One important thing to note is that in the over 9 years I have held a DCA license for repair, they have never
a) checked my soldering skills
b) looked to see whether I got dust between the LCD cell & backlight layers when doing screen replacement
c) checked to see what quality of iPhone screens we use for screen repairs
d) asked or tested my ability to do my job
You pay the troll toll, and you get a paper that goes on your wall. I could be the best tech in the world, or I could be a giant idiot... you'd never know.
Some people have the mistaken impression that being licensed means I have been tested, inspected, etc.. nope. They inspect to make sure your business cards have your license number on them. They don't inspect to figure out if you actually do good work for your customers.
Honestly, I kind of like that second one. Even if computer repair techs shouldn't need licensing/training per se, I'd be happy to see them having to obey the strictures of some sort of Private Investigator's Guild, and be made to be unable to get a job in computer repair if they commit investigative malfeasance according to said guild. (Like, say, if they take someone's data and use it to blackmail them!)
In this case being licensed means getting an independent opinion that you know what you're doing. If you don't, you might "be an ass and interfere with others" without even knowing it.
One would like to think licensing is about ensuring quality, but if one actually takes a look at the reality, one realizes that licensing is about restricting the field and paying to play, and almost never about ensuring quality.
Even professional licenses are like this, unless you are a complete idiot it's not the knowledge that's the problem (e.g. passing the exam, if there is one), it's paying for the requirements (e.g. the degree and/or the continuing license fee) or fitting the requirements (e.g. being a foreign worker).
Unless there's mandatory, regular and thorough inspections of licensed work, making said work require licensing isn't actually going to increase quality. I've seen absolutely terrible, dodgy and unsafe stuff left behind by trained, licensed & well-paid professionals that only "worked" due to a combination of luck & safety margins.
Some licensing does require continuing education or regular testing.
I think the argument for some of these licenses is that if the licensee screws up you can report them to a proper government agency who will investigate them. If a cab driver refuses service for a discriminatory reason in my town he can be reported to the the taxi cab bureau, or if my barber has unsanitary practices to health and human services.
Really depends on what the license is intended to protect. if it's just a silly barrier to entry that's one thing. If it is to ensure that a person has a minimal level of competence so as to prevent real harm to their customers that's a different thing. A lot will claim to meet the latter standard, I'm skeptical how many do. Insurance sales licensing I would guess to be mostly the former.
That being said, you spend 2 weeks getting licenses sorted out when someone starts and you avoid this whole mess.
At the center of this 'scandal' is a program that prevents auto log-out during license training.
Being licensed: Sitting at a computer for 52 hours and clicking on it before passing an exam.
What a waste of time. Pretty much an entire week and a half of full time staring at a screen to get a license to sell insurance. They were just skating bureaucracy, plenty of companies do this.
The article says nothing about protecting the license checks from being disabled. That's the secret sauce in a few companies, they do really interesting work.
Could you provide a basis for that claim? I haven't heard it from the many people I know in those professions, who appear to respect their licensing bodies.
Complaining about licensing does not always/usually represent a serious objection to licenses that are reasonably available to all who are capable of doing the work, and which are actually going to be revoked if someone proves unfit for the industry. These do not so much limit your freedom to work in the industry, as the manner in which you'll conduct yourself in the industry.
I object to licensing as a means to protect incumbents by deterring (or outright capping the number of) new entrants, where the quality-control angle isn't really there, and it's just an extra tax/filter on having that job.
a) checked my soldering skills b) looked to see whether I got dust between the LCD cell & backlight layers when doing screen replacement c) checked to see what quality of iPhone screens we use for screen repairs d) asked or tested my ability to do my job
You pay the troll toll, and you get a paper that goes on your wall. I could be the best tech in the world, or I could be a giant idiot... you'd never know.
Some people have the mistaken impression that being licensed means I have been tested, inspected, etc.. nope. They inspect to make sure your business cards have your license number on them. They don't inspect to figure out if you actually do good work for your customers.
reply