Critics call proposed statewide plumbing license a ‘coup d’état’

By Anthony Hennen | The Center Square

HARRISBURG, PA — A proposed bill could change Pennsylvania’s system for plumbing licensing, but supporters and opponents are deeply divided on its benefits – even as they recognize the problems of the status quo.

In one corner, plumbers argue inconsistency hurts the profession and consumers alike. In the other, critics say the legislation upsets a delicate balance that amounts to a “coup d’état.”

Pennsylvania is a relative rarity in the U.S.; like a handful of states, it doesn’t have a statewide licensing board for plumbers.

Instead, localities hold the responsibility. House Bill 390, proposed by Rep. John Galloway, D-Levittown, would “streamline the licensing of these professionals by removing the guesswork for consumers and the barrier of opportunities,” he wrote in a legislative memo.

In a House Professional Licensure Committee hearing on Monday, Galloway and others made the case for the change.

“It’s a good bill, it’s well-written, it’s good law,” Galloway said. “I understand that there’s opposition — that opposition really doesn’t focus on this bill. This bill is a necessary bill … more than anything, the reason I offered this legislation is consumer safety.”

Non-union and union officials support Galloway’s effort.

“Not only are Pennsylvanians being shut out from securing work from the communities that they live in, but the commonwealth of Pennsylvania is also being shortchanged by these out-of-state companies not paying all the taxes that Pennsylvania-based companies are required to pay,” said Michael McGraw, executive director of the Pennsylvania Plumbing Heating Cooling Contractors Association.

A lack of a consistent statewide system for licensing, he said, limits Pennsylvania plumbers from getting work in states with stricter requirements.

Walt Krzyzanowski, executive director of the Plumbers Local 690 in Philadelphia, argued that the support of union and non-union labor is evidence that the bill is strong.

“Rarely do you see union and open-shop people sitting at the same table fighting for the same cause,” Krzyzankowski said. “Listen to the collective voices of an industry, an industry who wants to be licensed.”
They united in the name of consumer safety, he said.

“The amount of bad actors in our industry is overwhelming and we want to police our own ranks,” Krzyzankowski said.

Opponents of the bill were worried about a new licensing regime driving up costs and hurting other industries.
“To me, it looks like we’re going to create a license – and this has its own board – so I think the cost of the license will be fairly high because they have to fund its very own board,” Rep. Carl Metzgar, R-Somerset, said. “Creating another barrier and another cost to keep people out of this business seems counter-intuitive.”

The bill would appropriate $250,000 – suggested by the Department of State – for a state plumbing board.

Krzyzankowski said the system would bring in $4.5 million annually for licensing fees.

Others warned that the bill would benefit plumbers over other trades, including Brenda Reigle, who spoke on behalf of the National Utility Contractor Association.

“I urge you to reconsider the potential consequences of this legislation as it threatens to undermine the traditional roles and responsibilities of skilled underground utility laborers,” she said.

Reigle criticized the expansion of “plumbing services” that would include installation, maintenance, extension, erection, repair, or alteration of piping related to stormwater and sewage — “in our opinion, that is utility work,” she said.

“Licensure in the name of reciprocity sounds reasonable until you dive into the bill and you consider the consequences of the bill, and review all the pitfalls of licensure,” Reigle said.

The bill “would undeniably upset the delicate equilibrium that has been painstakingly established over many decades,” Reigle said. “It appears the plumbers are attempting something like a coup d’état.”

Nationally, states use a number of different models to regulate plumbing. Jessica Poitras, legislative counsel at the Institute for Justice, noted that licensure is inconsistent.

Fourteen states do not license plumbers — up from only three states in 2006 — and 24 states don’t have mandated training hours. Some don’t have experience or exam requirements.

“Given the patchwork of licensing requirements for plumbers across the country, it is clear to us that alternatives for licensure do exist,” Poitras said. “We would encourage the committee consider the least-restrictive means of occupational regulation before turning to occupational licensing.”

She highlighted market competition as the best way instead of resorting to licensing; neighboring states like New York and Ohio don’t license plumbers.

“Pennsylvania should not create a licensing regime for plumbers if the status quo is working well,” Poitras said.

If not, however, she suggested alternatives like voluntary or private certification of plumbing skills, creating a private cause of action to give the public the right to bring lawsuits against plumbers, or requiring mandatory bonding or insurance for plumbers.

“There are better and less-intrusive ways to regulate the plumbing profession,” Poitras said.