MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Occupational Licensing Reform Is Bipartisan. California Didn't Get the Message.

The bill would have prohibited licensing boards from denying a license solely because an applicant had unpaid student loans or a criminal record.

Bryan Mullennix Tetra Images/NewscomBryan Mullennix Tetra Images/NewscomAt a time when partisanship rules everything, occupational licensing reform has been a remarkably bipartisan project.

One of the few areas of policy agreement between the Obama and Trump administrations—at least outside of foreign policy—has been support for cutting unnecessary regulations that keep Americans from working. The two biggest licensing reform bills passed by states this year, in Louisiana and Nebraska, were both supported by lawmakers from both parties and by respective Govs. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat, and Pete Ricketts, a Republican. Organizations across the ideological spectrum agree that licensing reforms would boost workers and the economy as a whole.

Someone forgot to give California the message.

A party-line vote in a California legislative committee derailed a promising licensing bill proposed by state Assemblyman Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin). The bill would not have made any immediate changes to California's licensing laws; it merely would have created a petition process to allow individuals to ask a board to review and rescind its own regulations—with an eye towards reducing lawsuits challenging particularly onerous rules.

Additionally, the bill would have prohibited licensing boards from denying a license solely because an applicant had unpaid student loans or a criminal record.

But even those relatively mild reforms were deemed too dangerous by Golden State Democrats, who uniformly opposed the measure.

Those Democrats were backed by the special interests that benefit from keeping barriers to employment high.

"Opponents claimed it threatened public safety," writes Anastasia Boden, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, which regularly challenges overly burdensome licensing laws. But, she explains in The Hill, the bill "did not seek to subvert public safety to other objectives, it sought to elevate public safety over protectionism."

California workers are subject to some of the nation's most difficult licensing laws, according to a 2017 report by the Institute for Justice, a libertarian law firm. While rules vary from profession to profession, it takes an average of 820 days of training and more than $480 in fees to qualify for a license in the state.

On the upper end of that scale, some rules are true head-scratchers. Getting licensed to shampoo hair in California, for example, requires 1,500 hours of training. Assuming that someone trains eight hours per day for five days per week, that means they would need 37 weeks of schooling before being legally allowed to wash hair for money. Meanwhile, becoming a licensed emergency medical technician requires only 360 hours of training, according to the IJ report.

Riley's bill would have shifted the ground under California's licensing boards and required that they provide more than a "rational basis" for a rule restricting worker freedom. That is, they would have had to come up with a legal defense that amounts to more than "because we say so" if faced with a legal challenge of a given licensing law.

The change would have "placed the burden on the agency to prove that its law is related to public safety instead of cronyism," says Boden.

That's something Democrats and Republicans are backing in other states. It's a shame that California will miss out this year.

Photo Credit: Bryan Mullennix Tetra Images/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • colorblindkid||

    "the bill would have prohibited licensing boards from denying a license solely because an applicant had unpaid student loans or a criminal record."

    wtf? Who would oppose this? California really is backwards land.

  • sarcasmic||

    Who would oppose that? Lots of people. Specifically people who are already employed and who don't want competition, and government assholes who feel that they're day isn't complete until they have ruined someone else's.

  • tlapp||

    Yes it is backwards but the PC term for it is Progressive.

  • Bob Meyer||

    They're not paying back their student loans???

    Are there no prisons? Are there no work houses?

  • perlchpr||

    It seems exceptionally self-defeating to prevent someone who can't pay their student loans from being able to get a job.

    "Hey, you! Pay back the money I loaned you!"

    "I can't, I don't have a job."

    "Well, I'd better make sure you can't get one if I want my money back!"

  • Citizen X - #6||

    California's state government really is the answer to the question, "What's the worst that could happen?"

  • Shirley Knott||

    As DC says "hold my beer cocktail and watch this!"

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Nothing good has ever followed the words "hold my beer".

  • Longtobefree||

    Why the surprise? California is hardly bi-partisan.

  • LarryA||

    A party-line vote in a California legislative committee derailed a promising licensing bill proposed by state Assemblyman Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin).

    "It was proposed by a Republican. That's enough reason to bury it."

  • Sevo||

    "...California Didn't Get the Message."

    Well, *that's* not surprising.

  • Bubba Jones||

    How am I going to pay my loans without a license to work?

  • MargeBouvier||

    Hey Bubba, the commenter below you just got paid 7k dollar (sic) on her laptop, so there's hope for you!

    Also, her friend has twin toddlers that made over 12k - not sure if that's each twin, or combined.

  • gormadoc||

    Gotta point out, the Nebraska bill was tripartisan.

  • Trollificus||

    It is truly mind-boggling that political expediency trumps common sense so easily. I mean, they have onerous, for-public-safety licensing requirements for things like shampooing, hair-braiding, driving people from one place to another, babysitting...IF they are done for profit, but these same things, done for free or for oneself, require no training/licensing at all.

  • Whorton||

    "Meanwhile, becoming a licensed emergency medical technician requires only 360 hours of training, according to the IJ report."

    Pretty telling that those on the frontline of saving lives require so much less training than hair washing.

    Reminds me of a Reagan joke. . .

    If the Plumbers union strikes, Chaos abounds, life stops! But if the National Security Council strikes, nothing happens."

    It's also interesting to note that when the Paramedic program began in California, a basic EMT only required a 51 hour course.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online