Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Starting a Lawn Care Business' started by GardnerLandscaping, Jul 25, 2006.
From the horses mouth...
yeah the license is 25 maybe, but not the testing, the extra insurance you need, ect. It's really BS how they make a simple thing into something not even profitable for the smaller guys.
ya, he forgot to mention the extra liability insurance needed for the contractor license. the test is just that much in my state. the review materials are more expensive, especially those regarding lawncare, and is managed by a professor at the UGA. i do think it is a load of crap to require the testing and license. it started back in 1976 and probably expanded to lawn care when the first big lawn care company was losing customers to smaller companies and he talked to a legislator buddy about putting up that obstacle.
Also might have to do with all the "illegal" applicators putting down poisons with out a shred of knowledge in what they are doing. That why ins. cost so much, its expensive to clean up the water system.
Dude I drove past a commercial hotel my partner cuts (they have chem lawn for treatments though), and the guy was spraying and walking into it at the same time. These jackasses are working off the COMPANY'S LICENSE, not getting their own. I question this company's hiring policy.
Dude theres still someone with the knowledge and Lisence in the office thats reponsable for any trouble that arises. The authrities know where to go get the money. If the guy was walking into the spray then he just a dumb azz because even TG/CL don't teach there employees to spray like that
And in many states, the employee working under another license still has to pass the test and get an operators license.
As if the illegal applicators are any different from the home owners who buy and apply these chemicals the same way as any landscaper, in the cracks of the pavement when it is dry and directly into landscape beds away from other plants. If they were harmful to the environment or water systems, tame chemicals like RoundUp would be restricted and not sold OTC.
Restricting the extended versions and total vergation, which use the stronger and more lingering salt, is more understandable. However, you can spray a crack with RoundUp one week, and a new weed will grow in it's place the next week.
In other words, the law is a load of crap. You can safely assume it was designed to protect the bigger companies from competition. And as the commissioner stated, this is exactly what happens, the big companies go after their competition with this law.
Write your state legislators and push for relaxing this law for things like weed-and-feed and RoundUp but keeping it in place for things like total vegatation and extended control.
If they don't support you, you can tell your Republican legislator he is a pinko commie. If it is Democrat legislator, you can call her a corporate pig. oink oink.
I sent this follow-up back to the agriculture commission and cc'd it along with the whole email conversation attached to it to the republican chair and democrat whip on the agriculture committee. If you live in Georgia, please do the same if you feel as I do. Statistically, 1 email represents a view that is important to 3,000 other people who don't write.
BTW, you might want to distribute the information that there isn't the "no
charge loophole" in the law. I've heard it from others which is why I asked
since I didn't think that would be true.
Also, it would be nice if the study materials were published in PDF on the
Internet. If the laws are set up truly to protect the environment and
prevent damages, it would be public information, especially since homeowners
are using the chemicals everyday on their own lawns legally without
To me, it does seem like the laws are setup to hurt the new and small
business rather than do a public good. Especially, when chemicals like
Weed-and-Feed and RoundUp should be OTC for everyone, while lingering
chemicals like that found in Ortho Total Vegetation and the relabeled
"Extended Control" products should be restricted to everyone. There is no
difference between the landscaper and the homeowner in using these products.
If anything, the landscaper is self-motivated to be more responsible than the
homeowner because the landscaper gets fired if anything bad happens.