Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | The listserv that doubts. |
Date: | Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:16:45 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Edison Coatings wrote:
>
> why shouldn't contractors have to justify
> their labor being worth more than $2 an hour.
>
Mike,
Oh, I get that... now. My experience of the contractors that I know in
histo presto is that they tend to be really embarrassed to charge what
they should charge for their time, experience, quality of craft and
knowledge. I know there are other 'contractors' that give us all a bad
name. That said, the impression I have is that it is the very same
contractors who would have the conscience to use the best or most
appropriate materials that seem to be the ones who do find themselves
having to justify their labor being more than $2 per hour. So in turn
what I see is a kind of viscous cycle that begins with the customers
that if they want to imagine traditional trades as a commodity then it
is just as much of a pressure to focus on niggling over the cost of
materials. In the past in attempts to bring together trades with design
professionals and materials suppliers a fairly astute and in-your-face
kind of obvious comment was made by one individual that one needs to
include the property owners and stewards in the dialog. If folks who
have the stewardship of the properties and the hands on the money want
to feed to the bottom what can we do about that?
][<en
--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
|
|
|