I am currently training to become a professional… No really but this post isn’t about that. You see at the moment the profession is not regulated. It has bodies that can be appealed to if the practitioner in question is one of their members – of course not everybody is a member and that’s why they got suckered so badly…
At the beginning of the course we were informed how great regulation would be for us – the biggest professional body was going to fight for the right regulations and protect it’s current members’ practice… of course this was not because they could see a way of swelling their ranks and gaining even more authority within the profession and to be able to crush all other competitors out of existance… sorry – that should read: gaining more members who joined because they saw how affectively that particular professional body stood up for them and their profession… and thus migrate from the other professional bodies to show their gratitude.
So, it’s about a year later and the government still wants to legislate the profession but it’s decided that it’s taken enough advice and can now carry on with it’s policies without any more help… and the professional body now argues against the proposed legislation – which is now bad and draconian… I’m afraid my tutor seemed to be a mouthpiece for that body and as Orwell said about faithful communists – as the body the tutor owed their allegiance to changed it’s mind, so did the tutor…
And the moral of the story?
Well, governments and groups are drawn to power [to exercise it only for the Greater Good, you understand] and then jealously guard it from others. The government was never going to wave a magic wand for one particular professional body when there are at least three other bodies large enough for me to think of off the top of my head… Never…
What happened was similar to what happened to the hospitality industry – pubs/hotels/etc. they got into talks thinking they could influence government and then when the government said it would proceed [re the smoking ban] irrespective of their actions or advice the hospitality industry kind of threw it’s hands in the air… and so it is repeated…
If you think you can change the system by using the system first and foremost think about how much leverage you have in comparison because most folk when they are at the top of a union or professional body think ‘We’ve got x amount of members to represent therefore they cannot ignore us…’ The trouble with is that the government thinks that they represent those folk in the first place and that they represent everybody else as well. [Even if they don't like it.]
And so the government sticks to its ideas – whatever they might be and carries on regardless, but thanks for coming round for the chat – it’s been interesting hearing your point of view…
A genuine and real threat of complete non-compliance from the outset could have done a better job of representing the profession and before you say that can’t be true – well, it couldn’t have made things worse… Government has always relied on compliance – non-compliance means having to exert effort – deploying police and lawyers, even court rooms and judges… whereas we’ve been conditioned – individually and as a society – to comply from the first day we set foot in school or nursery and so want to.
Therefore the government has the whip hand in any dealings except with rebels willing to be problematic but that’s not enticing – it is the vision of hard living and protest and possibility of jail and fines… being invited into tea at Downing Street, well now, that’s comfort and appreciation – but only for as long as the government’s whim lasts.
and it’s more problematic than a walk in a dark, bear infested forest…
I’m intrigued as to what your profession is – are you prepared to share (if I’ve not missed it already!)
From the other side of the fence: the government were recently trying to de-regulate a certain profession, which would have put many people’s lives at risk. We – and other organisations, including some professionals – fought, and hopefully the government have backed down permanently on that one. Otherwise there will be a big, nasty mess to sort out. And a lot more lawyers will be making a lot more money.
I also believe there’s a case for saying that too much light-touch and self-regulation may have been a significant factor in this financial melt-down we are currently seeing. But then I’m not particularly au fait with financial stuff, so I could be wrong!
At what level of risk would they have been subjected to?
Walking down a street with cars running past brings a level of risk…
The ‘light-touch’ regulation of the financial houses was to encourage even more money into the coffers – thereby providing the government with more leverage of what it could do in a budget…
We sometimes stop from analysing the level of risk appropriately because we think that the consequences of being wrong are too much to bear – but that leads to a spiral effect where we get increasingly sensitized to any and all outrages – take the National Express coaches; arguable the safest road vehicle but when one went over on it’s side and despite everybody surviving with not much more than bumps and bruises folk were clammering the government to ‘Take Action!’ to stop it from happening again…
I’ll tell you mine if you’ll tell me yours… oh, alright – I’m thinking of being a counsellor and because of it’s gargantuan stranglehold on the profession I may have to join the BACP… much as I prefer the model of the IPN…
And thanks for the comment….
If I recall from college, a profession has a viable body of knowledge from which to study, it has a self governance, and credentialization.
I’m a tradesman for slightly over 20 years. Our professional association sold out to trade organizations–the manufacturing entities now control con-ed, and true academics are discontinued upon licensing. In spite of my fears, and the myriad late night, back room conversations, the impending apocalypse did not happen.
The state has not stepped in viably. The licensing exam is still using measurements of competency that fell out of favor in the late sixties. The enforcer of the state’s vapid and irrelevant focus has no teeth. The amusing and frightening reality is that the free market seems to be the most effective tool for setting the boundaries of what’s acceptable. Attorneys seem to do fairly well at setting the parameters for what is viable and what’s not. Since I have become somewhat conservative over the years, the tension at the edges doesn’t seem to have much of an impact upon me other than to shake my head and wonder what folks were thinking when they. . . did whatever.
Good luck. I’m suspecting that your thinking about what you’re doing, and what the forces that come to bear on that are doing is going to be much more lasting than what actually happens. That self awareness will be indispensable.
Thanks for the comment, James – some useful insight to be garnered…
If you think I’ve got the wrong end of the stick from what you’ve said – please say so but here goes.
The dead hand of Government – using the same out of date measures of competency from the ’60s… Whilst the trade may have managed to work around/despite/because of the government involvement does it say more about folk wanting to get on with their vocation/trade/profession than regulation which you say does not work – or works only when applied radically differently from the normal processes…
Free Market and Attorneys…
I’m more for local markets [which should be free - rather than in 'free marketering'] but in these days of the internet and global flow of information – you can check up to find out what others think of various folk which is my point about local markets; personal reputations and for us to be able to discern when someone has made up a horror story for their own reasons or not – I worked once in a factory where about three [3!] people decided to drive me out and called me a ‘grass’ to help their cause and despite my personal help for others to get their permanent contracts [which I kept under my hat for the reason that I may be able to do so again...] others believed them… and so I can only suggest whether we trust folk we know personally or from the ‘net – it is effectively the same…
Attorneys are trained to think rigorously about various issues rather than thinking ‘what would be a good idea for policy’ and so I can see why they might be better than most to figure out what is viable or of a good standard and what is not.
Anyway – thanks for your comment and your support for my career choice.
That is the crux of many of our problems in Britain. Once elected they see themselves as democratically elected champions in all things, the people have chosen them, so therefore they must always be right, and worse, anything they do is the will of the people.
They really don’t care about the opinions of others in anything, no matter how many people sign petitions – even the online petitions on the Number 10 website that get millions of signatures are ignored!
They just pay lip service to other views, all whilst carrying on with their own agenda, using ‘the will of the people’ as an excuse for it. Most worrying of all is that most people just seem to accept it.
Charlie, much as I appreciate your comment I think you’re dead wrong…
Those politicians care deeply about what we think and are terribly disappointed when we are not as enlightened and as knowledgeable as them – why else can’t we see their point of view?