Contractors State License Board Profiling

Is the Contractors State License Board profiling out of State applicants?

CSLB Profiling

UPDATE: Turns out the application was for a “critical classification” so the CSLB was true to form in asking for additional documentation. The applicant was able to prove his experience and his exam date has been scheduled!

It seems they are. Case in point: An applicant for a non “critical classification” was required to submit pay stubs, w-2’s, contracts, permits, etc. He also submitted copies of his licenses from Washington State and Colorado. I’m sure the CSLB would say that this app was part of the minimum 3% to receive a secondary review, that would be incorrect. That secondary review is to take place after the app has been posted. This particular app hadn’t been posted. So, it stands to reason, if it hasn’t been posted and isn’t a “critical classification” why are they requiring the additional documentation and a wage determination? There is only one reason… he was profiled because of out-of-state experience. What right, rule, law, or regulation does the CSLB have to treat applicants with out-of-state differently? None, nada, zip, zero!

Furthermore, he was also told that his two out-of-state licenses could be faked and would not be used to determine his eligibility. When he asked the tech what a wage determination was, he was told “I don’t know” by the application technician.

How can the CSLB make an hourly wage determination? What is that formula? What rule or regulation gives the CSLB the authority to do this? Will they be determining what he would have made if he was working in California? Or will they determine what he should have make in the two other States?

It wouldn’t surprise me if the CSLB attempted to determine what someone should have been paid in another State. Their level of arrogance is mind boggling.

So remember my rules of engagement:

1) Do not take no for an answer

2) Do not let the CSLB push you around. Push back!

3) Insist the licensing unit processes and makes a determination regarding your app

4) Get EVERYTHING in writing

5) Submit a complaint with your State Representative if you think you’re being treated unfairly. You can find your State Rep here: http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/

CSLB Application Processing in Action

CSLB application processing in actionHere is an example of the CSLB application processing in action.

04/21/2014 – APPLICATION RECEIVED
04/25/2014 – PRINTED ACKNLDGMNT LTTR TO APPLCNT
05/12/2014 – APP TO CASE MGMT FOR FLAG REVIEW
05/30/2014 – INSTRUCTIONS RETURNED FRM CASE MGMT
05/30/2014 – AIU REQUESTED APP TO BE POSTED
06/03/2014 – APPLICATION REJECTED FOR CORRECTION
06/03/2014 – REJECT – CONFIRM LEGAL NAME
06/03/2014 – CRITICAL CLASS DUTIES NOT SPECIFIC
06/20/2014 – REJECTED APP RECEIVED BACK AT CSLB
06/20/2014 – CORRECTIONS SENT TO BE SCANNED
06/20/2014 – ADD’L REJECT TO APPLICNT TO CORRECT
07/24/2014 – REJECTED APP RECEIVED BACK AT CSLB
07/24/2014 – CORRECTIONS SENT TO BE SCANNED
07/24/2014 – APPLICATION REJECTED FOR CORRECTION
07/24/2014 – NEED TRADE WORK DESCRIBED
07/25/2014 – APPLICATION POSTED
07/25/2014 – REFERRED TO EXAM SCHEDULING – BOTH
07/28/2014 – NOTICE TO APPEAR FOR EXM 08/18/2014
08/18/2014 – EXAM SCHEDULED FOR BOTH LAW & TRADE
08/18/2014 – PASSED BOTH LAW AND TRADE EXAM
09/18/2014 – APP SENT TO SUPERVISOR FOR REVIEW
09/18/2014 – APPLICATION RETURNED TO PROGRM TECH
09/23/2014 – APP TO AIU FOR INVESTIGATION

Rejected not once, not twice, but three times. Then, after providing the corrections requested and passing both exams, they sent this app to the AIU. Which, from what the CSLB has said, no longer exists.

Government, by definition, is a cluster…. But the CSLB has taken ineptitude to a whole new level.

Let’s break it down:

5/12 the app is sent to Case Management. Probably because the applicants name is the same or similar to someone else’s. There is 2+ weeks wasted.

5/30 AIU requests the app to be posted. Wait… AIU? I thought the app was in Case Management? One would think the app was good to go since the AIU said it could be posted. (Posted means accepted and that the applicant can proceed to testing)

6/3 Rejected for correction. On 5/30 the AIU said it could be posted. Now it’s being rejected for correction?

6/20 Corrections received and sent to be scanned… AND rejected again! My assumption here is that they didn’t get back what they requested, or they are playing with the applicant in the hopes that he’ll withdraw the app.

7/24 Corrections received, sent to be scanned… AND rejected again!! “Need Trade Work Description” Was this not included in the original reject? Did the applicant not provide this with the original reject? Or is the CSLB just rejecting it again because they didn’t bother to include it in the original rejection?

7/25 App posted and exam date scheduled. This would suggest that everything the applicant submitted was accepted. That is how any logical person would view this comment.

8/18 Exams passed. Bonding and insurance purchased, business cards ordered, ready to move forward… but wait…

9/18 One month later.. the app is sent to the supervisor for review. Review of what? The supervisor sends it back to the tech with instructions to send the app to AIU. Again, I thought the AIU was no longer?

9/23 5 days later the app is sent to the AIU, where the investigator will ask for all of the same documents the tech would have asked for months ago and 5 months after the app was submitted.

So there you have it. The utterly inept CSLB application processing in action.

Will this applicant get his license? I hope so! He proved his knowledge by passing the State mandated, CSLB created exams.

 

CSLB Explains B General Experience

Finally, something in writing from the CSLB that explains the B General Experience requirements.

B Acceptable Experience per CSLB

And there is nothing in the law that backs this up!

What you see here was sent to a client of mine from Indiana. The highlighting was done by the Contractors State License Board application technician.

The bottom two lines clearly state [Experience in framing and at least any two…], but there is nothing in any law or regulation that states this. Now it’s always been this way, it was this way when I worked at the CSLB from 2001 to 2005, but just because it’s been this way for a long time doesn’t make it right. This is a CSLB underground reg that needs to be corrected and/or stopped!

The law does state: “The application is, as determined by the registrar, for a classification that is closely related to the classification or classifications in which the licensee is licensed, or the qualifying individual is associated with a licensed general engineering contractor or licensed general building contractor and is applying for a classification that is a significant
component of the licensed contractor’s construction business as determined by the registrar.” “As determined by the registrar” is the key phrase here. Other than in this CSLB provided text, where is it stated that Framing is a requirement?

As determined by the registrar is a dangerous statement. The registrar could “determine” any number of policies or procedures that would have a very negative effect to applicants, licensees, construction companies, and the industry as a whole. I think “As determined by the registrar” needs to be removed from the law.

7057. General building contractor

(a) Except as provided in this section, a general building contractor is a contractor whose principal contracting business is in connection with any structure built, being built, or to be built, for the support, shelter, and enclosure of persons, animals, chattels, or movable property of any kind, requiring in its construction the use of at least two unrelated building trades or crafts, or to do or superintend the whole or any part thereof.

This does not include anyone who merely furnishes materials or supplies under Section 7045 without fabricating them into, or consuming them in the performance of, the work of the general building contractor.

(b) A general building contractor may take a prime contract or a subcontract for a framing or carpentry project. However, a general building contractor shall not take a prime contract for any project involving trades other than framing or carpentry unless the prime contract requires at least two unrelated building trades or crafts other than framing or carpentry, or unless the general building contractor holds the appropriate license classification or subcontracts with an
appropriately licensed contractor to perform the work. A general building contractor shall not take a subcontract involving trades other than framing or carpentry, unless the subcontract requires at least two unrelated trades or crafts other than framing or carpentry, or unless the general building contractor holds the appropriate license classification. The general building contractor shall not count framing or carpentry in calculating the two unrelated trades necessary in order for the general building contractor to be able to take a prime contract or subcontract for a project involving other trades.

CSLB Summer Newsletter Part II

CSLB Summer Newsletter Part II, the analysis continues.

Direct Supervision and ControlThe CSLB summer newsletter contained an article about RMO abuses. While the law does allow a qualifier to be an RMO on up to three corporate licenses at the same time, the qualifier needs to ensure that they are involved in every project done under those licenses.

Here’s the article:

After a sharp rise in consumer complaints against license qualifiers who have been granted a test waiver, the Enforcement division has established a task force to investigate cases where Responsible Managing Officers (RMOs) are suspected of acting as paid figureheads for a company, but exercise little to no control over its operations.

Contractors who serve as qualifiers for a company’s construction operations must exercise direct control and supervision. If you are an RMO and do not have active involvement in the construction and business operations, you risk CSLB administrative penalties against your license(s) as well as criminal prosecution, regardless of whether you’re aware of substandard work being performed by unqualified individuals.

In a sample group investigated earlier this year, consumer complaints were filed against 40 percent of the RMOs who qualify licenses. A similar review in October 2012 identified complaints against 23 percent of the sample RMO group. By comparison, only about 3 percent of CSLB’s almost 300,000 licensed contractors are the subject of a consumer complaint each year.

The task force will be watching for exam waiver requests from applicants suspected of only seeking to rent their name for a fee. CSLB also will seek to revoke qualifier status previously granted to anyone whose actions demonstrate they do not have an ownership stake or are not active decision makers listed on a license.

A new law that took effect in January 2014, Business and Professions Code section 7068.1, now authorizes CSLB to discipline a qualifier, and the licensed entity they are qualifying, when the qualifier is not actively involved in the construction activities of the license they are representing. In addition to administrative penalties, the individual falsely serving as a qualifier on the license can be charged with a misdemeanor and be sentenced to serve up to six months in jail, and required to pay a fine from $3,000-$5,000, or both, if convicted.

A review of Business and Professions Code section 7065 will provide further explanation of examination waiver laws.

End of Article

Here are the interesting parts of this article.

1) What is the CSLB’s definition of “direct” control and supervision?

823. Definitions: Bona Fide Employee; Direct Supervision and Control:

(b) For purposes of Section 7068.1 of the Code, “direct supervision and control” includes any one or any combination of the following activities: supervising construction, managing construction activities by making technical and administrative decisions, checking jobs for proper workmanship, or direct supervision on construction job sites.

According to the law as written, you do not have to perform direct supervision on-site. The law states “any one or any combination of…” You could receive mailed or emailed updates, photographs, video conference. With today’s technology, you could review workmanship via skype, for example. I’m sure an attorney or judge would say… “The intent of the law is…” But if the CSLB is going to pursue qualifiers based on direct supervision and control, they better not penalize RMO’s for not setting foot on the job site. Again, the law states… “any one or combination of…”

2) Complaints filed against 40 percent of the RMOs who qualify licenses? Where did they get this stat from? And were those RMOs active owners in the business and how many of them qualify more than one license. They throw out a stat like that without detailing how many of those RMOs qualify more than one license.

Here is the most interesting part of this article.

“The task force will be watching for exam waiver requests from applicants suspected of only seeking to rent their name for a fee.”

“Suspected” of only seeking to rent their name… What guidelines will the CSLB be using to determine who is “suspected”? Are they suggesting that they will investigate, harass, go after any and all RMOs they feel are suspects? How would like to be running your above board business, following all applicable laws, only to receive a letter, phone call, or in person visit from a CSLB investigator that is arbitrarily throwing out an accusation that you may be in violation of 7068.1? If and when that happens, you’ll have to spend time and money to provide the CSLB with evidence that you are following the law. To me… it reeks of government overstepping. In other words… par for the CSLB course.

Are there people out their “renting” their name to qualify a license? Without a doubt! Should this practice be stopped? Without a doubt! But should a State agency have the power to put an entire class of people in the category of “suspect”? I think not.

CSLB Newsletter Summer 2014 Part 1

The CSLB Summer Newsletter 2014 was released today.

cslb newsletter foot in mouthI almost feel like I should thank the CSLB for publishing these newsletters because of the amount of blog posts they can generate. These newsletters give the CSLB the opportunity to continually stick their foot in their mouth in a widely publicized format, and me the opportunity to point it out.

A new Board Chair was elected, David Dias. Mr. Dias decided to make his first public written statement about his personal issues. Being a former HVAC guy, he’s decided to spend the Boards resources going after unlicensed HVAC contractors. Really? Shouldn’t he be focused on the construction industry as a whole? Or is he taking his position of power to tackle something that bothers him personally?

Here is his statement:

“After several extremely tough years for California’s construction industry, it appears that the worst is finally behind most of us, and the prospects for the remainder of this year look brighter for our colleagues. I am pleased to have been elected as CSLB’s Board Chair in this positive atmosphere, and look forward to more work – and jobs – for contractors as the state’s economy continues to recover.

I’m proud of the professionalism demonstrated by the vast majority of CSLB’s almost 300,000 licensees through good times and bad – those who maintained high standards and refrained from cheating, even under the strain of a crushing recession.

Unfortunately, there are always a few whose actions tarnish the reputation of our profession. In particular, I am troubled by the increasing number of complaints CSLB is receiving about predatory C-20 Warm-Air Heating, Ventilating and Air-Conditioning (HVAC) contractors who are targeting vulnerable consumers after being called out for simple repairs or routine maintenance. This really hits home since I’ve spent much of my career working in the HVAC field, and I find it disappointing that my honest, hard-working colleagues suffer from association with the industry’s bad apples.

CSLB is taking steps to warn and weed out this element. We hosted a conference in San Jose in May that brought together industry officials, regulators, and C-20 contractors to discuss HVAC installation. The event also introduced CSLB’s new “Ambassador Program,” an education and enforcement campaign. A similar town hall meeting for HVAC contractors was held in early July in San Leandro.

CSLB plans to continue its campaign of educational HVAC workshops to remind contractors about California’s service and repair contract laws and requirements, including a customer’s three-day right to rescind a home improvement contract.

CSLB is partnering with local district attorneys, the Better Business Bureau, and industry leaders on these efforts. I also encourage HVAC business owners to join us in identifying those who are victimizing consumers and damaging the industry’s reputation.

CSLB’s Enforcement division will be reinforcing its HVAC scam zero-tolerance policy through targeted undercover sting operations. You can help in this effort by offering your residential or commercial properties to use for sting operations. An article in this newsletter explains how you can help.”

This is my favorite part of his statement:

“look forward to more work – and jobs – for contractors as the state’s economy continues to recover” He’s not new to the Board, but it seems he hasn’t been paying attention at the meetings. The CSLB licensing division still has its underground and illegal regulations in place that make it extremely difficult to obtain a license. I’m shocked that they haven’t put out some stats that show how many B contractors obtained a license in 2013 compared to any previous year. Ok, no I’m not really shocked, because I’d bet that a lot fewer B contractors were licensed in 2013. So… “more work and jobs for contractors”?? Reality is… they’re creating more underground contractors.

My second favorite part of his statement:

“CSLB is partnering with local district attorneys, the Better Business Bureau…” First, haven’t they always been working with DA’s? They were when I worked there from 2000 – 2005. Has something changed? Next… the BBB. The CSLB is “partnering” with the BBB? Apparently the CSLB is unaware that the BBB is a paid membership business whose business model is to turn a profit, not protect consumers. And does the CSLB think that the BBB is receiving complaints from consumers that they aren’t receiving? “Partnering” with the BBB is just their way of blowing smoke up … to make it sound like they are actually doing something.

Stay tuned for CSLB Newsletter Summer 2014 Part 2 in the coming days where I’ll discuss the CSLB getting tough on RMOs.

Contractors License Exam Study Materials

Spread the Word! The License Guru offers contractors license exam study materials at the lowest price available!

You won’t find a lower price for our complete license exam study materials anywhere! We have kits for every California construction trade!

Get yours Today!

Each kit is under $300 and includes:

  • Trade Exam study manualContractors Trade Manual with Discs
  • Law & Business study manual
  • Practice Tests on paper
  • Online Practice Exams for 6 Months
  • Math & Health/Safety Discs with most trades
  • Audio Lectures on CDs
  • Video Lectures on DVDs
  • UPS ground shipping. *Overnight shipping is available
  • 11 Downloadable forms and documents to help you with your contractors license
  • FREE license application review

Our contractor licensing exam prep courses are the best in the industry. We offer trade and law manuals filled with the knowledge needed to pass the State exam. Our practice exams are constantly updated to follow the most recent changes in the State exams. Our DVD and audio CD lectures feature construction experts who walk the you through the written manuals.

Get yours Today!

About our Trade Manuals

Each trade classification has a unique Trade Manual that reviews basic math and estimating formulas, Cal/OSHA regulations, and trade topics that are covered on the State exam.

General Knowledge

Each trade has a General Knowledge section that covers key topics specific to the trade that you’ll need to know to pass the State exam.

Review Questions

This section of the manual includes the “most difficult” questions with explanations. Each manual with a review questions section also has available a DVD or Audio CD that walks you through the questions.

Get yours Today!

If you would like more information about contractors license exam study materials, please feel free to contact us using the form below. We promise: No pressure sales! Only great customer service!

[gravityform id=”1″ name=”Quick Contact”]

Whats New in California Contractors Licensing

Whats New in California Contractors Licensing?

Well, there doesn’t appear to be much new happening in the world of California contractors licensing. I haven’t heard from anyone new about their license application struggles.

Could everything be going smoothly at the CSLB? I highly doubt that. They haven’t been able to get their act together over the last 15 years.

Are you, or someone you know, in need of application advise? Do you need an application prepared or reviewed? Are you looking for high quality, low cost exam study materials? If so, please feel free to contact me. I reply to emails even after business hours, so don’t hesitate in dropping me a line.

 

Email from a License Guru Blog Reader

Below is an email from a License Guru Blog reader describing her CSLB experience review nightmare.

CSLB Red Tape“I have been following the license guru blog for about 7 months now which is just 3 months short of the full year my husband has been getting the run around from the investigator assigned to his file.  On 06/13/13 the application was submitted and from there everything that you could possibly imagine in your worst nightmare happened.  The investigator began with requests for additional documentation to support the work experience forms that were submitted by two previous employers.  So the dog and pony show began.

We would get the documents and then submit them  only to find out that she needed one more thing…something she did not request the first go around,  and on and on this went on with the two employers, her, us and then she asked for more 1099’s which led to more people being sent forms for work experience, permits, pretty much everything but them signing in blood.  Even with certified mail it seemed she just did not have all the items to find the 4 years of experience she needed.  Or her other excuse was she could not contact the people….which is totally a lie since each and every person never received phone calls from her and we checked with them and found that she had not left messages or attempted.  Finally it was to the point that she made it her mission to deny this application.  Literally a day before his test date she said you might as well just not take it since you will not be approved for your work experience anyway.  It was amazing the total inexperience and lack of support.  Something that we felt needed to be brought the attention of her supervisors.  So, we called a meeting and did just that.  We went with the full binder of documentation with all supporting documents on a job by job basis from each previous employer and we also asked for each employer prior to that day if they would mind being called on our meeting day if necessary to speak with CSLB or answer any questions.  All agreed and were on stand by.  Also realize we ended up pulling 1099’s over 12 year period…and had letters written to explain what each job entailed along with building permits and copies of receipts.  I mean we were prepared!  When we got into the meeting we sat down with the investigator and two supervisors.  She said, “So what are we hear for today?”  Of course I wanted to say are you freaking kidding me?  But I let my husband start and so he said Basically we are confused why this is taking so long to verify my work experience.  All of this information is so detailed and we have letters, permits, 1099’s, W2’s, and even have pictures (even thought she said they were not acceptable) we brought them to show the quality work he has done.  She said, “Well i have only been able to verify 14 months and there is just not all the pieces to support the rest.  So that is when I said, I have prepared this binder with all the documents that have been sent to you.  But it has been organized in a way to show each job, timeframes, support, pictures, etc.  So, I handed it to the Supervisors and they started to view and started to ask the investigator what she could not verify.  She flipped through her mess of folders, which was all scribble and unorganized and when I said what is missing with employer #1, as she looked for that persons name she said oh I don’t see that one.  Hmmm was that one returned to me?  And so the meeting rolled on with much more of this same thing…her fumbling, us proving, Supervisors eyebrows raising, questions  about why this had not proceeded, etc…finally the last straw was when she called out one employer as not being able to specify that my husband did structural work for them.  She literally put words into the employers mouth and how we know that is what transpired next.  A phone call was made per the request of her supervisors to call the employer in question (one that would support 3 years of experience) the employer got on the phone and the investigator started the manipulation right in front of us.  She said remember when i asked you about what “my husband” did for you?  I asked if he did structural work and you said that he did sheetrock and remodels.  The employer said yes that is true, so the investigator said so he did not do any structural work on the jobs he did for you.  The employer said well wait a minute i guess the way it was asked of me made me think of it as new construction work, so no our work has not been brand new construction…but the work he has done is basically taking everything on old construction down to wood and foundation and rebuilding with new electrical, plumbing and framing, pretty much the works.  Plus he has supervised a crew to do so…so yes if that means structural then absolutely.  Well, bingo it was pretty much a given that the original conversation with no one to witness was most definately manipulated.  After the phone call, I just stated that I did not feel as if the investigator really understood her job, and that she was not in any way helpful.  The Supervisor asked if I could leave the binder.  I said I was uncomfortable with that since it was clear that the investigator had obviously lost documents previously sent via certified mail and that I would prefer they make another copy of all the documents that she should already all have at the meeting today.

So they sent her to make some copies.  Meanwhile they agreed that there was plenty of documentation and that we would not need to go to the hearing….it would be moved on from the investigator to the next step.  Upon her arrival back into the room one of the Supervisors was clearly irritated with her and said they were hiring for investigator positions and wondered if I was interested in applying!  He went on to say he was very impressed by the documentation binder that was presented by us and our presentation of it.  The investigator gave out a loud scowl and stormed out of the room.  Well I guess she does not like me!

Anyway,  we are still waiting for the final paperwork to come back…we have called and CSLB says it is in final stage and paperwork should be coming to tell us about securing the bond so that the license number can be issued.  That was 2 weeks ago!  I can’t believe this and I also realize now that majority of people that have this happen would just give up.  It has been a fight and something I would not wish on my worst enemy.

Any recommendations on what to do now?  When you check his application number online it just says application denied, do not schedule exam, but that has been that way since right after his exam was scheduled and he passed!  Amazing, what to do?  I feel like this is borderline unethical, and borderline against the law!  In addition there have been 3 major jobs that have come and gone that my husband could have bid on had he been licensed.  Possible loss of income not to mention the hours spent on phone, document preparation, mail and on and on.

Very tired and very frustrated.”

I want to thank this reader for sharing her CSLB experience with us. She has shown that the CSLB does not know how to handle people who are prepared and willing to stand up to them. As of this posting, the app is still in limbo. My guess is, the CSLB is trying to resolve this without making themselves look any worse than they already do.

If you find yourself in this situation…. put together a neatly prepared, organized binder and request a meeting with the CSLB. And remember…. DOCUMENT EVERYTHING, including phone calls!! Always ask the CSLB to put their requests in writing! This is vital!

CSLB Streamlines License Experience Review Process

Industry Bulletin released today: CSLB Streamlines License Experience Review Process

CSLB streamlines application process“SACRAMENTO — The Contractors State License Board (CSLB) is the government agency that oversees California’s construction industry and protects consumers by ensuring that license applicants have the minimum qualifications required by law. An important part of this process is verifying and investigating the experience claimed by an applicant. CSLB has a legal mandate to investigate a minimum of 3 percent of applications received for the claimed experience.

Previously, applications and experience claims were reviewed and processed by CSLB’s Licensing division and the formal experience investigations were conducted by CSLB’s Enforcement division. In some cases, this divided process resulted in a duplication of efforts and longer processing times.

To streamline the process and provide more efficient services to license applicants, the experience investigation program now has been transferred to CSLB’s Licensing division.

The transfer will not change CSLB’s policy as it relates to the experience qualifications required of applicants. As mandated by law, CSLB will continue to require four years of journey-level experience within the last 10 years immediately preceding the submission of the application. In the case of experience verification and investigation, the applicant still must provide documentation to substantiate the experience claimed on his or her application.”

Where do I begin?

Why does the CSLB continue to stick with this 3% mandate nonsense. First they created their list of “critical classifications” (not approved by the legislature), then they claim that by REQUIRING those applicants to provide documentation, they are part of the minimum of 3% of all apps received?

Let’s get Real CSLB!

The 3% law is meant to be a sampling of all apps received. REQUIRING certain applicants to provide experience documentation is NOT a sampling. Your REQUIREMENT to have applicants that are applying for one of your illegal “critical classifications” is, in itself, ILLEGAL! 3% minimum and mandatory are two completely separate things.

No Need for the Law!

It’s more than obvious that the rule of law does not pertain to the CSLB! There is a legal process that they must go through if they are going to change what is already written into law. It just floors me that they think they can just make up the rules whenever it suits them!

Smoke and Mirrors? Or a Dog and Pony Show?

I’m not sure which one we’re dealing with here. Smoke and Mirrors? The bulletin could be meant as a smoke screen of… We ARE the CSLB, this is what WE do! Or it could be a Dog and Pony show because they have no clue what they’re doing and they want us to think they do. Either way… what they’re doing is illegal. Plain and simple!

What are the qualifications of the people reviewing the applications?

That’s what I want to know. I know for a fact that one of their “investigators” has a background in marketing. The other investigator? Who knows. Unless and until they bring in people who have ACTUAL construction experience, the applicants will be paying the price.

 Experience investigation program now has been transferred to CSLB’s Licensing division

How many apps have been “reviewed” by licensing, only to be transferred to Enforcement because the “investigator” had no clue what they were reviewing? Far too many!! Who is going to back them up now?

CSLB Streamlines License Experience Review Process?

I can tell you right now, that this decision will NOT streamline the process. They are going to generate such a backlog, it’s going to be mind boggling.

Darkest before the Dawn

It’s been said that it gets darkest before the dawn, well folks, we may be approaching dawn and I fear it’s going to be a very ugly day now that the fox is in charge of the hen house.

CalOSHA Targets Construction Sites for Inspections

CSLB Industry Bulletin

Following a series of fatal accidents involving construction workers, CSLB is passing along an announcement from the California Department of Industrial Relations about upcoming inspections of construction sites in the San Francisco Bay Area. CSLB likewise encourages rigorous training programs and on-site safety measures to protect construction workers from danger. 

Cal/OSHA TargeCAL OSHAts Construction Sites for Inspections

OAKLAND — Cal/OSHA is focusing on safety compliance at construction sites in the San Francisco Bay Area, following a recent series of fatal accidents in the region. Investigators have been deployed to inspect construction work sites throughout the coming weeks to determine whether adequate measures have been taken to identify safety hazards and prevent injury.

“Construction sites present special challenges to worker safety,” said Christine Baker, Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). “Employers need to have strong safety programs in place and train their workers to follow procedures.”

Cal/OSHA is a division of state Department of Industrial Relations.

Hazards at construction sites include open trenches and moving equipment at ground level, but elevated areas are particularly dangerous. Four recent incidents in California illustrate the danger.

On May 21, a worker at a residential project in San Jose fell to his death from a three-story building. On May 20, a worker on a San Mateo project tumbled nine feet from a wall, sustaining fatal head injuries. The same day in San Diego, a worker near the top of 22-foot rebar column was killed when the column fell on him. On May 18, a construction worker was killed when the train bridge he was dismantling in downtown Riverside collapsed, crushing him. All four accidents are under investigation by Cal/OSHA.

Falls are the leading cause of death for construction workers, which is one reason why the federal Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) has designatedJune 2-6 as “National Safety Stand-Down” week to encourage employers to talk with workers about fall hazards and prevention.

Cal/OSHA has posted an industry-specific fact sheet on fall protection online, and will be participating with federal OSHA in a series of “Safety Stand-Down” events at construction sites across the state to bring emphasis to the importance of fall protection and other safety measures at construction sites.

“Our goal is to raise awareness for everyone working in construction that hazards can be identified and corrected,” said acting Cal/OSHA Chief Juliann Sum. “Preparation and vigilance are vital to preventing workplace fatalities.”

Fall protection will be among the items Cal/OSHA inspectors will be checking during its inspections, from railings on buildings to personal devices such as hooks that attach to vests. Cal/OSHA’s teams will also examine trench safety, equipment safety and potential site hazards such as power lines. If inspectors find a lack of protection or a serious hazard, they can stop work at the site until the hazards are abated. Employers who fail to comply with Cal/OSHA safety regulations will be cited and ordered to correct the violations.

Cal/OSHA has resources available for employers and employees on its website, including safety publications for industries such as construction. Cal/OSHA’sConsultation Program provides free and voluntary assistance to employers and employee organizations to improve their health and safety programs. For assistance from the Cal/OSHA Consultation Program, employers can call (800) 963-9424.

Additional information on specific issues and work-related topics are available on the DIR website as well as on Facebook and Twitter.