In Texas, as in many states, we regulate all kinds of professions in the name of consumer protection. Depending on the occupation, you may need education, testing, certifications, inspections, continuing education, or a state-issued license before you can legally provide a service to the public.

But collision repair?

Pistol Pete down the street, missing a finger and armed with a Sawzall, can potentially cut a vehicle in half, weld it back together, throw some paint on it, and send a family down the highway at 75 miles per hour.

No collision repair license. No required industry training. No proof that he understands OEM repair procedures. No requirement that he owns the specialized equipment necessary to correctly perform that repair. He can even paint the car without the kind of professional paint booth and equipment that legitimate shops spend thousands upon thousands of dollars to purchase and maintain.

And somehow, we are all supposed to act like that makes sense.

Before somebody gets offended, this isn't an attack on technicians who learned through experience instead of a classroom. Some of the best technicians in this industry learned their craft long before many of today's certifications existed.

The problem is that our industry has changed dramatically.  We aren't repairing the same cars we repaired 30 years ago.

Today's vehicles have advanced high-strength steels, aluminum, composites, ADAS, cameras, radar, sensors, complicated restraint systems, specific welding requirements, sectioning limitations, corrosion-protection procedures, and repair processes that can vary tremendously from one manufacturer to another.

Yet in many places, the barrier to entry of calling yourself a collision repairer remains remarkably low.

Why?

That is the question our industry should be asking.

I cannot tell you that insurance lobbying is the reason collision repair licensing hasn't become widespread. That would require evidence that goes far beyond my opinion. But I absolutely think we should be willing to ask who benefits financially from keeping collision repair largely unlicensed and fragmented.

Because required training costs money. Proper equipment costs money. Certifications cost money. Qualified technicians cost more money.

And when you create a more educated, properly equipped and professional workforce that is LICENSED BY THE STATE, the true cost of repairing vehicles becomes harder to ignore.

If a technician is required to complete specialized training before performing structural repairs, that technician becomes more valuable. If a shop must invest $50,000, $100,000 or considerably more in equipment, training and facility requirements, those expenses must eventually be reflected in labor rates and repair costs.

You cannot demand professional-level qualifications while expecting amateur-level pricing.

And this is where state licensing could completely change the conversation.

Right now, much of the training, certification and equipment investment in our industry is left up to the individual shop. One shop may spend tens of thousands of dollars every year training technicians, maintaining certifications, researching OEM procedures and purchasing specialized equipment, while another shop down the street may choose to invest in almost none of it.

Yet both shops can influence what is considered the going rate for collision repair in that market.

If state licensing established minimum training, equipment and competency requirements, those expenses would no longer be something a shop simply chooses to incur. They would become part of the recognized cost of legally operating a collision repair facility.

That distinction matters.

An insurance company could no longer so easily treat advanced training or specialized equipment as an individual shop’s business decision when those requirements were established by the state as a minimum standard for performing collision repairs. The baseline for the entire industry would move.

Technicians meeting those requirements would command higher wages. Shops would have greater training and equipment expenses. Labor rates would have to reflect the cost of maintaining those standards, and ultimately insurers would face pressure to recognize the higher legitimate cost of those repairs when adjusting claims.

In other words, licensing could help establish something our industry has struggled to establish on its own: a consistent minimum standard.

And consistency costs money.  Higher repair costs mean higher claim severity for insurers.

That doesn't automatically prove some grand conspiracy or that insurers are intentionally preventing licensing. But I think it raises a fair question:

Who financially benefits from an industry where training, certification and equipment standards remain largely optional rather than mandatory?

Follow the money and at least ask the question.

Next month: why the insurer’s different perspective means “safe and proper repairs” may not be a compelling argument and reinforce the call for licensing.