As we’ve already discovered, professional regulatory associations are critical parts of any functioning society, but they don’t always deliver ideal results.
My experience has been that professional associations, due to their government granted monopoly "right to practice" are more concerned with maintaining their monopoly and power over members than professionalism and as David points out they are all now captured by the latest flavor of the week (currently cultural Marxism), indigenous knowledge, alphabet people, climate hysteria, Hamas sympathies etc. and they are quite ruthless when it comes to cancelling member's "right to practice" when they wander off the narrative reservation irrespective of their level of professional work. I believe in Caveat Emptor and would be perfectly happy with eliminating all "right to practice" legislation for all professions and guilds. I used to be a certified lead Environmental Management System auditor and am familiar with standards associations such as ISO and CSA and I see no reason why voluntary standards cannot be developed and adopted by competing associations of practitioners for those discriminating customers and clients within a free market. You would find that the insurance industry would have a critical role in ensuring qualified practitioners for high risk activities.
I am wondering what you might discover if you dug into other professional regulatory associations - e.g dentists, doctors... Similar governance structures...?
My other question: do these professional regulatory associations stray from their original mandates given there seems to be no checks for 'bias creep' and/or 'power creep'?
I do hope to explore other colleges and associations: not just their governance and the scope of their powers, but their ideological evolution. From what I've seen, governing bodies tend to be passionate early adopters of new social trends and that often leaves them for more politicized than their memberships.
"OCT paid out more than $26 million of those revenues in employee salaries and benefits. Unusually for such organizational reports, there’s no indication of how many people OCT employs and what duties they perform."
I'm reading a book by David Graeber titled "Bullshit Jobs" , which argues that many of our 21st century jobs are effectively useless and exist solely to keep the big machine turning. No actual value is really generated. I suspect most of the folks at the OCT would qualify as members of the BS Job club.
My experience has been that professional associations, due to their government granted monopoly "right to practice" are more concerned with maintaining their monopoly and power over members than professionalism and as David points out they are all now captured by the latest flavor of the week (currently cultural Marxism), indigenous knowledge, alphabet people, climate hysteria, Hamas sympathies etc. and they are quite ruthless when it comes to cancelling member's "right to practice" when they wander off the narrative reservation irrespective of their level of professional work. I believe in Caveat Emptor and would be perfectly happy with eliminating all "right to practice" legislation for all professions and guilds. I used to be a certified lead Environmental Management System auditor and am familiar with standards associations such as ISO and CSA and I see no reason why voluntary standards cannot be developed and adopted by competing associations of practitioners for those discriminating customers and clients within a free market. You would find that the insurance industry would have a critical role in ensuring qualified practitioners for high risk activities.
I am wondering what you might discover if you dug into other professional regulatory associations - e.g dentists, doctors... Similar governance structures...?
My other question: do these professional regulatory associations stray from their original mandates given there seems to be no checks for 'bias creep' and/or 'power creep'?
I do hope to explore other colleges and associations: not just their governance and the scope of their powers, but their ideological evolution. From what I've seen, governing bodies tend to be passionate early adopters of new social trends and that often leaves them for more politicized than their memberships.
"OCT paid out more than $26 million of those revenues in employee salaries and benefits. Unusually for such organizational reports, there’s no indication of how many people OCT employs and what duties they perform."
I'm reading a book by David Graeber titled "Bullshit Jobs" , which argues that many of our 21st century jobs are effectively useless and exist solely to keep the big machine turning. No actual value is really generated. I suspect most of the folks at the OCT would qualify as members of the BS Job club.
Barbara Kay published a good essay last week in the National Post on the evolution of the OCT and its current existence as yet another way for progressive social-engineering enthusiasts to get fat off taxpayer dollars. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/barbara-kay-abolish-the-ontario-college-of-teachers
It was actually Barbara Kay's article that led me to write this post.