You would think that the right to work would be as American as apple pie, but several months ago I had a different experience – right here in Northern Utah. I had begun the process of building a new home. As part of the building permit process I was required to sign a document in front of a public notary promising that I would not hire anyone who was not a licensed contractor, unless the compensation to them was only a gift or token payment such as to a family member. I’ll admit I was quite taken back by this bold ascertation of who I could employ. I asked myself, “How have our local governments gained so much control that they can tell me who I can hire to work on my own home?”
Incidentally I had two friends who were out of work at the time or had less work than they needed to support their families. I knew them both personally and was willing to carefully observe their work to assure that it met my expectations. Because of this “law” I was unable to assist these two men in finding an honorable way to provide for their families.
There may be several reasons for this law, but I know one reason very well why this law is in place. It’s an effort by contractors who are licensed to keep unlicensed contractors from getting their work and competing with them. I’m not trying to pick on the construction industry alone. Although I’m not in the construction industry, this same discussion happens in my profession as well – these turf battles over who can and can’t provide certain services. Interestingly all of these discussions are laced with the “protection of the public from substandard treatment” comments, but down deep everyone knows that the major reason is protection of our share of the market.
Of course there are varying levels of competency in every field and that has much less to do with licensure than it does with experience, training and integrity. Shouldn’t it however, be the right and the responsibility of the consumer to make that “value” decision for the product or service that they are purchasing for any certain price?
I firmly believe that the right to work and provide for our needs and those of our family is a God given one. Unless our work harms or violates another we should be free to choose our own course. Free market pressures will make it hard for anyone to continue long in business unless their efforts are acceptable to those they serve.
Recently Farr West City refused to “allow” Wisco to continue its business activities. After months of waiting for certain stipulations to be met, which evidently Wisco did not or could not comply with, the City took a hard line approach. Perhaps the city was following its own laws, which is good as far as the application of law is concerned, but I wonder, “Was the law right in this situation?” Was Wisco really doing something that was harmful to others, or are these stipulations things that are nice, or would make the city look prettier, but not really helping to prevent harm to anyone?
I feel that in our effort as a society to make things better we too often overstep our proper bounds. It seems that almost every legislator or councilman feels that to show their effectiveness they have to “do” something. Pass some new regulation, or respond to some angry minority and create a new law or rule. Perhaps our best representatives are those who wisely decline passing yet another regulation or law.
Perhaps the councilmen in Farr West City may decide to consider whether the “fence” regulation or the “hard surface” driveway requirement could be eliminated. Perhaps the Notarized document could be done away. Incidentally, I chose to abide by my mandated promise, but I still have the hope that perhaps someday in Northern Utah we may again be able to decide what work we do - and who we hire to work for us.
