This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Gathering Assault on Professional Licensure


Gerry Donohue, ACEC senior communications writer Contributed by R. Douglas Bartlett, CPG-08433


The following article is reprinted with permission from Engineering Inc., the bi-monthly magazine of the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC).


Professional licensure is under assault in America. Many of the political prin- ciples that helped to elect populist candi- dates to high office—limited government and a free market—have fueled legisla- tive efforts to limit or even eliminate the need for professional licensure for a host of occupations, including engineering.


To date, and largely due to aggres- sive responses by American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) Member Organizations, the de-licens- ing campaigns have not been success- ful—although in Arizona, for example, professional geologist licensing was undermined. Everyone involved, how- ever, agrees that the licensing fight is just getting started.


“Most of these efforts claim as their inspiration the libertarian viewpoint that government should not be in the business of preventing people from get- ting jobs,” says Doug Folk, an attorney with Clark Hill‘s national construc- tion law practice group in Scottsdale, Arizona .


“As a simple statement of principles, you can’t disagree with that, but there’s so much more at stake. These professions were regulated because people were losing their lives when structures were improperly engineered or constructed. Engineering and other design profes- sions are regulated to protect the public through a combination of testing and licensure that has worked well for almost 100 years.


A Long and Successful History


In 1907, Wyoming became the first state to license engineers, and today every state, plus the District of Columbia, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands licenses professional engineers.


Since 1920, the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) has developed and


8 TPG • Oct.Nov.Dec 2017


offered standard examinations for engi- neering and surveying licensure across all the states. (Architects have a parallel organization, the National Council of Architecture Registration Boards.)


“In part, our current system of pro- fessional licensing across the states has been so flexible and effective that its purpose became invisible to those who would change it,” says Folk. “We need to explain to critics why this system isn’t broke, and in no need of fixing.”


Manicurists and Animal Massagers


While the state licensing system may not be broken for engineers, architects, and other high-skill professions, one could argue that it doesn’t work for many others.


In the early 1950s, less than 5 percent of the U.S. workforce was covered by state licensing laws. That level ballooned to 20 per- cent in 2000, according to Department of Labor data. In 2003, the Council of State Governments estimated that more than 800 occu- pations were licensed in at least one state, and in a 2008 Westat survey, 29 percent of workers said they were required to have a govern- ment-issued license to do their job.


Reasonable people might question the reasoning behind state licensing of yoga instructors (Arizona), animal massagers (Florida), or manicurists (many states).


Licensing in low-income professions might act as a barrier to entry, possibly preventing people who can’t afford the required training or the license fee from even entering the profession.


A recent study by the Goldwater Institute, which opposes licensing laws, found that states that license more than 50 percent of lower-income occupations have an 11 percent lower entrepreneur- ship rate than the national average; states that licensed less than a third had an entrepreneurship rate that is 11 percent higher. A 2009 study by Morris Kleiner and Alan Krueger reported that licensed professions enjoy a 14 percent wage premium in the market. And the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which opposes licensing, asserts that the system increases unemploy- ment by 1 percent.


Given this situation, it would make sense for licensing opponents to target lower-income professions, while retain- ing the system for professions where the public health, safety and welfare would be affected. “A lot of them understand that,” says Dennis Ford, president of FTN Associates in Little Rock, Ark., who helped lead a recent fight in his states against delicensing. “Rather than address each occupation on its merits, though, they want to take the matter on wholesale.”


Policy and Politics


Two events have spurred efforts to limit or eliminate professional licensing.


In 2008, ALEC developed its model The Occupational Licensing Relief and Job Creation Act, to ensure “that an individual may pursue lawful occupa- tion free from unnecessary occupational regulations, and protect against the use of occupational regulations to reduce competition and increase prices to con- sumers.”


ALEC is an organization of conserva- tive state legislators and private sector


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