De-licensure of Geologists: Coming Soon?
master. Is there really no difference between geologists with just four years of education versus geologists with 20 years of work experience? As most of us who have been practicing for a while know, this field is complex both with respect to the science but also with respect to the ever changing regulatory environment. It truly takes years to develop expertise and confidence in geology.
Licensing of geologists does not prevent anyone interested in geology from getting a job as a geologist, but it does prevent an inexperienced geologist from getting into a position where they are making deci- sions that impact public health and safety. Most geolo- gists start their careers working with other geologists in an industrial, mining, or consulting company where they report to experienced senior geologists. It would be extremely rare for a geologist to immediately start their own consulting business as opposed to professions like hair cutting or athletic training (note athletic trainers were removed from the initial bill after Major League Baseball protests during the very economically important spring training season in Arizona). Therefore, the governor is absolutely wrong when he asserts that removing licensing of geologists is going to somehow spur competition and allow more people to become geologists! The marketplace for geologists is limited to the number of geologists that the marketplace can support – the balance of supply and demand, the foundation of our capitalist system.
So what about this overall trend toward deregulation of the professions? This is not something new, but has become more of an issue recently for both U.S. political parties. Occupational licensing is akin to labor unions. Based on an article by Thornton and Timmons published in 2015 in the Monthly Labor Review1, there are several key similarities between unions and occupational licensing. Both increase wages on the order of 10 to 15 percent and at their peaks, unions and occupational licensing represented up to about 30 percent of the labor force. Union membership peaked about 50 years ago and has been in steady decline ever since while occupational licensing continues to rise. Unions can be decertified through a vote of its membership; however licensing can only be changed through legislation. This is what makes de-licensing difficult as compared to decertification of a union.
Thornton and Timmons (2015) report that there have been only a handful of cases where an occupation licensed at the state level was de-licensed. Legislative bills recommending de-licensing of occupations have been drafted only to die in committee, fail to be passed by state legislatures, or go unsigned by the governor. Based on their research, Thornton and Timmons found that only eight occupations have been de- licensed in the past 40 years: barbers in Alabama, morticians in Colorado, naturopaths in Virginia, private investigators in Colorado, egg candlers (an egg inspection term) in Colorado, interior designers in Alabama, and watchmakers in Minnesota and Wisconsin. There are other instances where states have either reduced the scope of licensing or prevented expansion
of licensing. For example, in 2014, a bill (House Bill 1891) was introduced to the Missouri legislature that would allow persons to practice without a license as long as the persons do not claim to be licensed. Geologists were included in the list of occupations that this bill pertained to. This bill was strongly opposed and has not made it to the floor of the house for a hearing as of this writing.
Would de-licensing geologists in Arizona save the state money? No. In fact, the cost of administering licensing is cov- ered by 90 percent of the registration fees that we pay. The other 10 percent goes to the state’s general fund; therefore de-licensing geologists will actually cost the state rather than save the state money.
Based on the research and comments of Thornton and Timmons (2015), removing licensure of geologists could be difficult. But as Arizona has experienced, a determined gov- ernor and compliant legislature can diminish or completely remove licensure for geologists. Arizona’s program has been diminished by allowing non-registrants to practice geology in Arizona. What if other states get on board with this trend? Do we fight it or embrace it and move on? I know that there are many geologists that see no value in professional registration. Others of us find great value in professional registration and as Thornton and Timmons point out, licensure has a beneficial impact on salaries for all geologists, licensed or not.
What role should AIPG play in the future of professional registration? It seems to me that AIPG is ideally situated to be a significant player in this arena. In our discussions with the Arizona Governor’s office, the Governor’s staff felt that a national organization like AIPG could take that role. Certification as a CPG, while not the same as professional registration, is important in states that do not have licensing as well as for meeting the requirements of a qualified person for 43-101 reports. Could the CPG program be modified in a way that would allow it to more directly meet the requirements for professional registration typically required by the states? ASBOG creates the professional registration exams used by many states to qualify geologists as GITs and PGs/RGs. The individual states review the exam scores and determine a passing score for that state. AIPG could team with ASBOG to create a new CPG-like program that would require pas- sage of ASBOG exams, administered by AIPG, in addition to peer-review and work experience requirements similar to our current CPG program. Administering this new program would require resources and financing that AIPG does not currently have. AIPG would also take on a certain amount of additional liability above and beyond the liability associated with the CPG program.
I am very interested to know your opinion regarding AIPG’s potential role (or not) in professional licensing. I think this issue needs careful thought and, if AIPG wants to move for- ward to next steps, planning. Please email me any thoughts you have at
dbartlett@clearcreekassociates.com.
1.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2015/article/pdf/the-de-licensing-of-occupations-in-the-united-states.pdf Section News
Can now be found on the AIPG website at
http://aipg.org/sectionnews
New Applicants and Members
Can now be found on the AIPG website at
http://aipg.org/newmembers
www.aipg.org
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56
