The Truth About HB 462
The following is a guest post from one of our readers on the impact of HB 462, the Locksmith Regulation Bill. Wayne McDonald is a small business owner in Northern Virginia and a Locksmith.
I am a locksmith in Northern VA. I started my company 13 years ago and have grown every year since then. I make a habit of running a background check on all of my potential employees: it just makes good sense to do so.
As far as who introduced this bill: This bill was introduced to Del Albo by the owners of two of the largest locksmith companies in Northern VA.
I’ve heard that one of these two companies is the 3rd largest in the country. These two companies have tried buying out the competition; they’ve tried to motivate their competition to raise their prices, I’ve even heard that they’ve tried stealing customers from locksmiths by badmouthing their competition. I get a lot of calls from former customers of these two companies that are very dissatisfied with the service they had gotten and the quality. I feel that they can’t handle the competition!
A national locksmith association, ALOA – Associated Locksmiths of America, sent an email to its members with the subject line “ASK THE SENATE TO SUPPORT VIRGINIA LOCKSMITH'S RIGHT TO GOVERN THEMSELVES!” How can any licensing law allow us locksmiths to govern themselves?
Wayne McDonald, CRL, President
The Lock Guys
At
Residential Locksmith, Inc, a VA Corporation
The Virginian Federalist has more on HR 462 here:
General Assembly Analysis: Licensing the Locksmiths
Breaking: Locksmith Regulation Bill Passes Senate Committee
7 comments:
This licensing bill will not provide protection from scam artists. If I pay a fee I can get a Class C contractors license which doesn't require a background check, then I can continue working on locks. There are times that my lock work is ancillary to my other work so I can easily fall into that exemption/loophole.
As written HB462 may possibly become a National or Homeland Security risk if it becomes law. The history of this bill reveals some interesting faux pas’. It was drawn up in the false pretense as a way to stop scammers from taking advantage of consumers. The consumer was never given the first thought or chance to voice their opinion. The Locksmith, on the other hand was relieved from having any input that would protect the publics’ welfare. Unfortunately the bill is so flawed with exemptions that allow nearly ANYONE who is NOT a Locksmith to breach security as long as they don’t stand up and call themselves a Locksmith. HB462 is slipping through the cracks swiftly without the public’s knowledge.
In northern Virginia the Yellow Page Sales force allowed a flood of companies not located in Virginia, to enter the Locksmithing category. Some of these companies are even Israeli entities based on news clips aired in California. There are over a thousand ads from them using local numbers that are forwarded to one number from some other State or location. They scam the consumer with fictitious low pricing quotes to get the job. They then send untrained persons to perform the unprofessional work for preplanned higher pricing arrangements. Please note at the end of this comment, the already aired news clips in California I will provide.
In reality this was a Commerce problem dealing with bad business practice and deceitful advertising gimmicks. We need a law for something like that! Oh my. We do have a couple out there don’t we?
HB462 was ignited by only a handful of large northern Locksmith Companies that I don’t believe had the interest of the public welfare in mind when they began, but rather their own profit margins. Competition was the only factor used in devising this new scam on Licensing. That is also the case made by Wayne McDonalds guest post, “The Truth About HB462”.
There is large disapproval within the State involving many true Locksmith Companies who agree that this bill is dangerous to the publics’ welfare, safety, and security. The public is even now unaware of what danger they are soon to be exposed to because of this mess. HB462 if passed, may go down in history as an example of how a dangerously worthless bill is written. Well done Delegate Albo!
Some feedback received from input offered up to the sponsors by Virginia locksmiths during this race towards a License was astonishing as well. Changes were asked for as a way to limit the ridiculously large amount of exemptions that are dangerous to any bill.
The response was:
You must acquiesce to the special interest groups who want in. Only after the bill is passed can you make changes.
"Don't even try, without exempting the Merchants Association, you will be wasting your time." "The Delegates are the ones who make the rules.”
I didn’t go to the same school that these sponsors attended. I always thought that the U. S. and Virginia Constitutions were the rule books to follow when it has to do with a Law, For and By the People. HB462 seems to be only about Locksmiths. The Locksmith will pay for everyone else’s right to practice this profession. The Locksmith will be the only one required to comply. Now the public will suffer even more.
A License involving Security requires few to no exemptions other than by Government entities authorized. That protects the public. For a License of this nature to work it requires that any business involving Locksmith service should have a Licensed Locksmith on payroll. This is no different than a Plumbing business offering Electrical or Air Conditioning service within their scope of services. They must have a Licensed Electrician on the payroll. There are many other examples of why a Locksmith should be on the payroll of any entity requiring these specialized skills that are inherent qualities peculiar to the profession. The job description of a Tow service is to Tow vehicles. AAA has many real Locksmiths on their list of service providers at their disposal. They did this for a good reason. They are becoming realistic about the need for special skills.
In closing I would add that I in fact support the idea of Licensing Locksmiths. HB462 needs to go back to the drawing board and begin again with the publics’ welfare as the goal to strive for. HB462 as is, will only tear down the reputation of Locksmiths and degrade the second oldest trade in history.
I urge all who read this commentary to make our representatives reconsider their position and start over with a better plan for a safer License for the people.
References:
http://www.richmondsunlight.com/bill/2008/hb462/
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4072007
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/7_on_your_side&id=5863812
Thanks for your time,
Johnny Mayo - Certified Master Locskmith
I currently own and operate a Security firm / Locksmith company in Charlottesville, Virginia. The alarm services arm of our business is currently licensed and regulated by the Virginia DCJS. I am also an Architect currently licensed by the Virginia DPOR and a Contractor currently licensed by the Virginia DPOR. At various points in my career of almost four decades I have been licensed as an Architect in as many as six other states.
So you might say I have pretty extensive experience with licensure in various forms, and very specific experience with the Virginia DCJS. Throughout the last four decades I have seen how licensure has evolved in various states and how it has positively affected both the citizens of the states and the industries regulated. I can safely state that during this time I have seen more horror stories that bemoan the case for licensure and regulation than I could ever post here. And also during this time I have fought my share of battles against those who would run roughshod over professional standards of behavior and the public trust.
No matter what profession is examined, there are those who would do whatever they can to avoid requirements that have been put in place to protect the public. And every time there has been an effort to bolster this protection for the public, there have been cries that licensure and requirements of regulation on the professions are an encroachment on our liberties or freedoms, that they hurt the small business owner or that they prevent competition. Nothing could be further from the truth. As long as the fees are reasonable and the standards set to not only protect the public but raise the level of professional behavior, I have seen that both the public and the industries benefit.
So cries in opposition are what I naturally expect. In my experience, however, often these cries turn out to be smokescreens thrown out by those who want to avoid the behavior that protects the public and raises standards of professionalism. The cries against this locksmith licensure are nothing less. In this very case, for instance, one of the most vocal members of the opposition has admitted to me in an email that he does not abide by state law for current regulations. How could anyone expect such an individual to be anything but in opposition to this new effort!!!!
As locksmiths are one of the last groups that make improvements to the built environment which affect privacy and public safety, this licensure is long overdue. As both an Architect and a Certified Master Locksmith, I have been flabbergasted by what I routinely see in this industry. I have seen people walk into my shop looking for work, fail a background check because of previous felony convictions for offenses such as breaking and entering or assault, then be hired by other locksmiths. We routinely find ourselves following behind the work of others who have ignored NFPA 101 Life Safety Code requirements in ways such as the incompetent or malicious installion of unsafe hardware in the paths of egress, who have incompetently quoted the customer incorrect solutions for the job, who have dishonestly installed something other than quoted, or who have simply abandoned work and left the customer without recouse to address problems left behind. It is past time for this industry to be cleaned up by regulation. We need to inject standards of professionalism, including requirements for training and education, requirements for insurance, requirements for ethical and honest behavior.
I am really pleased that the vehicle chosen to accomplish this task is the Virginia DCJS. More so than the Virginia DPOR, the DCJS is positioned to provide the best enforcement and compliance for this industry. In the locksmith industry, we are not just dealing with life safety and building code compliance. We are not just in need of enforcement of ethical and honest behavior, or the necessity of making sure that the public is protected by requirements for insurance. We are dealing with SECURITY. And the work done by this industry ties directly into our increased need for HOMELAND SECURITY. We are working with the public in matters that directly affect the privacy of their lives and the protection of their property in the places the public lives and works. This is why the background check is so important and also why only the DCJS is positioned to provide an all encompassing umbrella of enforcement.
I have studied this bill and I believe it hits the bulls eye in this effort. For now, I would not ask that a single word be changed. In my experience over the years with various state licensing agencies, I have found that the Virginia DCJS does a great job. And with this bill I believe my experience will continue. The fees charged are reasonable, the enforcement active and effective, and the benefit to the public and the industry significant.
I urge you to support this bill. And after this effort is completed, I think we should continue efforts by working to add Access Control and CCTV security professionals under the same bill. Anyone who has access to sensitive security information that affects the privacy rights of individuals and protects their lives and property, and anyone who installs security equipment that affects the requirements addressed by the NFPA 101 Life Safety Codes should fall under the requirements of this bill.
Stewart K Brown III
Architect, Contractor, Certified Master Locksmith
I strive in my own business, to heighten the professionalism of the locksmith industry and try to educate customers on what they should expect from our service. Licensing if done right would only help to edify the locksmith and public as well. HB462 was written in a quixotic manner. In order to propitiate the reputation of the locksmith, exemptions should have been kept to a minimum.
It may be correct to assume the bull’s eye was achieved because the target itself was designed with the expanded boundaries of exemptions.
There are those who in fact oppose the need for licensing to avoid the mandatory requirements involved. There are those who hold on to the crochet that a license would be the panacea for the locksmith profession. To dissemble a license effort just for the sake of competition would be machination. To acquiesce on every word of a document would be docile. At the same time you have those who are so contentious that they are effusive in dialog. Even they have questions in need of explanations.
The Locksmith License is laudable in its true purpose, but the exemptions make room for deleterious possibilities. In effect the many exemptions do NOT bolster protection for the publics’ security or Homeland Security. A license with unrelated exemptions simply creates open doors. It is true some of the opposition to the HB462 is warrantless fear that competition would suffer and the small business could not afford the fees. An interesting contrast to those fears is that competition would beget HB462. The public was not part of the equation.
I welcome Licensing and concur there will be benefits toward raising standards of professionalism. My hope is not to expunge HB462 but rather ameliorate the bill towards becoming the paragon of licensing standards. For me to accept a bill that will affect my own livelihood, as flawless, would be passive. It is healthy practice to question and argue the merits of any proposal.
“As long as I can conceive something better than myself I cannot be easy unless I am striving to bring it into existence or clearing the way for it” George Bernard Shaw
In my career I have followed incompetent workmanship that would be salient to even the lay person. Ninety nine percent of the time the shabby substandard work had been performed not by a locksmith, but by an attorney, accountant, tow truck driver, taxi cab driver, contractor, merchant, plumber, electrician, handyman, government authorities, and many other exempted entities added to HB462.
A license will properly reduce the dishonesty and unethical practices of some questionable legitimate locksmiths. It will not reduce dishonesty, deceit, scamming operations, or unethical practices from knocking on our public’s door. If some of the wording in HB462 were to change limiting the exemptions, the target would have more meaning. The public would have a better chance getting the proper professional service the first time, and the locksmith would not have to feel intimidated by government or the publics’ view of our profession from work previously done by the exempted many.
I urge support for licensing and see the need in other facets of the industry as well. I do not support HB462 as it is written and soon to become law. I welcome the benefits it presumes to provide. I will support and abide by the law created by HB462 with anxious enthusiasm. The fees involved are of no consequence compared to the large portion of my income already feeding the tax empire. I look forward to what tomorrow brings. It has truly been an interesting voyage.
Johnny Mayo CML
Charlottesville, Va
Johnny, to answer what seems the be the beef of your post, I just do not have this fear of the exemptions that you and some others seem to have. Most of the fear seems to be focused on the taxicab drivers and towtruck drivers, but you seem to throw in accountants as well (?). I don't see any real worry about the taxicab drivers or the towtruck drivers (or my accountant either, however I might fear my lawyer because he will probably call me to come over and fix what he botches up). They have always done openings, and always will. This bill will not change that, nor should we expect it to do so.
I'm not saying this out of ignorance of the market. Since you are in our area, you know that a very healthy percentage of the time Browns Lock is the one answering the lockout calls, especially late at night. And very often people tell us that at midnight or 3:00 AM they called 5 or 6 companies and no one picked up the phone but us!! And that's not just in our area - we get calls to Richmond, Lynchburg, all up and down the valley, etc. The national companies like Geico and others tell us "We can't find anyone else, will you go?" and we end up driving 100 miles in the middle of the night to go help someone locked out.
So everyone crying out that the exemptions will allow towtruck drivers and taxicabs to eat their lunch are just throwing out false fears. People just need to answer their phones!
Also the fear that taxicab drivers and towtruck drivers and the others are going to set themselves up as locksmiths is unfounded. I think maybe everyone should read the bill closely and understand what it REALLY says:
1. First of all, "Locksmith" is very well defined and includes openings. From the current bill:
“Locksmith” means any individual that performs locksmith services, or advertises or represents to the general public that the individual is a locksmith even if the specific term locksmith is substituted with any other term by which a reasonable person could construe that the individual possesses special skills relating to locks or locking devices, including use of the words lock technician, lockman, safe technician, safeman, boxman, unlocking technician, lock installer, lock opener, physical security technician or similar descriptions.
"Locksmith services” mean selling, servicing, rebuilding, repairing, rekeying, repinning, changing the combination to an electronic or mechanical locking device; programming either keys to a device or the device to accept electronic controlled keys; originating keys for locks or copying keys; adjusting or installing locks or deadbolts, mechanical or electronic locking devices, egress control devices, safes, and vaults; opening, defeating or bypassing locks or latching mechanisms in a manner other than intended by the manufacturer; with or without compensation for the general public or on property not his own nor under his own control or authority.
2. Secondly, the exemptions everyone seems to mostly fear are not allowed to hold themselves out to the public as a "Locksmith". From the bill:
"Taxicab and towing businesses performing locksmith services that do not represent themselves to the general public as locksmiths."
The same statement applies to the others changed in the bill - contractors, retail store, etc.
So explain to me please, how are taxicab drivers and towtruck drivers going to eat into your business if they can't even hold themselves out to the public as "Locksmiths", which by very definition means they cannot even tell the public they do any of the services mentioned? A strict interpretation of the bill makes it illegal for them to even mention any locksmith work if someone just calls up and asks over the phone. The way the bill is written they can only effectively do work like openings during the normal course of their advertised work. And if that is too much for some, then perhaps we should make it a law that those who want to eliminate this eemption will have to answer their phones and get up in the middle of the night to go let somebody in! ;-)
We already have extensive experience with these exemptions - this is not new stuff. The exemptions have already proven to work just fine. Maybe most of those who fear these exemptions have not been involved in alarm work so they don't have experience with the DCJS and how the DCJS operates. But from our experience with the DCJS, we already know they can enforce this - they already strictly enforce the alarm business this way. If there is an alarm business operating in the grey zone with regards to the regulations, they go after it agressively and bring it in line. The same is true in all the areas of security that the DCJS regulates.
But in truth, the biggest enforcer on those not complying will be the public. Once the public becomes aware that only Licensed Locksmiths are the ones to be entrusted with their security work, there will be far, far fewer opprtunities for those trying to get by without licenses or those trying to do security work by way of a purported exemption.
So I would urge everyone to calm down in their fears of the exemptions. The bill is well written, it covers the bases plenty adequately, the DCJS will do a great job, and both the the locksmith industry and the public will greatly benefit from it.
Respectfully,
Stewart Brown, CML
Hey Stewart!
Sometimes the subject strays from the point. I never had a fear of competition as that is a good thing for us and the consumer. My only true concern is the publics’ welfare and security.
I do not comprehend why accountants were included on the exempted list?! Tow companies and taxi companies are entitled to perform their business as usual, but should not be exempt from the services they don’t necessarily offer, but do emulate the locksmith. It is commonly understood what services the tow truck driver performs. They never did hold themselves out as a locksmith. If the service does not involve towing the vehicle they should not be exempt. They should be held to similar training requirements a locksmith would partake in for the publics’ benefit.
If we are going to place the locksmith profession in a position of prominence, HB462 should include training requirements for any business or entity, performing without offering, locksmith services. To stand up and announce that you are not a locksmith but you can do the work, should not exempt them. If they choose not to take part, they have the option of putting a locksmith on the payroll. End user excluded. My only true concern is the public when it involves security at any level. It is similar to how electricians are licensed. End user not excluded in many cases.
The point on late night calls is well taken. I have my share as well and get similar calls from National Auto Clubs. I would never be able to satisfy near as many as you because of my size. AAA is realizing the need for locksmiths because of the innovations coming out of the auto industry. They use the tow operators as well. I service more home and business lockouts than automotive. It’s not about who gets the call.
Stewart, if you know me well enough, then you would know my concern was never about money or competition. My hope was pointed towards the publics’ welfare. If or when this bill becomes law, I will pray that it performs beyond even your expectations. I definitely respect your thoughts on it and appreciate your feedback tremendously!:)
Sincerely,
Johnny Mayo
Mr Brown, et. al.:
You want everyone to think that those of us who oppose this bill the way it is currently written are only concerned about exemptions for taxi cabs and tow trucks; alright, since there are other exemptions, let's not talk about cab drivers and tow trucks anymore.
Instead, let's talk about other groups that are exempt from the locksmith license and real world cases specifically similar to the ones you glossed over with a superficial brush.
You like to praise the contractor’s license so much, let’s start by talking about real world cases involving contractors:
Example 1: A general contractor hired one of his subcontractors to do additional work and install an exit device on a fire door. In general, the subcontractor (a licensed contractor himself) did a good job; only one slight problem, the lock didn’t work the way it was installed! After the subcontractor spent 4 hours trying to resolve the problem, I was called. After looking at the exit device for less than 5 seconds, I laughed out loud and then fixed the problem in a few minutes. The vertical rod latches were installed upside down. The latch labeled TOP was at the bottom and visa versa. A licensed contractor mistake thinking he knows locks! Exempt from locksmith training by not needing a locksmith license! He doesn’t know locks!
Example 2: A General contractor with a ‘Class A License’ provided IC Cores for the exterior rear door hardware. To my surprise, I found a construction core was still being used in a lock on the back door of a jewelry store six months after occupancy started. I picked the IC Core cylinders at the lug shear line to examine the core. The problem with this construction core was that only one chamber was pinned. A licensed contractor mistake thinking he knows locks! Exempt from locksmith training by not needing a locksmith license! So much for security!
Example 3: You’re in the alarm business; let’s talk about licensed alarm contractors. I got a call to rekey locks for a guy who had just moved in to his home. He didn’t have a keyed lock on the door from the garage into the house. The alarm contractor he had install his alarm system said he didn’t need a keyed lock since he had a metal role up door with a good electric door opener. I went out to my van, got a tool, and disconnected the role up garage door opener from the door while standing outside the door in about 10 seconds. A licensed alarm contractor mistake thinking he knows security! Exempt from locksmith training by not needing a locksmith license! So much for knowing security!
Example 4: I was called to open a car for a guy that left his keys inside the car. When I got there, I found a high quality car opening tool wedged inside the door. It took me longer to get the “Security Guards” under the window tool out of the door than it actually took to get the door unlocked with my inexpensive pro-lock tool that I’ve been using for 10 years. An armed guard’s mistake thinking he knew how to open a car with his expensive tool. Exempt from locksmith training by not needing a locksmith license! And you want to exempt tow…
Do you need more examples? These are just classic examples of non-locksmiths thinking that they know locking devices and security! Yes, on a rare occasion I get a call to come in behind another locksmith and fix their mess, but, it’s much more common to come in behind a contractor and clean up their mess, because they us hardware that doesn’t meet code or they install it wrong (sometimes on the wrong side of the door)!
Why are you so afraid of a licensing bill that doesn’t exempt significantly large groups that are involved in security? Why are you so afraid of me that you have to threaten me with a compliance violation charge when there is no regulation for me to comply with (DPOR said so, besides, compliance is a DCJS activity not DPOR, try to get the facts straight when you make a threat)?
HB462 should be titled “The Locksmith Discrimination” bill or better yet “The Locksmith Punishment” bill since it is nothing more than a professional TAX on people who want to call themselves “Locksmiths!” It provides no protection to the public; the public’s not even asking for it! DCJS doesn’t regulate prices (ask them)! DCJS will take anonymous complaints, even bogus ones (ask them); so much for the right to face your accuser (the constitution goes down the drain again)! If we’re going to protect the public, contractors and handymen need to be licensed! In examples 1, 2 & 3 above, the Building Inspector and Fire Marshall didn’t care since people had no restriction on exiting; but, there was either no security or very limited security!
A license that exempts the vast majority of people that are involved in security issues is just as bogus as the scam artists providing locksmith services. Compliance will be easy to circumvent!
Wayne McDonald, CRL, President
The Lock Guys
At
Residential Locksmith, Inc, a VA Corporation
Post a Comment