The Right to Earn a Living

Rockdoc Franz wrote: [. It's as different as apples and oranges to my way of thinking.

To mine, too, only you have your apples and oranges backwards.

Dang it, lost my post. So the short and sweet of it. Interior dsigners need libaility insurance, equal to that of doctors, because so many people sue when they don't like the design, and it can be over one literally minor detail, like an indeciperable difference in paint color, or an lamp that is not just perfect, or even worse. They also get to sue for pain and suffering, and they win.

Licensing gives the designer a leg to stand on, declares them a a professional, helps sway the judge to their side, especially with the level of documentation they are suggesting a designer have today. If you can prove that client specifically demanded that ugly lamp, you advised against it, and now they don't like it, too bad. Being licensed also drops the rates for the liability insurance to a rate of just indentured servitude, not abject slavery.

I can see suing a plumber or electrician or doctor for faulty work - each could cost lives and loss. But suing for pain and suffering over a paint color? I don't get it.

I also have yet to hear of any farm hand getting sued for a pig getting loose, or rats getting into the corn.

Local_Historian wrote: Dang it, lost my post. So the short and sweet of it. Interior dsigners need libaility insurance, equal to that of doctors, because so many people sue when they don't like the design, and it can be over one literally minor detail, like an indeciperable difference in paint color, or an lamp that is not just perfect, or even worse. They also get to sue for pain and suffering, and they win.

Licensing gives the designer a leg to stand on, declares them a a professional, helps sawy thw judge to their side, especially with the level of documentation they are suggesting a designer have today. If you can prove that client specifically demanded that ugly lamp and now they don't like it, too bad. Being licensed also drops the rates for the liability insurance to a rate of just indentured servitude, not abject slavery.

I can see suing a plumber or electrician or doctor for faulty work - each could cost lives and loss. But suing for pain and suffering over a paint color? I don't get it.

I also have yet to hear of any farm hand getting sued for a pig getting loose, or rats geting into the corn.

Do you have a real world example of a client suing an interior designer over a paint color or lamp selection?

Personally, I do think that interior designers pushed for legislation for licensure just to protect their jobs and used the specter of structural wall removal as a scare tactic.

They can let interior designers get their knowledge through an apprenticeship. Biut that apprenticeship better include the arictectual training, specifics of lighting, electical, heating, etc that interior designers are now getting in school - so they are trying to take down a load bearing wall as Kate pointed out - and they still must pass the licensure test.

Kate - I'm not the interior design student, my daughter is. And yes, she does have specific cases in files - packed in boxes in a storage unit in Iowa. There was no need or use for them over the summer, so she left them there. Here, however, is what I found in a very brief search on the net -

http://instituteforfreethinkers.com/201 ... or-design/

You can feel free to ask her in a few weeks, when she goes back and unpackes it all again.

Local_Historian wrote: They can let interior designers get their knowledge through an apprenticeship. Biut that apprenticeship better include the arictectual training, specifics of lighting, electical, heating, etc that interior designers are now getting in school - so they are trying to take down a load bearing wall as Kate pointed out - and they still must pass the licensure test.

I don't think that interior designers are getting the lighting, electrical, heating etc. training that you think they are getting. I know some of them and it's pretty much all picking colors, ceramic tile, furniture and drapes. Architects get training in those technical areas (plus structural stuff,) but not interior designers.

Local_Historian wrote: I also have yet to hear of any farm hand getting sued for a pig getting loose, or rats getting into the corn.

No one suggested licensing for those activities.

Kate wrote:

Local_Historian wrote: Dang it, lost my post. So the short and sweet of it. Interior dsigners need libaility insurance, equal to that of doctors, because so many people sue when they don't like the design, and it can be over one literally minor detail, like an indeciperable difference in paint color, or an lamp that is not just perfect, or even worse. They also get to sue for pain and suffering, and they win.

Licensing gives the designer a leg to stand on, declares them a a professional, helps sawy thw judge to their side, especially with the level of documentation they are suggesting a designer have today. If you can prove that client specifically demanded that ugly lamp and now they don't like it, too bad. Being licensed also drops the rates for the liability insurance to a rate of just indentured servitude, not abject slavery.

I can see suing a plumber or electrician or doctor for faulty work - each could cost lives and loss. But suing for pain and suffering over a paint color? I don't get it.

I also have yet to hear of any farm hand getting sued for a pig getting loose, or rats geting into the corn.

Do you have a real world example of a client suing an interior designer over a paint color or lamp selection?

Personally, I do think that interior designers pushed for legislation for licensure just to protect their jobs and used the specter of structural wall removal as a scare tactic.

Yep. It's usually a group of people who want to protect their industry as a near-monopoly that push for licensure, and they invariably use worst-case scenario examples to persuade legislatures to do that for them.

Kate wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

AspenValley wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote: Actually there is a lot of positives to be said for such moves. They parallel the licensing and certification process seen in Germany for every level of technical employment. You do not get a bad carpenter, plumber, electrician, interior decorator, architect, etc. because all need to be certified, and spend an apprenticeship before going into business. Let's face it. Book learning differs from applied skills. You simply don't learn those applied skills in College. Oh, let I forget, my German nephew who does copper gutter work, not only needed to pass the associated technical metal working programs, but also complete training in how to set up a business, do books, invoices, etc. Again, a huge price to pay, but the results are extraordinary.

Obviously, I'm in favor of such developments. Whether Florida is doing them for altruistic concern for the public, protectionism or other reasons is another question. Nothing bad will come out of it regardless of the reasons it's being done. Hell, imagine what it would be like to have someone show up who really knew what they were doing. You would not have to worry about the car mechanic, carpenter, plumber, etc. being competent. What a novel idea!

You position on this puzzles me. Why would you be just fine with licensing an interior designer (who at worst is going to do work you find ugly) but NOT fine with licensing someone to drive heavy farm equipment? If someone has to prove their competence in order to choose my draperies, why shouldn't they have to prove their competence before being allowed to operate potentially dangerous equipment?

Sorry, this just doesn't seem to be consistent.

Professional trades are an issue of licensing for the sake of improved quality in work. This does not pertain to family farm hands, who get on the job training and undergo an apprenticeship from a certain point of view before entrusting them with equipment operation. It's as different as apples and oranges to my way of thinking. As Kate so astutely pointed out, there is far more to interior design than applying artistic talent. Hence it has a direct consequence on a client. Operation of farm equipment differs substantially from that consequence.

Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. Why can't we just let interior designers get their knowledge from apprenticeships?

No one said they can't get licensed via an apprenticeship. There are different ways of gaining a license, but you still need to take and pass a standardized exam to demonstrate a certain degree of proficiency. I simply do not see this as preventing people from being able to earn a living. It simply asks that you have a minimum level of expertise before you can peddle your skills on your own.

AspenValley wrote:

Kate wrote:

Local_Historian wrote: Dang it, lost my post. So the short and sweet of it. Interior dsigners need libaility insurance, equal to that of doctors, because so many people sue when they don't like the design, and it can be over one literally minor detail, like an indeciperable difference in paint color, or an lamp that is not just perfect, or even worse. They also get to sue for pain and suffering, and they win.

Licensing gives the designer a leg to stand on, declares them a a professional, helps sawy thw judge to their side, especially with the level of documentation they are suggesting a designer have today. If you can prove that client specifically demanded that ugly lamp and now they don't like it, too bad. Being licensed also drops the rates for the liability insurance to a rate of just indentured servitude, not abject slavery.

I can see suing a plumber or electrician or doctor for faulty work - each could cost lives and loss. But suing for pain and suffering over a paint color? I don't get it.

I also have yet to hear of any farm hand getting sued for a pig getting loose, or rats geting into the corn.

Do you have a real world example of a client suing an interior designer over a paint color or lamp selection?

Personally, I do think that interior designers pushed for legislation for licensure just to protect their jobs and used the specter of structural wall removal as a scare tactic.

Yep. It's usually a group of people who want to protect their industry as a near-monopoly that push for licensure, and they invariably use worst-case scenario examples to persuade legislatures to do that for them.

Perhaps this is the motivation in the US you are accustomed to, but it is a far cry from what you get in Germany. It has everything to do with creating a professional who knows what the hell they are doing.

Let's cut to the chase. We all know how to overstate case to make a point. Will a licensing requirement keep people from working? I do not think so, so long as they are aware of the avenues available to getting licensed.