A bill under consideration would require window, siding and roofing companies to cover labor costs under existing warranties. What are they afraid of?
Why is it that associations always seem to begin every political discussion with the word "no?" We see it in both national and state level associations for most industries. In the building industry, prominent examples are the fight to keep sprinklers out of residential codes, the battle against low-flow toilets. They lost both of those, thank goodness. Millions of gallons of water have been saved, and not a few lives.
I received a release today from the Northeast Window and Door Manufacturers Association, urging me to contact Connecticut legislators and ask them NOT to put forward legislation that would make manufacturers more accountable for the products they build. The Bill applies to windows, siding and roofing.
Why would I, or any building professional, be inclined to do this? It sounds to me like a pretty good idea. A manufacturer who knows he will carry the full cost of a product failure and replacement is less likely to cut corners, more likely to build a good, solid product, and offer a warranty that estimates the window lifespan in a reasonable manner, not a safe guess, based on conjecture.
Take windows. As I wrote about in our April issue of Green Builder magazine, window makers have been lazy. They know where the life cycle weakness is in the their products--at the end of the life of their glazing spacers, but have not taken the lead in correcting it. For decades, they have been selling a product with a short 25-year lifespan that is neither repairable nor easily recyclable. Can they truly be offended by top-down legislation aimed at accountability? Methinks they doth protest too much.
New windows are a major investment for the homeowner, and window failures are a major liability risk for the builder.
I read the Bill, which passed committee with a 100 percent "Yea" approval. It's broad in scope yes, but doesn't seem unreasonable. Here's an excerpt: