• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

Do professional organizations act in a protectionist way

atbell

TRIBE Member
In one of the other threads debate has arisen surrounding the question of protectionist actions taken by professional organizations, specifically relating to the creation of barriers to immigrant professionals coming into Canada.

I feel professional organizations, as a whole, are not acting in a purely protectionist manner.

My reasoning is such:

Professional organizations have arisen to ensure a quality and responsibility in certain critical areas. Due to imperfect information about foreign granting institutions the requirement of scrutiny through re-training assures that the quality and responsibility in these regulated fields is not compromised.

deafplayer thinks differently ....

(take it away)
 
Cannabis Seed Wedding Bands

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
atbell said:
In one of the other threads debate has arisen surrounding the question of protectionist actions taken by professional organizations, specifically relating to the creation of barriers to immigrant professionals coming into Canada.

I feel professional organizations, as a whole, are not acting in a purely protectionist manner.

My reasoning is such:

Professional organizations have arisen to ensure a quality and responsibility in certain critical areas. Due to imperfect information about foreign granting institutions the requirement of scrutiny through re-training assures that the quality and responsibility in these regulated fields is not compromised.

deafplayer thinks differently ....

(take it away)


they display varying degree's of protectionism and functionality.

not sure if they have altered their stance yet but last i heard the candian veterenarian society banned any foreign vet from practising in canada unless they went to one of only a few canadain vet schools, like the one in guelph.

there was never any real rationale, especially considering the longstanding vet medicine traditions in europe and the US. but that was the party line and the govermentfor a long time repsected t, all while there was a vet shortage and tutiion for canadian vet schools skyrocketed.

it amazed me it went on as long as it did, a blatant protectionist measure.
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
atbell said:
I feel professional organizations, as a whole, are not acting in a purely protectionist manner.

How can you generalize to that degree? Unless you are trying to debate the notion that an inherent property of professional organizations (whatever those are) is to have the property "protectionist". In which case, I would have to strongly disagree.

atbell said:
Professional organizations have arisen to ensure a quality and responsibility in certain critical areas. Due to imperfect information about foreign granting institutions the requirement of scrutiny through re-training assures that the quality and responsibility in these regulated fields is not compromised.

deafplayer thinks differently ....

(take it away)

That is absolutely not true (regarding "requirement of scrutiny"). The best example for which I have little time to elaborate on right now is that of doctors, and the medical field in general. Also, I would note that you are pigeonholing deafplayer into a position that is not necessarily consistent with the arguments he made in the other thread.
 

deafplayer

TRIBE Member
atbell, thanks for starting these threads and continuing the discussion
~atp~ said:
atbell said:
Professional organizations have arisen to ensure a quality and responsibility in certain critical areas. Due to imperfect information about foreign granting institutions the requirement of scrutiny through re-training assures that the quality and responsibility in these regulated fields is not compromised.

deafplayer thinks differently ....

(take it away)
That is absolutely not true (regarding "requirement of scrutiny"). The best example for which I have little time to elaborate on right now is that of doctors, and the medical field in general. Also, I would note that you are pigeonholing deafplayer into a position that is not necessarily consistent with the arguments he made in the other thread.
What I was saying, I think, is that the admirable behaviour you describe (seeking quality & responsibility) is in fact not at odds with and is even consistent with being 'protectionist', and certainly preserving and promoting privilege & power generally

The professionalism you describe features liability that is socially limited; outside of a pretty restricted horizon, the codes appear amoral or 'asocial', kind of like the 'professionalism' of the code of honour among assassins, even thieves. Its a matter of ensuring quality of and responsibility for the specific techniques involved in 'performance' of tasks or roles, or, at most, responsibility for the successful completion of those entire tasks or effective function in those entire roles
Those functions, the manner in which they are performed, and the 'rules' regulating both, are determined by the interests involved and in proportion to their social power: the profession's members (to make sure they are fair to each other), the profession's clients, and, usually to a lesser degree, who they work on, which is often seperate from who they work for
So, those functions and roles are not often subjected to the same scrutiny as the performance in carrying them out (eg a doctor scrupulously follows all the proper percautions when administering sedatives to pacify prisoners in a psychiatric hospital in the '60s that today (and likely back then, if seen) we would find totally unjust treatment of humans)
So their roles that they have to perform without mistakes and responsibly might be professionally self-serving in and of themselves, or also might even contradict the ostensible values of their (always very noble) own professional code (the hypocratic oath's "do no harm" line), if considered in a wider context, and, crucially, if the political assumption or "givens" of the profession are questioned

But all this is aside from actual (even totally unconscious, systemic) compromise, corruption or failure of, or other deviance from, supposed purposes of maintaining "scrutiny", even the very narrow kind of scrutiny I am suggesting (so a 'tactical' measure of ensuring scrutiny)....
....anyway I think that is probably pretty widely pervasive itself

Professionals enjoy a lot of privilege and therefore are likely to be held less accountable by outside society in some ways and would naturally have extra opportunity and reason to be irresponsible and self-serving while appearing to be the opposite
 
Last edited:

atbell

TRIBE Member
deafplayer said:
atbell, thanks for starting these threads and continuing the discussion

No problem. I noticed that I was starting to get confused and that there were to many issues coming up at once so I figured this was a good way to step back and clarify things.


deafplayer said:
What I was saying, I think, is that the admirable behaviour you describe (seeking quality & responsibility) is in fact not at odds with and is even consistent with being 'protectionist', and certainly preserving and promoting privilege & power generally

I am starting to see it that way too. It's a bit like a double edge sword, the maintenance of standards does seem to be good but acts as a barrier to entry. It looks like it might be important to ensure that the barriers that are created are in the interest of the public or the professionals in the organizations.

deafplayer said:
Professionals enjoy a lot of privilege and therefore are likely to be held less accountable by outside society in some ways and would naturally have extra opportunity and reason to be irresponsible and self-serving while appearing to be the opposite

I agree with this. It's similar to issues of church workers having an assumed piety do to their association with religion (ok, maybe this used to be more true then it is today). But I think that makes any breaches of confidence all the more spectacular and publicized when they do occur.

I would be interested to read about the number of professionals dismissed from each profession in the past. I would assume that if there are few dismissals the professional organizations are doing well to regulate themselves. I figure the public would not stand for many cover ups in these organizations.

atp - Yes this is a big generalization. But discussion of each organization would be long and tedious, and relatively pointless without getting input of people more closely involved in each individual organization. I would say we are discussing the generalized perception of North American (or maybe Canadian) professional organizations actions, not so much properties associated with them.

I'm curious about your line of thought though. Why do you say "protectionist" is not a property of professional organizations? I have no real opinion on that.

judge wopner - I don't know much about vets, I don't really understand why they are considered professionals. Any thoughts on why they are professionals?
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
Top