CALL US TODAY 786.243.1060

We take the "BORING" out of
construction continuing education.

Miami Dade County Approval

Here's a special reminder to all Miami Dade County registered contractors.  Contractors Education & Training Corporation is approved as a Miami-Dade county continuing education provider.  

We have a 16-hour course that has met all the requirements and will make us your one stop continuing education provider.

We have duplicated the same continuing education program that is already CILB-approved, and added 2 hours of Miami Dade County Code Chapter 10 Ordinances.  This will help all of you in Miami-Dade who need continuing education credits for your Miami-Dade County license renewal.

Our provider number, for Miami-Dade is D039 and our first course approved is course # D039-001.

We look forward to serving the continuing education needs of all Miami Dade county registered contractors.  Classes will start soon!  Stay tuned.

Cancel Safety Incentive Programs

What does a safety incentive program accomplish?  You may say it reduces accidents by making people more careful so that they don't lose their incentive for being accident-free!


What it really does, is cause them to refrain from reporting any accidents, so that they will still get their incentive.  Peer pressure is a factor as well.

So, the bottom line is, CANCEL your safety incentive programs!

Don't like what we're saying?

OSHA knows what we've shared with you, and echoes the above mentioned sentiment!

This type of information and MORE is carefully relayed at our contining education class.  If you sign up for our construction license renewal course, necessary for contractor license renewal in Florida, you will be pleasantly surprised to get information that is RELEVANT, interesting and engaging!

ContractorETC is about helping you become MORE successful in your business! 

34 year old precedent overturned!

The recent Review Commission case of Sec’y of Labor v. Lake Erie Constr. Co., OSHRC, No. 11-0146 still leaves Lake Erie Construction Company waiting for a final decision on the merits. However, the Review Commission case is already a landmark decision because it overrules a 34 year-old precedent established in the case of Gerard Leone & Sons, Inc., 9 OSHC 1819 (OSHRC 1981.) (“Gerard Leone”). Gerard Leone involved the application of the construction motor vehicles standard, § 1926.601(a), which regulates such things as brake lights, audible warning devices and seat belts on motor vehicles used in construction. InGerard Leone the Commission held in a 2-1 decision that § 1926.601(a), “limits the standard’s applicability by vehicle and not by location.” Id. at 1820. In short, that decision held that the requirements for motor vehicles applied if the vehicle at issue is the type that operates off-road regardless of whether the location was on-highway but closed to the public.

In the Lake Erie case, an employee was electrocuted while working on a project which involved removing guardrail posts along a highway that was closed to traffic at the time of the accident. The guardrail posts were removed using a “pounder truck,” part of which either contacted or came close to contacting power lines, causing electricity to arc or travel to an “Attachment” and chain, thus electrocuting the employee who was holding the chain. Lake Erie received a citation for $70,000 for a willful violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.600(a)(3).

The question at issue was whether or not the “pounder truck” was covered under Subpart O, 29 C.F.R. § 1926.601(a) which states:

Coverage. Motor vehicles as covered by this part are those vehicles that operate within an off-highway jobsite, not open to public traffic. The requirements of this section do not apply to equipment for which rules are prescribed in 1926.602.

(emphasis added.)

The Secretary argued that based on the precedent set in Gerard Leone, the pounder truck was the type of vehicle which operated off-road and therefore was a covered vehicle. Lake Erie’s counsel argued that since the accident occurred while the pounder truck was on a highway, it was not covered under § 29 C.F.R. 1926.601(a) and, therefore, the citation was invalid.

In 2012, Administrative Law Judge Sharon D. Calhoun affirmed the citation but reduced the penalty to $35,000. The judge decided, based on the binding precedent set in Gerard Leone,that the pounder truck was a covered vehicle. However, she added that she felt the decision in Gerard Leone was wrong and in its petition for discretionary review, Lake Erie counsel noted that similar doubts have been raised in other cases.

In reaching its decision, the Commission decided that “(s)pecifically, reading § 1926.601(a) as addressing the type of vehicle operated rather than the location of its operation is contrary to the provision’s language – ‘vehicles that operate within an off-highway jobsite, not open to public traffic.'” Other cases over the years have argued that the language of this provision is plain and deliberate – there is no reference to the “type” of vehicle, nor is there any discussion of vehicles that can operate within an off-highway jobsite. The provision simply refers to “vehicles that operate within an off-highway jobsite, not open to public traffic.”

The Commission’s decision on September 24, 2015 held “[W]e overrule Gerard Leone’sholding that the language of
§ 1926.601(a) applies to motor vehicles based on their particular type. Relying on the plain language of the provision, we now conclude that it covers motor vehicles based on thelocation of their operation, i.e. ‘within an off-highway jobsite, not open to public traffic.'”


The case has now been remanded to Judge Calhoun to determine “whether, at the time of the alleged violation, the pounder truck was a ‘[m]otor vehicle [] … that [was] operat[ing] within an off-highway jobsite, not open to public traffic.'”

Home Inspectors License Renewal

ContractorETC is PROUD to remind you how they are licensed to provide continuing education to Home Inspectors, as well as CILB licensed contractors.

There is a large amount of overlap.

If you are dually licensed, we can HELP!

Here's the deal!

Both licensed require 14 hours - but Home Inspectors need 2 hours of Hurricane Mitigation.  Part of those 2 hours cover the "Mitigation Verification Inspection Form".  Painters and fencing contractors don't need to listen to that, so we make it separate, but we have in available ONLINE!  

All the other 12 hours, however, are covered in the 14 hours spent towards your CILB or County license continuing education requirement!

So, in one class you get everything for your contractor license, and 12 of 14 for Home Inspector. The other 2 are available with us ONLINE!





ContractorETC is about helping make you MORE successful in business.