Thursday, March 22, 2007

What do you do again?

If you want to work in New Mexico -- and four other states as an interior designer, you can go ahead and do so. But if you want to call yourself an "interior designer," you'd better take a state-mandated licensing exam, or face the full wrath of the law. And that barrier to accurately describing your profession on your business cards and in the yellow pages isn't exactly a low hurdle. According to the Institute for Justice:

New Mexico’s speech-licensing requirements for interior designers are not easy to meet. First, applicants must pass an exam administered not by the State, but by a private, national credentialing body called the National Council for Interior Design Qualification (NCIDQ). But not just anyone may take the NCIDQ exam. Just to sit for the exam, NCIDQ requires people to have six years combined college-level interior design education and work experience.[15] That education/experience requirement is reflected in New Mexico law, which likewise provides that applicants for an interior design free-speech license must either have six years total experience and education from an “accredited institution” or an eight-year apprenticeship under a designer who has passed the NCIDQ exam described above.[16] Essentially, what New Mexico has fashioned is a guild of interior designers.

Four other states go even further: Alabama, Florida, Nevada and Louisiana plus the District of Columbia all prevent people from even working as interior designers unless they jump through hoops established by government bureaucrats.

Not surprisingly, these licensing laws have been pushed not by consumers suffering bad feng shui from the ravages of incompetent interior designers, but by the design industry itself. The American Society of Interior Designers has waged a campaign to "professionalize" the industry -- and, incidentally, limit the competition -- by establishing legally enforceable barriers to entry.

Fortunately, most states see little reason to test and license people before allowing then to decide where to put your sofa. But the residents of New Mexico are among the minority who have to beg, hat in hand, to be allowed to openly and fully practice their craft.

So IJ has taken on the task of representing New Mexicans who work as interior designers and want to exercise their right to accurately describe to the public what they do to earn their keep.

The Institute’s legal challenge is straightforward: prohibiting people from truthfully describing what they do—interior design—violates their First Amendment right to free expression. With very narrow exceptions, all types of speech are protected by the Constitution, including so-called “commercial speech” that “does no more than propose a commercial transaction.”[21] Thus, to regulate advertising, the government must have a substantial reason for restricting speech, and any limits must be carefully designed to actually achieve the government’s objectives while having only the narrowest infringement on speech.[22]

Offering your services to willing customers is a right -- not a privilege. And, as IJ points out, accurately describing the services you offer is simple free speech.

Here's hoping IJ and the plaintiffs prevail.

Labels:

4 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm a medical transcriptionist (MT), and the former American Association for Medical Transcription (AAMT--can't remember what the h*ll they've renamed themselves) wants to become a guild/union for our occupation as well (although they deny it)... they're pushing for not only mandatory credentialing (issued by them, of course), but licensing as well; and they want to control which schools get "approved" to teach this skill.

This used to be an occupation which could be very well learned on the job, which is how I got into it. The AAMT has lately gotten very heavily into lobbying.

A lot of the MTs out there are freaked out by the foreign competition, the change to voice recognition technology), and the falling wage rates in the industry (hey, I got a pay cut too which hit me hard); but there are very few MTs out there who are still for a free market.

I have written articles and LTEs to one free industry magazine, but am afraid that most of it is falling on deaf ears and blind eyes.

March 24, 2007 7:40 PM  
Blogger J.D. Tuccille said...

I'm sorry to hear that medical transcriptionists may join the rush to "professionalize" by adopting licensing requirements. It almost seems to be a rite of passage for occupations these days to highlight their importance by limiting entry to the field -- and incidentally limit competition to existing practitioners.

March 24, 2007 9:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, everyone's rushing to somehow make themselves appear more "professional."

I too feel threatened (at least to some degree) by the offshore competition.

I don't know whether to believe that the offshore folks' MT skills are coming up to par with US-based MTs, or whether most of the offshore transcription must be gone over by an American editor. If I judge by the unsolicited e-mails I receive looking to displace me from my job, I'd say it's the latter.

At any rate, maybe Indians and Filipinos can live on 3 or 4 cents per line, but no US MT can afford to work for that little money (cost of living here being what it is, due to things like taxation and regulations).

It's ironic to me that the famous bureaucracies which prevent a lot of Indians and Filipinos from earning very much at their own jobs, apparently haven't yet jacked up their levels of taxation to our levels.

Another thing driving the AAMT is that apparently a lot of the overseas MTs have college degrees, so some of these nitwits want to make it mandatory to have one here... not that having a college degree necessarily means that a person can spell and string together sentences, from what I've seen!

I first got into this occupation as a way to work while I finished a degree; but years later I have stuck with it (and it with me), partly because I get to work at home in my own office (much better than dealing with office politics and rude coworkers).

Also, before the pay cut, I was earning just about as much as a lot of degreed folks do. Hell, I was an art major--that and a dollar won't even get you a cup of coffee anymore! ;)

Anyway, thanks for your comment.

March 25, 2007 12:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Forgot to mention... these same twits who want to "professionalize" the MT occupation also think it's horrible to be paid on production instead of by hourly.

Of course, that means that most MTs would take yet another pay cut, because those employers who are willing to pay 9 or 10 cents per line (sat that the MT does 250-300 lines per hour) will absolutely refuse to pay $20 to $30 per hour if paid hourly.

But it makes them feel sooo good to interfere with the individual's right to bargain with one's own employer or clients (I'm an independent contractor, even though the one source of work keeps me busy enough).

March 27, 2007 3:43 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home