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.
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.
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.
People who wanted a traditional medical practitioner would be protected, and those who were willing to take more risk would have the choice.
The staggering amount of money that do get paid to quacks selling stuff that is proven not to work show us very clearly that informed choice is largely a fantasy when dealing with the general public.
It seems to me that that private group of scientifically grounded medical practitioners who certified their members, but had different criteria from the state licensing system could be a very good thing.
This alternate certification would need to prove its reputation just as the institutions that certify doctors have. It seems likely that there are ways to train and certify doctors that produce better professionals than the current ones.
I doubt you're arguing that current state approved medical institutions cannot be improved upon. Why not allow alternatives to compete with them?
Could be, perhaps. Now weigh that hypothetical scenario against what actually happened in history that led to the state medical boards being created.
> I doubt you're arguing that current state approved medical institutions cannot be improved upon. Why not allow alternatives to compete with them?
Because we tried that and it didn't work last time. It got so bad that self-proclaimed "doctors" set up self-proclaimed "medical schools" as a con, paid large sums of money for cadavers "no questions asked", and ended up getting people murdered.
Do you have some legitimate problem with your state's medical board? I'd suggest you take it up with your state legislator.
Besides, there are alternatives--some states have separate osteopathic boards that license D.O.'s rather than M.D.'s, yet licensed D.O.'s have the exact same privileges as any other doctor.
I nowhere suggested going back to how things were before, and my proposal explicitly rejected the idea of allowing self-proclaimed doctors.
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?
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.
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.
You would not be entirely responsible for killing the future owner...but yes, under the doctrine of negligence, you would be at least partially responsible for killing the future owner. In fact, this is one of the first things you learn in your first year of law school.
The unlicensed kid: That depends on how he cuts off his foot. Was he distracted? Was your wife distracting him at the time sunbathing nude next to the pool? Was he using your mower? Was your mower broken?
Unlicensed painter: Also depends on the specific facts. Was it his ladder? Why did he fall off the ladder? What did he fall onto? Would such a fall normally have killed a person? What special facts in this situation resulted in the painter's death?
Protection from damage: You're spot on. In fact, in Ohio, you're required to hire only licensed and bonded (i.e., insured) contractors for renovations or construction work. Moreover, contractors are required to provide proof of license and bond before they begin work or try to collect payment.
No, the difference is in the lobbying power of industry incumbents. A quick search will show that there are states where interior decorators, and trumpet players are required to be licensed.
I think the law can assume a reasonable person would be aware of the dangers of electricity. Most states have moved away from requiring gas pump attendants--is a reasonable person aware of the dangers of gasoline? If so why not the dangers of electricity?
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.
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.
I cannot defend the USPTO; much of what they do is indefensible.
The contractor and buyer still should be criminally liable for any willful noncompliance.