6 ms·

Without a regulatory body it would be too easy for an unqualified person to pose as an electrician, doctor, dentist or lawyer. Do you really want someone with n

Without a regulatory body it would be too easy for an unqualified person to pose as an electrician, doctor, dentist or lawyer. Do you really want someone with no experience or training wiring your house, pulling your teeth, operating on your knee, or defending you at trial?

thinkcomp 15y ago
If I want to represent myself or my company at trial, I should have that right.
- ShabbyDoo 15y ago
  You do already, I think (speaking of The US).
- nknight 15y ago
  You have the right to represent yourself, but not another person or entity, which is what you would be doing if you attempted to represent your limited liability entity in court. It doesn't matter if you're the sole shareholder or not, you and the company are not one and the same.
  - thinkcomp 15y ago
    Except that such logic seems to vanish in small claims court (where I can represent my corporation), and before the USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeals Board (where I can represent my corporation)...which means that it's really not very logical at all.
    - nknight 15y ago
      The details of small claims courts vary wildly from state to state, but more importantly, they're not courts of general jurisdiction. They have severe restrictions on what they can and can't do, and the losing party is often entitled to a de novo trial in a court of general jurisdiction. The USPTO appeals board you mentioned is not a court at all. It is an administrative body whose holdings are again subject to review in US District Court.
    - rprasad 15y ago
      Small claims courts are not much different from arbitration. There are no consequences to not showing up or participating, as losing simply means that you can move the matter to a new (i.e., independent) case in a real courtroom with a real judge. I cannot defend the USPTO; much of what they do is indefensible.
- gte910h 15y ago
  You do?
- jrs235 15y ago
  To clear some things up: The reason you can not represent anyone other than yourself in court without passing the BAR examine is because the defendant might not be properly represented and cause problems such as mistrial or open up loads of appeals. Why? The bar examine is used to ensure that an attorney knows and understands the legal rules and procedures. That's it. If an attorney fails to object to a motion [on behalf of their client], fails to file a motion [on behalf of their client], or fails to respond to a claim or motion [on behalf of their client] then their client isn't being properly represented. Why can YOU represent YOURSELF? Because if you fail any of those things, well, it's your own fault. What is the number one topic we are failing to teach in our education system? BASIC [foundational] law and legal issues.
electromagnetic 15y ago
On the building front, this is BS. I was an electrician in the UK, and because of the regulatory capture here in Canada it's not worth my time to become an electrician. I'm completely unqualified as an electrician here in Canada, but I have more varied experience with electrical circuits, safety testing and literally everything to do with the job than 99% of electricians here in Canada (and the US for that matter). I can tell you the very simple system that works for the rest of the construction industry outside of those requiring "qualifications". It's called permits and paid on completion. If the electrician doesn't pass on his permit, it doesn't reach completion and you don't pay. Why does this system work for framers, brick layers and every other trade, but it doesn't work for an electrician. Sorry that's fishy. I legally can do my own wiring on my own house here in Canada and get it inspected by the ESA and then the building inspector to pass permit. An electrician has to pass the permit anyway. Why can I not work on someone elses house and get the ESA to pass my work? Why can I not apply for the ESA to inspect my work and verify that I'm a competent electrician. Because I would like to tell you the truth, in that only 20% of those "qualified" electricians are actually doing work to code and more importantly safely.
- learc83 15y ago
  My stepdad was a nuclear power electrician in the Navy, but when he got out he found out that he'd have to spend years as an apprentice to someone less qualified than him in order to be licensed.
michaelkeenan 15y ago
I'm sad that you've been downvoted, though I disagree with you. Occupational licensing doesn't just improve service quality (if it improves service quality), it also increases the price. The result is often that instead of great quality, the consumer gets nothing at all because ze can't afford it. This hits the poorest people hardest. In the USA, the poor have a famously bad time with healthcare and legal advice. There are mechanisms other than mandatory qualifications by which consumers can measure quality, including voluntary qualifications, reputation, and price signaling. These aren't perfect, but neither are mandatory qualifications. Each mechanism has advantages and disadvantages.
- philwelch 15y ago
  With healthcare at least, there are walk-in clinics and nurse practitioners. Without licensure you wouldn't have a surfeit of cheap doctors; you'd have quacks running around representing themselves as doctors. With licensure you still have the quacks, but they call themselves "alternative medicine" and you can still go to them if you want. So there's no real loss of choice there.
  - rbarooah 15y ago
    Medical licensing isn't just about the right to call yourself a doctor. Alternative medicine practicioners, or even experienced doctors who qualified in another country, are not allowed to perform the same procedures as doctors regardless of whether their patients would like them to. There is a very real loss of choice.
    - philwelch 15y ago
      Internationalization is a valid point, but I'm not too choked up about my witch doctor not being allowed to perform open heart surgery. Besides, he would probably rather prescribe me water or stick needles in me instead.
      - rbarooah 15y ago
        Sarcasm aside, you're missing the point. Why isn't it sufficient to regulate the title 'Doctor' without preventing other practitioners from practicing? People who wanted a traditional medical practitioner would be protected, and those who were willing to take more risk would have the choice.
randomdata 15y ago
I would like to have the choice, yes. I still can choose to pay more for someone with a demonstrable history, but if I want to take the risk on an unknown and save some money in the process, why shouldn't I be able to?
- law 15y ago
  Because it results in uncontrollable externalities. Take the electrician example: what happens if an unlicensed electrician kills himself when performing work? Does his family get to collect from your homeowner's insurance? Can they sue you? Are you criminally liable? What about when you sell the house? Should you have to disclose that someone unlicensed did the wiring? What if you don't and the house ignites in a fire one night caused by improper wiring, killing the future owners, are you responsible? Is the electrician? And you don't even want to touch the potential for abuse... regulation causes a lot of problems, I completely agree. But it serves to protect the public; we're effectively paying for protection against deception that capitalizes on our lack of knowledge in a specialty. That's worth protecting.
  - learc83 15y ago
    >Are you criminally liable? There's nothing in the current law about granting you immunity from criminal liability as long as you hire a licensed electrician, so that's a completely moot point. >What if you don't and the house ignites in a fire one night caused by improper wiring, killing the future owners, are you responsible? Is the electrician? In most jurisdictions you can already preform electrical work on your own property. If you install a ceiling fan should have to disclose to the new owner that it wasn't installed by a licensed electrician? Are you responsible for killing the future owner? There are scores of people installing their own light fixtures, where's the public outcry over all the dead homebuyers? What happens when you hire the unlicensed kid next door to cut your grass, and he cuts off his foot? What happens when an unlicensed painter falls off a ladder and kills himself? If you want protection from damage caused by people you hire to work on your house, only hire contractors who are insured. Make them present proof of insurance before the job begins.
jrs235 15y ago
There's nothing wrong with certifying organizations, but there ought to be competition and free market choice. Leave it to the buyer to determine if they wish to hire a "State Certified Electrician" or "Professional Electricians" certified electrician, or the electrician with not credentials. But also place legal civil obligations on the buyer. "OH NO!" you scream because how can the buyer know what the local codes are and make sure the electrician is following them? The buyer needs to know and be educated to transfer that risk to the electrician. State in the contract that the electrician is responsible for any/all civil fines due to work they perform. The certifying (and competing) organizations can/will work with insurance companies to also transfer some risk off and away from the contractor. The contractor and buyer still should be criminally liable for any willful noncompliance.

thinkcomp 15y ago

If I want to represent myself or my company at trial, I should have that right.

ShabbyDoo 15y ago
You do already, I think (speaking of The US).
nknight 15y ago
You have the right to represent yourself, but not another person or entity, which is what you would be doing if you attempted to represent your limited liability entity in court. It doesn't matter if you're the sole shareholder or not, you and the company are not one and the same.
- thinkcomp 15y ago
  Except that such logic seems to vanish in small claims court (where I can represent my corporation), and before the USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeals Board (where I can represent my corporation)...which means that it's really not very logical at all.
  - nknight 15y ago
    The details of small claims courts vary wildly from state to state, but more importantly, they're not courts of general jurisdiction. They have severe restrictions on what they can and can't do, and the losing party is often entitled to a de novo trial in a court of general jurisdiction. The USPTO appeals board you mentioned is not a court at all. It is an administrative body whose holdings are again subject to review in US District Court.
  - rprasad 15y ago
    Small claims courts are not much different from arbitration. There are no consequences to not showing up or participating, as losing simply means that you can move the matter to a new (i.e., independent) case in a real courtroom with a real judge. I cannot defend the USPTO; much of what they do is indefensible.
gte910h 15y ago
You do?
jrs235 15y ago
To clear some things up: The reason you can not represent anyone other than yourself in court without passing the BAR examine is because the defendant might not be properly represented and cause problems such as mistrial or open up loads of appeals. Why? The bar examine is used to ensure that an attorney knows and understands the legal rules and procedures. That's it. If an attorney fails to object to a motion [on behalf of their client], fails to file a motion [on behalf of their client], or fails to respond to a claim or motion [on behalf of their client] then their client isn't being properly represented. Why can YOU represent YOURSELF? Because if you fail any of those things, well, it's your own fault. What is the number one topic we are failing to teach in our education system? BASIC [foundational] law and legal issues.

electromagnetic 15y ago

On the building front, this is BS. I was an electrician in the UK, and because of the regulatory capture here in Canada it's not worth my time to become an electrician. I'm completely unqualified as an electrician here in Canada, but I have more varied experience with electrical circuits, safety testing and literally everything to do with the job than 99% of electricians here in Canada (and the US for that matter). I can tell you the very simple system that works for the rest of the construction industry outside of those requiring "qualifications". It's called permits and paid on completion. If the electrician doesn't pass on his permit, it doesn't reach completion and you don't pay. Why does this system work for framers, brick layers and every other trade, but it doesn't work for an electrician. Sorry that's fishy. I legally can do my own wiring on my own house here in Canada and get it inspected by the ESA and then the building inspector to pass permit. An electrician has to pass the permit anyway. Why can I not work on someone elses house and get the ESA to pass my work? Why can I not apply for the ESA to inspect my work and verify that I'm a competent electrician. Because I would like to tell you the truth, in that only 20% of those "qualified" electricians are actually doing work to code and more importantly safely.

learc83 15y ago
My stepdad was a nuclear power electrician in the Navy, but when he got out he found out that he'd have to spend years as an apprentice to someone less qualified than him in order to be licensed.

michaelkeenan 15y ago

I'm sad that you've been downvoted, though I disagree with you. Occupational licensing doesn't just improve service quality (if it improves service quality), it also increases the price. The result is often that instead of great quality, the consumer gets nothing at all because ze can't afford it. This hits the poorest people hardest. In the USA, the poor have a famously bad time with healthcare and legal advice. There are mechanisms other than mandatory qualifications by which consumers can measure quality, including voluntary qualifications, reputation, and price signaling. These aren't perfect, but neither are mandatory qualifications. Each mechanism has advantages and disadvantages.

philwelch 15y ago
With healthcare at least, there are walk-in clinics and nurse practitioners. Without licensure you wouldn't have a surfeit of cheap doctors; you'd have quacks running around representing themselves as doctors. With licensure you still have the quacks, but they call themselves "alternative medicine" and you can still go to them if you want. So there's no real loss of choice there.
- rbarooah 15y ago
  Medical licensing isn't just about the right to call yourself a doctor. Alternative medicine practicioners, or even experienced doctors who qualified in another country, are not allowed to perform the same procedures as doctors regardless of whether their patients would like them to. There is a very real loss of choice.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    Internationalization is a valid point, but I'm not too choked up about my witch doctor not being allowed to perform open heart surgery. Besides, he would probably rather prescribe me water or stick needles in me instead.
    - rbarooah 15y ago
      Sarcasm aside, you're missing the point. Why isn't it sufficient to regulate the title 'Doctor' without preventing other practitioners from practicing? People who wanted a traditional medical practitioner would be protected, and those who were willing to take more risk would have the choice.

randomdata 15y ago

I would like to have the choice, yes. I still can choose to pay more for someone with a demonstrable history, but if I want to take the risk on an unknown and save some money in the process, why shouldn't I be able to?

law 15y ago
Because it results in uncontrollable externalities. Take the electrician example: what happens if an unlicensed electrician kills himself when performing work? Does his family get to collect from your homeowner's insurance? Can they sue you? Are you criminally liable? What about when you sell the house? Should you have to disclose that someone unlicensed did the wiring? What if you don't and the house ignites in a fire one night caused by improper wiring, killing the future owners, are you responsible? Is the electrician? And you don't even want to touch the potential for abuse... regulation causes a lot of problems, I completely agree. But it serves to protect the public; we're effectively paying for protection against deception that capitalizes on our lack of knowledge in a specialty. That's worth protecting.
- learc83 15y ago
  >Are you criminally liable? There's nothing in the current law about granting you immunity from criminal liability as long as you hire a licensed electrician, so that's a completely moot point. >What if you don't and the house ignites in a fire one night caused by improper wiring, killing the future owners, are you responsible? Is the electrician? In most jurisdictions you can already preform electrical work on your own property. If you install a ceiling fan should have to disclose to the new owner that it wasn't installed by a licensed electrician? Are you responsible for killing the future owner? There are scores of people installing their own light fixtures, where's the public outcry over all the dead homebuyers? What happens when you hire the unlicensed kid next door to cut your grass, and he cuts off his foot? What happens when an unlicensed painter falls off a ladder and kills himself? If you want protection from damage caused by people you hire to work on your house, only hire contractors who are insured. Make them present proof of insurance before the job begins.

jrs235 15y ago

There's nothing wrong with certifying organizations, but there ought to be competition and free market choice. Leave it to the buyer to determine if they wish to hire a "State Certified Electrician" or "Professional Electricians" certified electrician, or the electrician with not credentials. But also place legal civil obligations on the buyer. "OH NO!" you scream because how can the buyer know what the local codes are and make sure the electrician is following them? The buyer needs to know and be educated to transfer that risk to the electrician. State in the contract that the electrician is responsible for any/all civil fines due to work they perform. The certifying (and competing) organizations can/will work with insurance companies to also transfer some risk off and away from the contractor. The contractor and buyer still should be criminally liable for any willful noncompliance.