I have been in situations when "the agent" sent me to a pharma lab to interview for a purchasing role when I used to do purchasing in the constructions industry.
Licensing in Japan at least is isn't about ensuring the recruiter has knowledge of the field. Rather, it is to ensure that they meet privacy requirements and are not a fly-by-night business. They include having a minimum amount of assets, have a physical office with a separate room to interview candidates, and appointing a "privacy representative" who has completed a training seminar.
Personally, I think trying to ensure that a recruiter has knowledge of a field would be quite challenging to do via licensing, especially in an area like tech where the field evolves so rapidly.
Regulation and licensing introduces change. There’s no stipulation whether the change is positive or negative, and to again make a change once it’s set generally requires lobbyists and lots of money in the US.
Having worked in NYC with union workers I have witnessed how easily it can be abused.
Is there any reason why we want to double down on this model? Are we all so blind fed by outrage and/or social media we accept emotions instead of debate?
These are the kinds of things I want to see. The human fallacy is known and quantified, although, as far as I know it’s abused / exploited instead of providing neutral ground for policy discussion.
it's entirely possible that there is an effective solution without involving inefficient government bureaucracy
I won't say hard words about the agent even though I'm tempted. It was not the first or the last time something like that happened.
As much as I hate gov butting in in general... I can see recruitment companies self-regulating just as well as advertising/tech companies.