Supreme Court and Licensing Boards

[Gary Schenk]

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-c ... story.html

The Supreme Court could rein in state licensing boards that critics argue have become antitrust "cartels" that hurt consumers and hinder competition...

...The Supreme Court took up the case as a major challenge to the growing number of state licensing boards. Although no one disputes that states may license doctors and lawyers and prevent others from offering medical or legal services, the case raises questions about whether that authority extends to the licensing of floral designers, cosmetologists, hair braiders, interior designers or casket makers.

Critics have likened the state licensing boards to state-sanctioned "cartels."

"The Sherman Act's greatest accomplishment has been to make cartels per se illegal and relatively scarce, unless the cartel is managed by a professional licensing board," wrote UC Berkeley law professor Aaron Edlin and Vanderbilt University law professor Rebecca Haw.

[land butcher]

From what I have read recently on here I better not respond.

[Gary Schenk]

Well, I wouldn't think any decision would affect survey and engineering boards.

I hope.

[E_Page]

As I scanned that case the other day, I saw that teeth whitening by people other than licensed dentists was the issue that started it. I wonder if teeth whitening was something that was codified as being a licensed activity, or if it was deemed so by the Board's interpretation of what constitutes the practice of dentistry. I'll have to find time to read the canse more thoroughly.

For us, 8726 is pretty thorough at defining what falls within the practice of surveying so there isn't a lot of room for differing interpretations as to whether a certain service is or is not a licensed activity. In the gray areas like machine guidance, BPELSG carefully split the issue to avoid such a challenge from the contractors' lobby, which would easily steamroll (or grade over guided by GPS) the surveyors if there were any sort of legislative battle over the matter.

[Sunburned_Surveyor]

I had a chance to speak to Ric and Ray about this case. They pointed out one big difference in how the California Licensing Board operates. The California board is designed for control by non-surveying members of the public. This was intentionally done to avoid conflicts of interest. The dental board in the case being heard by the Supreme Court was very different. It was made up of dental professionals with an incentive to restrict dental related services by non-dentists.

Still...the case makes you think very hard about the role of professional licensing in our society. It can clearly be a force for good or evil.

Here are some podcasts that talk about professional licensing and the case in question:

http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-po ... crosshairs

http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-po ... braid-hair

http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-po ... right-work


Here is the Cato brief for the case:
http://www.cato.org/publications/legal- ... commission

Landon

[hellsangle]

Thanks for the post, Landon!

"The Board is made up entirely of practicing dentists and hygienists and is elected by other licensed dentists and hygienists—with no input from the general public—and evidence later revealed that the Board issued orders on this subject in response to complaints from dentists, not consumers. The Federal Trade Commission charged the Board with engaging in anticompetitive conduct."

This is a far stretch . . . but are some surveyors turning other surveyors into the Board just to reduce competition . . . rather than mentor the Sad Sack Surveyor?

Have a good weekend, all . . .

[dmi]

I am not interested in what Cato has to say about much of anything. So, thanks for the links Landon, but I'll pass.

The case against the dentist's board is a low hanging fruit. This is not the end, but rather the beginning of a nation wide effort to go after government regulation.

When people are ignorant of history, it is easier to convince them that the situation is other that it actually is.


It is important to understand that regulation comes about after the fact. There is a problem and then someone decides that they want to make sure that never happens again and so regulation ensues.

California surveyors became regulated DIRECTLY AS A RESULT OF THIER ANTICS IN THE 1880'S.

The Benson Syndicate and more than one corrupt Surveyor General ,owing to their abusive behavior, assured that future generations of surveyors would operate under a licensing board.

Any board, without regard to composition, creates the same problems for the public. By their very nature, the board creates a situation whereby restraint of trade occurs, and prices for service are higher. The board also creates the situation where licensees are bound to conduct themselves according to the governance of the board and not the unfettered command of the consumer paying the bill.

While it may be more difficult to reign in the Ca. board, I do not share Ric and Ray's view that it would happen here.

The history is that surveyors have demonstrated that they are incapable of conducting business without being regulated. That is the reason we have a licensing board.