New DFL bill means homeowners will need to be licensed or get a licensed contractor to change a light switch in their house
Yesterday, I wrote about a bill being pushed by three DFL Senators — McEwen, Seeberger, and Hoffman — which would erect a costly regulatory apparatus to govern who could buy, sell, or use paint in Minnesota. In case you thought this was a one off, Sen. McEwen has another bill which would take something most people just do and regulate it so that they can’t.
SF 3852 — “A bill for an act relating to labor and industry; making policy and technical changes to construction codes and licensing provisions…” — sounds dreary enough. But look closer: Section 5 of the bill lists various “Exemptions from licensing.” The statute currently reads:
An owner shall not be required to hold or obtain a license under sections 326B.31 to 326B.399.
Under Sen. McEwen’s bill, it would be amended to read:
An individual who physically performs electrical work on a residential dwelling that is located on a property the individual owns and actually occupies as a residence or owns and will occupy as a residence upon completion of its construction is not required to hold or obtain a license under sections 326B.31 to 326B.399 if the residential dwelling has a separate electrical service utility not shared with any other residential dwelling. [Emphasis added]
The key part is “…if the residential dwelling has a separate electrical service utility not shared with any other residential dwelling.” Given that most residential dwellings in Minnesota do share electrical service utilities – they are on the grid – that means most Minnesota residential dwellings lose their current exemption. In short, Sen. McEwen’s bill eliminates the licensing exemptions for residential building owners to perform work on their own house. If her bill passes, a homeowner would need to be licensed or get a licensed contractor to change a light switch in their house.
You serve the people, not the unions
We must ask why these wacky bills are being pushed.
One suggestion arising from the paint bill is that unions are eager to take basic household maintenance tasks like painting your bathroom or changing a light switch, and make it a legal requirement that you have to pay one of their members to do it. This makes as much sense as any other explanation I’ve heard: the IBEW has long sought to eliminate the ability of homeowners to do any of their own work precisely to drum up work for its members.
The Senators pushing these bills — McEwen, Seeberger, and Hoffman — ought to remember who it is they were elected to serve. It wasn’t the wallahs of Big Labor: it was ordinary Minnesotans, the kind who are quite capable of painting their own walls if they so wish.
This latest bill shows why, as I argue in my new Policy Briefing, “Counteracting Regulatory Burdens,” we need state policymakers to enact a Pay-as-You-Go provision whereby new regulatory requirements or costs must be offset by eliminating old ones and adopt Sunset Provisions for state regulations.