The future of our industry is in your hands

There is a saying here in Ohio.....if you don't like the weather, stick around a day.

The same thing applies here and on other forums. My positions don't change, I'm just "persona non grata" at various points on a timeline. I've addressed issues like this and been skewered only to watch others run back and forth from one side to another. I was stalked off of one forum a few years ago by UAMCC "people" for almost exactly the same points being addressed in this thread. Since joining PWI, I've watched the weather change 3 times on the Org's and 2 times on the Hinderliter issue. I've had a thread I started disappear after much mocking and ridicule only to see the same issue brought up by a "leader" of our industry later and then, supported by the same ones that felt they had to bookmark my profile and discredit just about anything I posted.

I agree with everything you are saying Tony. If I had $5 for every minute I've spent on the phone, writing emails and posting about it, I could have bought a new house.....with cash.

I'm not claiming to be some sort of hero or writing a "I told you so" post. I'm just pointing out that we have too many sheep and not enough sheep dogs in this industry. It's not hard to detect motives. As you pointed out Tony, these things (BMP's) happened in steps. If I'm standing still, and I do so for some time, you can reasonably predict where I'll be standing at some future point. The same applies if I take two steps in one direction. You can reasonably predict where my third step will be. The more steps, the more clear my destination becomes. Nothing you've addressed required Edgar Casey or Nostradamus to vision the direction years ago.

There was a time that RH was everyone's BFF. Then.....something changed and he wasn't. There was a time Tony that your thread would have received a different response. It would have been the nail that's sticking up and needed hammered down.

Why is that? Was it not possible to see the direction that he was going? Is it because people prefer popularity over logic (and convictions)? Are they too trusting?

I believe it's the same problem we have with the two party system of government. You get screwed by the last guy so you vote for the other side. He screws too so you vote the other way the next time. This just goes back and forth. The common denominators regardless of who is in charge is that you get screwed and a few get rich. Always look for the money motive.

I'm glad to see you post this. I hope that it accomplishes something and alters the path of over regulation. As for me and this post, I have another goal. I hope it causes people to open their eyes, question their "leaders" and take a position based on their own conclusions and not what is popular or what they are told. Be a sheep dog and not a sheep.

Lastly....for those new to the politics of forums in general, the PW industry and this topic specifically, here is one of my favorite stories.....never assume that what the "group" thinks is "right".


Start with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, all of the monkeys are sprayed with cold water. After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result, and all the monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon all of the monkeys will try to prevent any monkey from trying to get to the banana.

Now, put away the cold water. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs he will be attacked.

Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm eve though he has no idea why! Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth.

Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked. Most of the monkeys that are beating him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey. After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana.

Why not? Because thats the way its always been done around here.
 
Points #5

Recycling, except in rare circumstances is not and has never been "practicable" by the EPA's definition.

It was poor business planning on anyone's part to put stock in selling machines designed for that purpose. The idea was doomed from the start. There is a tipping price point in our industry where customers will no longer pay.

The only answer to that is REQUIRING them to pay via laws that require cleaning.

That is not the America our founding fathers fought for and I, personally, will have nothing to do with it.

Government mandates are the tool of poor businessmen who don't have the skills or sense to have a product they can sell on their own without the government forcing customers to buy it.


When manufacturers started lobbying for recycling wash water as a requirement it was our signal to react and combat the concept, just like Robert says he did.

That was the beginning of our opening to push for common sense regulation instead of concentrating on compliance only.

That was the time to work on affordable solutions for Robert's own operation (fleet washing) which clearly presents a higher POTENTIAL for pollution and work towards EXEMPTION or EXCEPTIONS for those facets of our industry that can operate with little to no affect on water quality much in the same way the street sweepers have done.

Instead Robert set out to make the regulations for fleet washing the model for everything else in the industry. I spoke with Michael Hinderliter a couple of years ago and asked if their BMP's were based on any testing of runoff. He replied in the affirmative. I asked him what type of cleaning were the tests performed on. He replied "FLEET WASHING". I asked and it was confirmed that the estimates of pollutants in our entire industry, for the purpose of industry BMP's were based entirely on the testing of FLEET WASHING RUNOFF.

That golden opportunity is in the past.

Now we have to work towards that goal. And we are 20 years behind.
 
Point#6

Robert States:

The Residential Enforcement of Cosmetic Cleaning is not an issue at the present time in over 99% of the jurisdictions. Only is a problem if Residential Work is a “Significant Contributor of Pollutants to the MS4”, which, it is not at the present time. This will probably be address in about 20 years. It may come into focus sooner because of HIP (Herbicides, Insecticides, and Pesticides), which are “Significant Contributor of Pollutants to the MS4”.


I've already posted links where Jim Gamble (the Western Environmental Director of the PWNA) states that groundwater contamination is the next target for the PWNA and the EPA for regulations.

If you are a residential contractor and believe this statement: The Residential Enforcement of Cosmetic Cleaning is not an issue at the present time

Then I'd recommend you consider that statement in light of this one and make up your own mind about what is around the corner for roof cleaners, house washers and deck refinishers:

The PWNA is not going to bring, or shop, the BMPs to municipalities, city leaders or roll them out across the country.



Robert Hinderliter is entirely correct in his depiction of HIP being a hot topic with the EPA. I'm glad he brought that up. The Pesticide industry is one that had not laid down and taken it from the EPA even though their potential for polluting waterways is hundreds if not thousands of times more likely than our industry. Their orgs have FOUGHT HARD for their industry.

Just for your information, one of the issues with pesticides at farm locations is "spray drift" which ends up on road surfaces and ditches and are washed into the waterways eventually.

If the pesticide industry had taken Robert Hinderliters approach they could have eliminated millions of crop acres by "voluntarily" making a buffer zone around the crops to reduce "spray drift". (which would have inevitably been widened and widened by the environmentalists till there is no more room for crops at all!!!!)

They could have required farmers to put up tall walls around their crops high enough for the crop dusters to fly below to insure the minimum "spray drift".

They could have required farmers to use inadequate and watered down pesticides that don't work.

And all of these could have easily happened if the industry had left control of their fate to the "tall wall manufacturers" or the "watered down green pesticide makers".

But they lobbied for themselves and so far they are winning in spite of the legal onslaught put forth by those who have no understanding of minimizing risk while maximizing production.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/0...-lobbying-in-bid-to-42970.html?pagewanted=all
 
Point #7:

Robert states:

The CWA is a series of regulations that were developed over about 10 years initially, and are continually changing over time. This series of laws and regulations are generally referred to as the Clean Water Act passed in 1972 for simplicity. It is not a single document of legislation, therefore cannot be linked to a single document.



This is exactly why we need to be vigilant in keeping up with the laws and careful about bringing up concepts, phrases and ideas for the regulators to latch onto and use as a knife in our back as they shake hands with us in the front.

This issue is further addressed here: http://www.propowerwash.com/board/u...ot-a-single-document-Major-Environmental-Acts

Travelling around the west coast I this summer I was pleasantly surprised at how many regulators were blessed with common sense and were, in fact, ready and willing to listen and work with our industry and more than one said they would like to see a runoff study and were shocked that we had not provided that years ago.

I determined to delve into the heart of the beast, along the west coast where, reportedly the highest level of regulation was being enforced.

I am blessed in that, unlike Jim Gamble, ( as he stated yesterday on PWC and subsequently deleted) I don't have to shut down operations when I'm offsite and have the time and ability to dedicate our company to help with the betterment of our industry.

Here are our GPS tracks from this summer. We covered everything from the more conservative inland areas to the most restrictive (which happens to be Oakland rather than Contra Costa, according to those I spoke with) I'm not bragging about our ability to take the time to make investigative trips like this, I'm just trying to exhibit my dedication. I don't expect everyone to go to these extremes to become educated about these issues. But we all need to get involved on a local level and can start by figuring out our current regulations.

26days-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ok all interesting points. The odd thing is if we all sat in the same room we would probably be in 90% agreement on this dividing issue concerning Powerwashing and the environment. There's sticklers(disagreements) in here that's divided this industry tremendously but it's a way distant second to business's owners supporting org's to ones who don't(by far probably forever the biggest stickler of real magnitude). For me personally I am much more interested in org's because my past life experiences showed that groups will always trump individuals almost all the time to get things done. Different story for a different day.

On this environmental stuff if it's Tony's,Roberts,Jim's, Rons etc etc passion to dive into kudo's to them. Someone has to do it(I don't mean this at all in a condescending way)

There's so much to know apparently if you want to succeed with this where you actually have penetrated the walls of authority and you have actually been documented as a person who has done so. Any Dick or Jane can say whatever but what they have actually done is what matters.

Which leads me into Robert Hinderliter. Tony above is stating that people follow blindly icons in this Industry. I totally agree with that. Presidents of this country are pretty much iconic compared to us "regular joe's" but as we just saw people did just that with this past election.

I can support and org. Probably more then most because I believe in the group mentality but within I do question things because you just never agree completely with everything. At least I don't because I never had blind faith in anything.

I never supported Robert Blindly. Is he Iconic in this Industry? Of course. He's so iconic that he has two pretty well known organizations within this Industry that he created. The public at large doesn't know enough about these org's as in they hardly know or heard of them at all but the contractors and Vendors themselves that deal or work within the Powerwashing industry his org's are by far more well known then most.

So in my case years ago I did look to see what made Robert Tick. I wasn't a fan at all about reclaiming or any of that stuff because I wasn't interested. My interest which still is my main Interest is the group thing and member growth and retention. The Enviro thing is more interesting today for me because it's like a maze that Robert has cracked thru but still hasn't reached it's final destination and many others want to get there themselves for similar reasons and maybe for some other reasons as well and that right there is where the artery gets clogged and the sides spit off.

In Robert's case he bucked the system. To me that's a Maverick and I migrate towards them naturally. Why? Cause like the two party system if it's not working what alternative can be done that will be successful and isn't just a case of spouting off "Hot air".

As peaceful and polite Robert is in person and he is both of that(don't believe me then ask others who met or know him) who would ever think a person like Robert would challenge the system. He's never close to being the loudest in the room and he is not the argumentative type. There are two traits Robert has that I only met very few times in my life. He is a visionary(one of the proofs to that is the PWNA and the UAMCC which both have there supporters alike) and he has the tremendous will to succeed. He also has a trait that many don't have including myself which is "Very thick Skin". Successful Politicians need that trait or they fail.

So when Robert started the PWNA the stories I heard for example how CETA felt about that then would make most people just quit. If you think that's no big deal and your a believer in the group mentality then look at any org's or volunteering groups anywhere and look how many people quit. Robert didn't. Now you can say Robert had a vested interest and that very well maybe true because Robert plans things like an exact science and is very meticulous but as the years go by he stays on. He's given us the contractors and Vendors 2 orgs that we can belong to.

Robert has tested and tested again things he believes in. He also has sat down with regulators to try and make things more doable for contractors so they are considered compliant. What many don't see here is that Robert has always said you can do the very least in certain situations such as using berms or letting your cleaning water dump into the landscape area's. Yes in some more extreme cases like Tony says such as Fleet washing or garage cleaning you have to use other measures with your waste water doesn't mean your house washing needs to be the same because there not.

So yes Robert has done a ton. He also stuck his head out for many and when people do that they obviously have to have very thick Skin because as we have seen For whatever reasons, some people don't want to maybe elevate what Robert started but they want to attack him, go to Regulators and name drop on others in this Industry and just want to make some fellow Powerwashers and Vendors within this Industry the enemy.

If anyone knows about how to get things done and your idea is to report members within your industry as bad dudes what do you think your going to accomplish? Your defeating the purpose unless your goal is solely to put Powerwashers out of business.

Your painting Robert as promoting Powerwashers as polluters and your telling regulators about another one in this Industry who you just hate. On the first one there are a few who do that and the second one....well that person knows who he is.

So what does that do for the rest of the industry? Nothing. That's the flaw in here. It sticks this industry in the mud and if you look around you how successful are we as a group or groups when you compare this Industry to let's say the construction industry, the pool industry, the Plumbing Industry,the electrician Industry etc etc etc.

These org's should have a 1000+members. We should have people on the inside representing us so we can get more work, more everything instead of having what we have here.

Don't agree with Robert or agree to a point then either work with him or do something you think is better. Don't like a Powerwashing contractor then go to your regulators and show them a better way. Think positive like Robert has done and drive forward but blaming and finger pointing within you own industry good luck in ever getting a legislator or anyone of significants to do anything for us....and you.
 
Point #7

The PWNA Bmps can be found here under 2011 PWNA Cosmetic Cleaning BMPS:

I don't want to copy and paste the entire text because of the copyright warnings they have plastered all over it.

http://www.thepwna.org/water_reclaimer.php

The first thing of note is the heading:

PWNA &UAMCC’s Cosmetic Cleaning
Best Management Practices

This is still being represented as BMPs for the UAMCC even after Robert was removed at environmental director for doing just that.

Under "Clean Water Act" there is this telling sentence, that is a true statement, but is not even addressed under any of the practices as being a proper way of compliance:

• If your discharge does not reach the waters of the United States, then there are no requirements under the Clean Water Act.

Under "Always filter wash water before discharging we have the first requirement that is over and above most jurisdictional requirements. This is the first limitation on our ability to make our own choices based on the situation at hand and removes the ability to use hay bale style berms like the construction industry:

• Remove silt, sand, sludge, debris, etc. by filtering through a 20 mesh screen or smaller.

Under "Wash Water Capture" we again, add regulations that currently do not exist with the EPA. Further, the phrase "on a surface that will not absorb contaminants is ambiguous and could very well serve as an impediment towards discharging into a vegetative area in the future. This is in direct contrast with the statement above about "no requirements" if it doesn't leave the property.

• 4th Choice - Evaporation is acceptable as long as the evaporation occurs on property and on a surface that will not absorb contaminants. After the surface has dried the contaminants need to be swept or vacuumed up so that when it rains the contamination will not be washed away.

Under "Discharge to the sanitary sewer" - Here is a telling statement:
The city of Fort Worth has never been able to detect wash water from Cosmetic Cleaning in their POTW (Publicly Owned Treatment Works).
If soapy cleaning water, or captured runoff from cleaning garages has been undetectable by the city of FT Worth in their sewer, then how is it that runoff into the storm drain would make us "major offenders"? I'm just curious about that.

Under "Discharge to Landscape Areas 2nd choice" - This is another arbitrary limitation that we are placing on ourselves.
. Limit your discharge to 1,000 gallons/acre per month.

and get ready house washers:

• Off property discharge can cause serious harm to groundwater.
-Contract cleaners that are near a body of water like San Francisco, Miami, Fort Lauderdale can contaminate ground water. Example, if building a fence in your area were to hit ground water, the water table is high and discharging would pollute the groundwater. It is important to check with your local municipality. As a general rule, the water table needs to be 50 feet down depending on your type of soil.

Under "Recycled Wash Water 3rd choice" - because of the hauling issue I'm not so certain the idea of recycling and removing from the property should even be a choice at all!!!
If the waste water is recycled long enough the pollution becomes hazardous waste. There is a continuous buildup of total dissolved solids, heavy metals, and detergents. This then requires the contractor to have a hazardous waste haulers permit.

Under "Discharge to storm drains" Not Recommended - We've already discussed this issue. In the initial BMPs Robert had nothing in there about allowing ANY washwater into the storm drains at all. I sent him BMPs from all over the place that allowed for plaza cleaning without soap to go down the storm drain with nothing but an unspecified debris mesh and he did, in fact change the BMPs to allow for it, but he added the hot water issue, effectively nullifying it since most all of us clean with hot water. It was a contrived way to outlaw any plaza cleaning that is effective (hot water) and was slipped in without much fanfare. While it is later left out, as I suggested, in "Plaza cleaning without soap", this sets a the stage for citations if adopted as is by the authorities. It is contradictory.

Also, as mentioned before, emulsification has never, ever, been an issue with the EPA. Robert Hinderliter has MADE it an issue.

• Washing with cold water (less than 110°F) and no chemicals is considered no worse than a rain event and may be discharged to Storm Drains for surfaces that do not have oil and grease or other contaminants.
• Water that is greater than 110°F is considered hot water and considered the same as using soap.
- Hot water is an emulsifier and similar to using a detergent.

Under "Discharge Limits" - This section mandates that flocked contaminants be removed by the added expense of a Waste Hauler eliminating the ability to dry out the matter and throw it in the dumpster when that option is available. This may have huge consequences in the future.
• Flocking may also be an option. Flocking is the adding of a chemical that separates and binds pollutants together so they either drop out to the bottom or float to the surface. The cleaned water can then be discharged to the Sanitary Sewer. The flocked pollutants are stored in a drum until an Environmental Waste Hauler can pick up for proper disposal

Under Drought Conditions: - I don't know why this is in here at all:
• Potable Water - depending on the drought restrictions in your area, the local potable (drinking) water supply may be restricted for power washing except for health and safety reasons.
• When power washing for health and safety reasons permission is required in advanced from the Health or Environmental Department.

Under "Transportation Related Washing" - Note, while it is well established that FLEET washing has more pollution potential than general powerwashing it is interesting to see that the 1000 gallon per month limit on directing to the landscaping is not a requirement here .This is in direct conflict with earlier paragraphs and opens us up to citations:
2nd Best - direct wash water to landscape or dirt area.
• Wash water should be discharged to a landscape or dirt area sufficiently large enough to contain all the wash water. Discuss with the property owner.


And here, evaporation is okay and again, there is no limitation on gallons per month into the landscaping. This disregards the claim that evaporated runoff must be dried and swept as outlined earlier. It makes the BMP look good to the contractor who glances through the BMP looking specifically for their own niche and doesn't read the rest. But, if codified into regulation this can quickly be pointed out that evaporation without drying and sweeping is illegal. Contradictory again.

Mobile Auto Detailing
Infrequent, light cleaning, using soap - rarely at the same site; removing mainly dirt with minimum water volume.
Preferred - minimal runoff may remain on paved surfaces to evaporate.
• If wash water will reach the Storm Drain, seal the Storm Drain and discharge the wash water to the Sanitary Sewer.
2nd Best - direct wash water to landscape or dirt area.
• Wash water should be discharged to a dirt or landscape area sufficiently large enough to contain all the wash water. Discuss with the property owner.

Under Sidewalks, Plazas, Driveways, Drive-thru Window Areas - with light oil, frequently cleaned - no soap - again this looks Reasonable and rational till you combine it with the prior hot water limit. This is again, contradictory.

• Sweep, collect and dispose of debris.
• Dry clean oil spots and properly dispose of debris.
• Place oil absorbent boom or oil sock around storm drain.
• Wash water may go to the Storm Drain through an oil absorbent boom and screen.
• No oil sheen can be visible on the water flowing into the Storm Drain.

And lastly I submit the following examples from the BMPs that prove "nothing down the drain but rain" that Robert Hinderliter keeps repeating, is a fallacy and just serves to confuse regulators:

• If the vehicle or vehicles have been previously washed with a soap or solvent following BMPs, then it is acceptable to rinse the vehicles with just water and allow to discharge to a Storm Drain.

• Wash water may go to the Storm Drain through an oil absorbent boom and screen.

• Wash water may go to the Storm Drain through an oil absorbent boom and screen.

After all of the above have been determined, you need to contact the Sanitary Sewer or Storm Drain (MS4) Departments about discharging to them through the building collection system if it exists, and determining what additional remediation may be required.

NOTHING DOWN THE DRAIN BUT RAIN is a phrase our industry should never repeat. The fact is, NPDES permit holders (usually our cities) have the permit specifically so they CAN discharge SOME things down the storm drain.

Yes, Robert Hinderliter, I have read the BMPs. You know it because I went over some of these things with you a long time ago when you put them out for our "review" and our ultimate rejection before you implemented them against our will.

I ask everyone to read them, but please read the whole thing. If you skip to your own industry it doesn't look bad at all until you realize that as a whole, the document outlaws all unreclaimed washing that is effective.

Whew! Finally done. Please feel free to ask any questions and I'll do my best to answer.
 
Finally, Robert Hinderliter may be the greatest guy in the world. In person I've found him to be just as John T describes him.

There's no way of knowing if everything he's done has been for his own benefit or solely for the benefit of contractors. We could argue that all day long and there'd still be no definitive answers.

Even if Robert has a heart of gold and has devoted his entire life to the betterment of the industry the fact remains that after 20 years of that, we are still looked upon as "major offenders". The approach he has taken has failed.

Maybe he deserves a plaque for his efforts. Maybe Robert deserves the eternal gratitude from our industry for his efforts. But he also needs to allow other approaches to stand or fall on their merits instead of fighting against them by enlisting the most environmentally radical in our industry (Jim Gamble) to lead in the fight.

If you are member of the PWNA, ask yourself, Do I want the money from my dues used to fly Jim Gamble and Robert Hinderliter around the country "implementing" regulations like the cleaner times article says? If not, please put your money elsewhere.

Thank you.
 
*ALERT* - This PWNA BMP is PURPOSELY deceptive and working against our industry. Read it closely

Compare the PWN with the already reasonable BMP's out there on points.

The hot water specification - Bullsh*t way to manipulate EVERYTHING under the bus

Evaporation is acceptable as long as the evaporation occurs on property and on a surface that will not absorb contaminants. After the surface has dried the contaminants need to be swept or vacuumed up so that when it rains the contamination will not be washed away.

ANOTHER deceptive paragraph. C'mon, This is a bs way of saying 'we don't want to allow this'

The lighter stipulations on fleetwashing - BS

The specific assignment of flocculation to hazardous waste that must be removed by a hauler - Arbitrary BS . Just eliminating a proven and competing method of filtration.

Etc Etc - Have a look at all the little added on specifications that paint the true big picture of this BMP.
 
I would invite everyone following the Orange County situation to go back and read this thread again for a little more in depth information on the BMP's that Robert Hinderliter tried to force on Orange County.

He was not asked for this. He took it upon himself to do it.

This thread has a lot of information that took many hours to go through and compile. It's hard to understand this stuff if you don't know the background and the intent of the original documents.
 
I keep on asking myself why a vendor would be shopping bmp's that most contractors and cities don't want, don't need and wanted input to change these bmp's but were not listened to years ago.

When that vendor is trying to sell equipment to municipalities and contractors then that is the motivation to keep making it harder for contractors around the country so that vendor can keep on selling equipment to them, especially if their cities mandate the use of that vendor's equipment besides buying that vendors' equipment themselves because a vendor lied to them saying that their own bmp's are illegal and the vendor solicits money from the municipality to change their bmp's to his liking so that contractors have to buy his equipment, spend more money, do the same work they have done for years now differently taking longer to do the same job but not for more money as seen by proof in Atlanta, GA and Houston, Tx.

We have seen examples like these as the customers out there will not pay very high prices now because you had to buy more equipment to do the same job because a vendor got in bed with the city officials and regulators to make contractors buy more equipment to do the same job and if they are caught doing the same job without the added equipment, fine them and fine them again until they are out of business and provide the city with a new income stream as told to us in the city of Houston, Texas by the police themselves, they are told to issue citations no matter the circumstances but the contractor can take time out of his day to go talk to the judge to get it sorted out.

Mindless ticket/citation writing is what they wanted there, where you had to use more of your time to go fight something that was wrong to begin with and in most cases was illegal citation/ticket writing but a lot of contractors just paid the fines becuase they are busy trying to earn a living. Unfortunately many got out of this line of work because of illegal ticket/citation writing, having to pay fines that were illegal, spending time from work to take care of these things that should not have happened and taking the little bit of profit out of their business to pay these illegal fines.

All of this started to get straightened out with the help of Ron Musgraves and Doug Rucker, spending time out of their own schedules, money out of their own pocket to make it there to help educate the city of Houston and the police and get things on track so that contractors would not be fined or harrassed anymore out of wrongful thinking, illegal citations and wasting time going to talk to the judge when the citation/ticket should never had been written in the first place.

This is what is coming to your city if you don't get involved and talk to your city and talk to your BOD if your are in the pwna, not sure if talking to the pwna will help as it is owned by the hinderliters so change might not happen but you don't have to keep giving them your hard earned money so they have funds to keep doing this to contractors around the country without your consent or knowledge.

I will add more later on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top