Litigation-I Win, You Lose vs. Mediation-Win/Win

Image
  Litigation is a zero-sum game.  It destroys relationships and fosters enmity between the parties.  Parties rarely walk away happy.  Even if they win, the expense of litigation is enormous, and collecting on judgments is difficult. Disputes ultimately resolve, but the focus on winning at any cost can lead to prolonged legal battles.  Living with a lawsuit causes ongoing stress, which can distract you from your business and even have an effect on your health. In a courtroom, the final decision lies with a judge or jury who may not fully grasp the complexities of the case. Parties relinquish control over the outcome, potentially leaving them dissatisfied with the final judgment. Mediation has the opposite effect.   Rather than polarizing people, it enables the parties to attack the issues and not each other.     The process promotes open communication, collaboration and problem-solving, which enables parties to actively participate in crafting mutually beneficial solutions.   It res

Hearing with the Division of Occupational Safety about Massachusetts taking over the RRP Rule

The Massachusetts Division of Occupational Safety held a Public Hearing today to take comments on new regulations related to their intent to seek authority in administering and enforcement of the EPA RRP program from the EPA here in Massachusetts.  I was there, along with the Presidents of NARI and the Homebuilders Association of (Western) Massachusetts, Sean McCadden (whose blog I mention frequently), contractors, lead testers and others.


The conversation was thoughtful and informative.  I will report about it over a couple of posts.  First of all, Massachusetts has published emergency regulations to the Central Register that will hopefully become a permanent law within the next few months.  The public was invited to make comments and suggestions regarding changes to the law.


The state is also evaluating whether it will self-certify with the EPA and take over administering the law.  There were about twenty-five people present, and most seemed supportive of the notion that Massachusetts should take over administration of the lead law.


Speakers commented on the current difficulties facing contractors who are forced to educate homeowners about the RRP Rule.  They are concerned about the fact that there is an "underground" population of contractors who are willing to circumvent the rule and charge less money because they offer prices that do not include the lead containment procedures.  In addition, these contractors have not incurred the additional costs involved in certifying their companies and firms with the EPA and becoming certified contractors.


The audience complimented MA on having drafted a well thought-out law that is much clearer than the RRP rule.  The biggest concerns were enforcement and education.  The need for enforcement was emphasized so that the "good" contractors would not be penalized for following the rules by being outbid by "illegal" contractors.  If enough contractors are fined for not following the practices and becoming certified, then this would hopefully serve as a deterrent.  


The need for education is apparent because the lack of publicity regarding the implementation of the rule has resulted in homeowners having no idea that the lead containment procedures are required, and the contractors are faced with educating the homeowners as well as having to charge more for their services.  Homeowners are already asking contractors for an alternative price without the lead-safe practices, which creates unsafe conditions for both the contractors and the homeowners and their families.


These were some of the issues raised at the hearing today.

Popular posts from this blog

Eligibility Requirements for the LEED Green Associate Exam from Green Building Education and Training

What are the eligibility requirements for the LEED Green Associate exam? http://www.green-buildings.com/content/78626-what-are-eligibility-requirements-leed-green-associate-exam After March 31st, 2009, candidates for the LEED Green Associate (GA) credentials must fulfill eligibility requirements. LEED Green Associate candidates are required to do ONE (1) of the following: Option 1: You must be (or have previously been) employed in a sustainable field of work This is perhaps one of the more nebulous requirements posed by the GBCI, because no definition of a "sustainable field of work" is given. The USGBC does state that the company needs to "relate to environmentalism or the green building industry". If you are in any doubt that your profession would qualify, contact the GBCI at gbci.org or by calling 1-800-795-1746. Option 2: You must be (or have been) involved in a LEED Certification Project To prove eligibility by way of LEED project involvement, you must have bee
Read more

EPA Starts Assessing Fines for RRP Violations

From Mark Paskell's blog:  http://www.thecontractorcoachingpartnership.com/Blog-Contractor-Coaching--Construction-Business-Coach-EPA-RRP-Lead-Rule/ The press release below came from the EPA.  It has been hard to persuade contractors that they need to become certified when it did not appear that the Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule was being enforced.  Now, there have been two substantial fines publicized: one in Connecticut last month ($30,700) and the one listed below.  It is time to have your contracts reviewed, insert clauses to protect you under the new law, and have your insurance policy reviewed for lead coverage! Kansas City, Kan., March 31, 2011) – Window World of St. Louis, Inc., has agreed to pay a $19,529 civil penalty to the United States to settle allegations that it failed to notify owners and occupants of at least 20 St. Louis area residential properties built before 1978 of lead-based paint risks prior to performing renovation work at those locations. Accordi
Read more

Should a Contractor Have the Homeowner Test for Lead?

I would like to learn more about the advisability of lead testing.  Homeowners might not want their homes tested for lead, because it becomes public record, and may interfere with the sale of a home or the ability to obtain a mortgage or homeowners insurance.  In addition, I strongly advise contractors not to do the testing themselves.  Let the homeowner pay an independent company to do it.  Otherwise if the GC brings a claim against a lead testing company for a false negative, the company might state that the GC did not use the test kit properly.  If the homeowner does have the house tested, consider refusing to do the work unless the homeowner has lead abatement work done.
Read more