A bill in Minnesota would require all painting to be done by or under the supervision of a licensed painter.
SF 3554 would create a paint contractor board to oversee the licensing. It would require all painters to get licensed or work as a journeyworker under a contractor.
The legislation also restricts the mere sale of paint, except in small increments, to licensed individuals. Not just the state, but Home Depot, would enforce that law if it becomes one.
This doesn’t apply just to a professional artist painting a fresco in a new church but also to Tom, who paints decks on the weekend to make extra money.
The law applies to anyone “engaged in paint contract labor who, through negotiations or competitive bidding, enter into contracts to furnish paint and painting services.”
It is sponsored by three Democratic-Farmer-Labor senators: Jennifer McEwen, Judy Seeberger, and John Hoffman. All were backed in their elections by the Painters and Allied Trades Council, the union that stands to benefit from the bill.
The bill would burden painters, remodelers, and homeowners.
Residential painting has a low barrier to entry, requiring just a ladder and some brushes. It takes skill, but no one is harmed by a bad paint job. That’s the nice thing about paint: It can easily be fixed.
About half of the country does just fine without licensed painters. Twenty-three states currently do not license painters, according to the Institute for Justice. Red states such as Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas have rejected licensing, but so have blue states such as Illinois and Colorado.
Paint is a low-cost way to spruce up a home before selling or just to make it look nicer. Many people can’t afford a complete bathroom or kitchen remodel, but they can afford to repaint one room at a time for $300 or $400.
The legislation would also hurt small contractors and remodelers by requiring them to find a licensed painter even if they are capable of doing it themselves. A plumber who installs a new toilet, shower, and sink would be banned from adding a coat of paint to finish a bathroom remodel. The state already licenses these professions, so consumers have recourse for bad service.
The law also excludes professionally trained painters. Even though it would seem that Master of Fine Arts students would be a core constituency of the DFL, they too would be excluded from selling their skills on the open market.
Think about that for a moment. A University of Minnesota graduate art student has to take hours of studio classes for her degree. But she would not be allowed to paint a bedroom on the side under this legislation.
Nor does the law have a clear exception for current painters, even those with decades of experience. They would have to go through the licensing regime and, in the meantime, hire an approved painter to oversee their work.
While the legislation targets professional painters, it is part of a broader campaign against freelance and self-trained work.
The Department of Labor will soon implement its new rule requiring many businesses to label independent contractors as employees, creating regulatory burdens for businesses and hurting the same people it is meant to help.
It is being done under the direction of acting Labor Secretary Julie Su, who led similar efforts in California.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
But California’s bill, Assembly Bill 5, failed, according to the Mercatus Center. Not only did self-employment decrease by more than 10%, but overall employment “decreased … by 4.4 percent on average for affected occupations.”
Minnesota should learn from California and put the lid on painting regulations.
Matt Lamb is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is an associate editor for the College Fix and has previously worked for Students for Life of America and Turning Point USA.