small, make his $50K, be self insured through disablility insurance... |
But when Joe the Plumber falls off his ladder and the ambulance takes him the the emergency room for his broken back -- and he has chosen to NOT have proper health insurance -- then you and I pay for him.
He has NOT chosen the path of "PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY."
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KGB-NP
Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 2856
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
I hate to tell you but that policy I had with Pencorp was awesome compared to that government enforced WSIB and it covered 24 /7 not just at work. Mandate that then and no $19 billion hole in the provincial budget and no dealing with a civil servant who isn't worried about silly things like logic or profit.
You seem to be bundling up all the quitters as unethical or unqualified. Not the case at all for many. My flooring guy is beyond awesome but barely copes. I offered to put him on my payroll the other day because I can relate to his circumstances.
For the $5 -6k each employee costs me I would rather purchase them a Pencorp policy with better coverage and protection off site at a fraction of the cost.
I agree your example of the reservoirs but I know I'm scratching on the ACA argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2807
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| reinerehlers wrote: |
You seem to be bundling up all the quitters as unethical or unqualified... |
Not necessarily. I am still looking for the qualities of the successful and persistent small business owners that allows them to be successful, profitable, and persistent. What are they doing right? Why are they able to meet all the required regulations?
Next...... How do the other small business owners subsume those characteristics, styles, operations, tasks, activities, initiatives, actions, responses so as to become successful, profitable, and persistent and don't "throw in the towel"?
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KGB-NP
Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 2856
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok then read anything by Stephen Covey or Tony Robins. That will give you big part of the answer to the pshycology associated with the behaviour required to succeed.
OR
As my friend put it he's too stupid to give up. 
Last edited by KGB-NP on Fri Dec 13, 2013 12:50 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17749
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RR--thanks, I think that you posted some detail at my request. Much of your concern has to do with worker injuries and liability insurance. I was expposed to both sides of this as management at the Port of Oakland, responsible for proper maintenance and clean-up of hazardous materials. Workers were being sent into confined spaces without proper training, by managers hostile to both unions and worker safety rules. It ended up with a number of successful worker compensation claims, labor strife, and higher costs. When the Port hired a worker safety person to assure proper training and equipment, worker compensation claims dropped back down below average.
]
So while there is potential for abuse, there is also management responsibility for safe working conditions, and proper equipment. It is simply good business to document those practices with proper paperwork. In California, the costs for workers compensation led to a well regarded, bipartisan reform that reduced costs. That's really the point I made--vague bellyaching doesn't have much value. Specific problems, backed up with political skills, can lead to reforms. In my experience, both better management and legislative reform. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KGB-NP
Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 2856
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mac,
I agree the bellyaching doesn't change anything, I was simply given evidence of what forces some to quit out of frustration. I would love to see a shared cost initiative to discourage fraud and increased personal responsibility towards safety. That way a worker would carry around a record of being irresponsible and think twice about unsafe practices. I'm sure that crosses some politically correct line and be translated as some form of prejudice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
