I'm totally with you, and that was where my head was at when I started, but it has become increasingly clear that in my regional market, that ISA cert carries a lot of weight, and will almost certainly help me get more work, and better kinds of jobs. I know a guy that is doing really well with a well established base of clientelle who used to be certified and then stopped renewing once he had secured said client base.
Let's say you are at $400 per hour.
I can see your point there, if your market is different that’s great, go out and get the certification! I am competing with companies like the local lawn service that has “10 certified arborists on staff!“ they managed to get everybody on the crew to pass the test so they could advertise that way. That’s how little the certification actually means around here.
In kinda in that boat.
In terms of the work I'm doing with a very basic Champion log splitter most of the risks are minimal. The whole hydraulic system only holds a few gallons, leaks are inevitable with these machines but they are never more than a few ounces here and there, so I have no idea why you are projecting gallons leaking out. The few customers I get would do the work themselves, get a rental or home owner splitter and split their logs but they don't have the time for it. I've used many units over the years, am familiar with the large professional units costing upwards of $5K which make no sense unless you are doing hundreds of cords a year. I know tree guys who split all their wood up by hand.
I know what you are saying, but I still disagree. If the main hose off your pump blows, and it can happen, especially on a cheap machine like that, the pump will likely empty out the tank before you can shut it off. That takes only seconds, those pumps move oil faster than you think, and you can’t approach a spraying hose without much physical danger. You should be prepared for the cost of remediation of the entire tank volume at minimum if you’re not going to carry insurance.
In this state the arborist certification is heavily centered around pesticide applications and regulations. As one major climber who worked for a large tree service in Greenwich who never got the license--and he had been in the field since the 60s used to say, 90% of spraying is unnecessary--you could say it is largely anti-environmental. I have the PP Pirone "classic" "Tree Maintenance" from 1962 which recommends all manner of toxic sprays including DDT and other since banned toxins. How many people died of cancer and other devastating diseases due to all these unnecessary toxic sprays? Where is the consciences of these people who'd profit off other people's misery? I spoke with the manager at the local arboretum in the spring and he went over the state tree and shrub licensing program and how many go through the very demanding process of passing the tests, etc., and then find it really doesn't help their economic prospects much. Most just let their certification lapse after then find it isn't helping them. It's a money raiser for the state fueled by all the toxic chemical spraying. All the talk about the "calipers" of trees, the pretentious latin names, and other gobbledegook language strikes me as more a religion than real respect for the natural order. There is some real and useful study and language in arboriculture, most of it is common sense.
Being straight forward is my aim. Debate and back and forth is healthy. I'd put my work not in the "professional" category you are in, as I'm the smallest of small operators. I'd think that the principle would be, if I want to do occasional neighborly work for people, to keep the equipment in top shape so that equipment failures do not happen. I have a friend in New London county who has a high end professional who is a welder and engineer at the Navy ship yard production and will try to run it by them.
If you are going to work without insurance, I think you should tell your customers that you are not insured, and have them sign a waiver that prevents you from being held liable in the instance that something goes wrong.
This smacks of infantile, servile and pathetically passive contractor/customer relationships. Landscapers using power equipment for maintenance, you could always argue that anything bad could happen therefore insurance should be mandatory. Frankly what's the chance of injuries, damage or problems? If someone is inexperienced, doing huge amounts of work or have employees clearly they should do the common sense thing to have some liability and other insurance.
Then you'd get no work, none of the customers will pay those rates unless you are, for example one of the $3K-$4K and up a day aerial tree services around here. Most of those with wood piles either do the work themselves, leave the wood to rot or have it hauled out.
I strongly disagree. Landscapers also are required to carry insurance, in fact anyone doing work for hire needs to carry insurance. Doesn’t matter what kind of work you are doing, if you are getting paid for it, you are putting yourself and those you are working for at risk therefore insurance is a necessity.
I started my career in landscaping, by the way. I was insured back then, and I am still insured now. The only work I have ever done without insurance was a couple lawns I mowed for neighbors while I was a teenager, and one winter that I cleared driveways with my grandfather‘s snowblower in the neighborhood I lived in. After that, I bought a pick up truck, a snowplow, and an insurance policy to go with it. Plowing insurance was expensive, but worthwhile. I have never regretted paying for insurance. I’ve used it a couple times over the years, and I’ve always been happy to have it.
That seems to be the theme.
I agree. I feel like while I am trying to answer a question, there really wasn’t a question to begin with. I think that justification for working without insurance is being sought and I cannot give that.
