Arizona at it Again 2

[JedClampett]

This worries me. Using the logic of the legislature, (hire at your own risk, you can sue them afterwards...) they could eliminate any licensing for any profession. How soon before they come for engineers? I suspect the Koch's (ALEC) are at at it again. And if it flies in Arizona, expect the exact same stunts to be rolled out across the nation.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...sionals-yoga-instructors-geologists/80769878/

 

[KENAT]

Of course, those of us in exempt industry might have a different take.

"They would have to have a certificate of qualification from a national bureau of registration or certification or a degree from an accredited institution in the field."

However, I get the point about it possibly being start of a slippery slope.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[msquared48]

I could make a very snyde comment here, but I will restrain myself...

Restrain...

Restrain...

Snap!

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

 

[IRstuff]

I would certainly want to know if the person dunking my fingers into some sort of goop has been trained and knows what that goop will actually do to my fingers.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
faq731-376 forum1529

 

[KENAT]

msquared, if the snyde comment is for me, go nuts.

<edit - by which I mean go ahead and type it>

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[msquared48]

Not about you Kenat - about the article and the results of such a fiasco.

The suggestion is ludicrous and irresponsible in my opinion, to put it mildly. And that was not my snyde comment.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

 

[GregLocock]

The food packaging one is interesting, like engineers and unlike surgeons, they can kill by the tens or hundreds. And note to idiot pollie, you can't sue when your dead, or leave a negative review on Yelp.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[swertel]

I've already sent a letter to our esteemed Governor to veto this bill if it makes it to his desk. I need to research who my local representatives are (I recently moved jurisdictions) to write them and get this bill canned before it's too late.

--Scott
www.wertel.pro

 

[JedClampett]

Scott, thanks for your help. Every letter and call helps. By the way, the bill is the governor's idea.

 

[zelgar]

Sometimes the stupidity of the legislature knows no bounds. Once upon a time, there was no license needed for these professions. They came into being after people who indicated that they had the professional understanding of the job caused some type of harm (either physically or financially). In order to prevent these problems in the future, licensing was founded to assure everyone that the person having the license had knowledge at a certain level and a way for the State to have some method of dealing with people who were not competent but claimed the experience. It does not mean that the person with a license is infallible (although there are some P.E.'s I've dealt with who thought this way) or able to perform the work being requested (e.g., a Mechanical P.E being asked to design the foundation for a skyscraper).

Here's a few reasons why you wouldn't want the following professions unlicensed:

Professions               Problems if not qualified
landscape architects      improper water drainage, retention wall failure
food-packing contractors  as stated in article - tracking foodborne diseases - E. Coli & Lysteria
geologists                aquifer contamination, improper soil sample collection, improper groundwater sampling
driving school teachers   poor drivers, kids not getting their drivers license, accidents
yoga instructors          personal injury
assayers                  improper soil/ore classification (was probably VERY important 100 years ago)

In a way, licensure is a barrier for entry. It's a barrier that is there to protect everyone to assure that the person with the license is aware of the job and the rules. A good example is a driver's license (vehicle operator's license). Just because someone thinks they can drive, legally they cannot drive a car without a license. They may be the best driver on the road, but they have not proven to the State that they are a competent driver and know the rules. I don't think anyone would think it's a good idea to get rid of driver's licenses.

 

[gravityandinertia]

In my free-time, I like to investigate actual changes in the legislature for myself rather than rely on articles that are opinions. While reading the bills can be tedious, I find myself educated and sometimes highly interested.

I found the part that they are changing in this instance of a land surveyor interesting. Engineers still have to be of good moral character and repute, but land surveyors don't. Shouldn't all licensed professionals be required to be moral? I know it's subjective with no real way to measure that other than perhaps criminal record, but still what's wrong with leaving it there? I'd love to hear opinions on this!

 

[MacGyverS2000]

I'm all for removing unnecessary/irrelevant/unquantifiable items from such lists... some things should be obvious / a given. It should not be required to say "Person X must be moral." If person X does not have morals, that will become evident at some point. Making such a vague item a requirement diminishes the purpose of the overall set of requirements.

Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

 

[SLTA]

g and i, I bet it has to do with the question of how does one define "good moral character and repute". There are some who would say that if I choose to dye my hair blue, or join a roller derby team, then that would disqualify me. There are others who would push to disqualify everyone who isn't their brand of religion. Leaving such vague requirements is just like you said - very difficult to quantify and therefore open to abuse. My state board has "Rules of Professional Conduct" that apply to both engineers and surveyors, which greatly simplifies things. I'd be interested to see if that state then added something similar after deleting the statement.

Please remember: we're not all guys!

 

[gravityandinertia]

SLTA,

If the unquantifiable portion of that is true, I find that it is not reworded to something like a requirement of being convicted of 0 felonies and/or a certain number of misdemeanors. I also find it interesting that if it is uncertainty in quantifying it, why isn't it being removed from all other licensed professions? Engineers still have it and it isn't anymore quantifiable based on Engineering as your profession.

I'm not saying right or wrong, I just find certain decisions to be interesting and try to understand the logic in making them. Certainly politics isn't always logical, but you would think if there was a driving principle, it would be consistent among all such rules. When it's not consistent, I try to ask who stands to benefit?

 

[IRstuff]

The whole point of the vague requirement is not unlike the FBI applying the All Writs Act of 1789 to demand that Apple break the encryption on a device that couldn't have even been imagined in 1789. It allows the board to censure people for things they haven't necessarily considered before. For example, 100 yrs ago, being a racist or a misogynist would not have disqualified someone for moral grounds, but it probably is today, so rather than tacking on and itemizing each individual and potential moral break, there's a catch-all requirement that can be applied, regardless of anything else.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
faq731-376 forum1529

 

[JedClampett]

It's a CYA for the state. Whenever I have to write a recommendation for someone to get a license, there's a box to check "Does the applicant exhibit good moral character?", yes or no. That way, if a total pud gets through, the state can claim to have asked.
If they don't ask, and there's a newspaper story that Bernie Madoff got a PE in Kentucky, it will make the agency look pretty stupid.

 

[cranky108]

How about the only requirement being that the company or person has the necessary insurance from a state approved company.

This would require the insurance companies to evaluate who they insure, and the risk they may hold.

 

[drawoh]

JedClampett,

Let's come that this from the opposite direction. I understand you need a license to be a hairdresser. Really? I believe strippers are licensed too.

You can regulate quality by requiring trained, peer reviewed professionals. Alternately, you can inspect work in process. This is a good idea when you handle food for example, where workers are not well paid or empowered. In the case of food, you should be more concerned about supervision and company culture than about workers who will be fired in an instant if they piss off management.

--
JHG

 

[GregLocock]

I rather like letting the insurance companies decide who to insure rather than relying on a state issued license. I'm particularly keen to apply this to drivers.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[IRstuff]

The pitfall with that is that pool will eventually shrink to nothing, and premiums will go through the roof, because even though they're insuring only "good drivers," but that doesn't prevent these people from getting into accidents with the "bad" drivers.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
faq731-376 forum1529