Are professional bodies legally able to limit what their members do professionally, o

[ahhell]

In the US for most licensing it goes something like this.
1. Non-Governmental professional bodies can and do typically have codes of conduct and ethics. They can basically say whatever they want as long as they aren't illegal.

2. I don't think it makes sense to challenge these ethical rules in a court of law. Challenging them at the annual meetings and voting on leadership and what not makes sense.

3. Membership is for the most part voluntarily and not required to work in a profession. If you violate the code of conduct they can censure you or kick you out but the can't take your license. If you're violation of the code of conduct also violates the laws governing your profession, the state board can take your license.

At least in engineering the professional groups have a lot of say in developing standards for licensure but they don't control that is done by state boards who often amend the standards presented by the professional organizations. Teh folks in charge of testing are an NGO so that is outside of the government hands. There's also an NGO that accredits engineering schools.

This applies to engineers and architects, probably to other fields but I can't really be sure. I think the state bars might have more authority over Lawyers than most other Professional Organizations but I could be wrong about that.

 

[psionl0]

Membership is for the most part voluntarily and not required to work in a profession.

Not necessarily. The AMA may not have actual licensing powers but if the typical hospital requires AMA membership as well as a licence then that gives the AMA more powers than legally specified.

 

[Thermal]

I'd like to take this time to note that for only the second time in forum history, "hang em high" is inserted in the tag line. The other time was, of course, a shemp thread.

 

[ahhell]

Not necessarily. The AMA may not have actual licensing powers but if the typical hospital requires AMA membership as well as a licence then that gives the AMA more powers than legally specified.

I think you might have basis for a lawsuit if membership in the organization is effectively required to work in your field.

My quick internet search implies it isn't really, for one thing the AMA has webpage dedicated to convincing folks that membership is worth it and at least one article I found says that membership is declining.

 

[Thermal]

-Deleted, Wrong thread-

 

[Steve]

I think you might have basis for a lawsuit if membership in the organization is effectively required to work in your field.

My quick internet search implies it isn't really, for one thing the AMA has webpage dedicated to convincing folks that membership is worth it and at least one article I found says that membership is declining.

Any business is entitled to set the criteria required of their own employees. Not meeting the requirements of a specific business does not equate to not being able to work in your field. Private practice is always a viable option.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not necessarily. The AMA may not have actual licensing powers but if the typical hospital requires AMA membership as well as a licence then that gives the AMA more powers than legally specified.

What do you mean by "legally specified?

You are all being misled by this nonsense the courts can weigh in on the requirements for membership in professional organizations. Chanakya has yet to tell us what specific law he thinks gives the courts jurisdiction over professional organization membership requirements.

Until such a law is forthcoming there is nothing more to discuss. The thread is in peat-repeat mode.


Re abortion, in states where it is still legal most affected worksites like pharmacies and hospitals generally allow an employee to opt out of a specific patient interaction if abortion is involved with the caveat there must be staff that can take over. Otherwise the employee cannot refuse the patient service.

The option for the employee who doesn't like the thought of having to do whatever can opt out of working there. And I don't think the ADA requires the employer find an accommodation for that employee.

[snipped a bunch of repeating the argument as if we just don't understand and need more clarification]

... But if it's simply basis the last option, that is it's just because you've never ever heard of strictures of this kind ever having been challenged in court, just that and nothing else, well then in that case I'd say it remains an open question, as far as I'm concerned.

Good grief! What is it about "cite the relevant law" that you don't understand? You can't take any agency to court in this case without a specific law you think was violated.

I take it you can't find a relevant law or statute so you are just barreling on with the world rules as you imagine they should be.


Hint: see if the ADA addresses an employee's ethics or position on abortion that an employer or a professional organization has to accommodate. I don't think you'll find it but I'm not going to double check that for you.

 

[ahhell]

Any business is entitled to set the criteria required of their own employees. Not meeting the requirements of a specific business does not equate to not being able to work in your field. Private practice is always a viable option.

I agree that you are correct when talking about how things currently work, however, I could see a situation where, if membership in an organization was widely required for employment in a field. If that were the case and its possible that membership becomes effectively a requirement to work. If that is the case, I could see a possiblity that there may an avenue for a lawsuit making sense.

Certainly not the case currently as far as I know.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I agree that you are correct when talking about how things currently work, however, I could see a situation where, if membership in an organization was widely required for employment in a field. If that were the case and its possible that membership becomes effectively a requirement to work. If that is the case, I could see a possiblity that there may an avenue for a lawsuit making sense.

Certainly not the case currently as far as I know.

Under what law?

 

[ahhell]

Under what law?

What legal right does the AMA or any other organization have to keep someone from getting a job? Hell, its effectively blacklistnig which is illegal in a many states.

I'd try that or consult a labor attorney a see what they had to say.

Maybe go after them as a monopoly.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So you can't even cite a related law, got it.

A monopoly on what? And has that gone before the EOC? It won't apply.

Then there is the fact it is a professional organization, not a business.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Let me add another layer that debunks the magical world being espoused here. Do you even have a case as an example?

 

[Steve]

What legal right does the AMA or any other organization have to keep someone from getting a job? Hell, its effectively blacklistnig which is illegal in a many states.

I'd try that or consult a labor attorney a see what they had to say.

Maybe go after them as a monopoly.

The AMA, or any other professional association, sets the criteria solely for membership in their association. They have no say and no right, legal or otherwise, in the hiring practices of any firm in their particular field and they certainly do not prevent any qualified person from working in their chosen field. And you have acknowledged this. I suspect a labor lawyer would tell you that the status quo is quite legal and does not result in the problems you speculate.

In your speculation who is the "monopoly" doing the "effective blacklisting"? The professional association, or the myriad of independent companies with similar hiring criteria?

Conversely - what legal right does a person who does not wish to meet the legal employment requirements of a particular company have to force that company to hire them?

 

[arthwollipot]

Seriously? You want a second chance to think about that?

Oh, yeah, hang on a minute.

Okay, I've thought about it.

 

[theprestige]

A medical license can be granted on knowledge alone. It does not (or should not) require an ethical test.

Whether it does or not (and I'm pretty sure it does, for many licensing bodies), I definitely think it should. In fact I think an ethics test should probably be a part of every licensed profession.

Hell, every employer I've worked for in the past thirty years has required me to take a battery of ethics tests every year, as a condition of my continued employment. And I'm not even in a licensed profession!

 

[arthwollipot]

Whether it does or not (and I'm pretty sure it does, for many licensing bodies), I definitely think it should. In fact I think an ethics test should probably be a part of every licensed profession.

Why do you think that should be part of licensing, rather than part of professional standards?

 

[ahhell]

The AMA, or any other professional association, sets the criteria solely for membership in their association. They have no say and no right, legal or otherwise, in the hiring practices of any firm in their particular field and they certainly do not prevent any qualified person from working in their chosen field. And you have acknowledged this. I suspect a labor lawyer would tell you that the status quo is quite legal and does not result in the problems you speculate.

If you read what I've said in this thread, that's what I've been saying, that certainty is not currently the case. I could see a situation developing where it might become the case in which case I could see some suing, maybe even successfully.

In your speculation who is the "monopoly" doing the "effective blacklisting"? The professional association, or the myriad of independent companies with similar hiring criteria?

Conversely - what legal right does a person who does not wish to meet the legal employment requirements of a particular company have to force that company to hire them?

If say in a smallish town somewhere there was one hospital for miles around and the AMA somehow convinced that hospital that AMA membership was required to work as a doctor, based on what I've seen the hospital would be the monopoly and blacklister. There are a number of states the require a certification of need for medical providers to open up for business. So, medicine essential a legalized monopoly in some places already.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_need

 

[ahhell]

Whether it does or not (and I'm pretty sure it does, for many licensing bodies), I definitely think it should. In fact I think an ethics test should probably be a part of every licensed profession.

Hell, every employer I've worked for in the past thirty years has required me to take a battery of ethics tests every year, as a condition of my continued employment. And I'm not even in a licensed profession!

Meh, I'm fairly unimpressed with the "ethics" tests requirements in the jurisdictions I have a license in. Its almost entirely about the law and not ethics.

 

[theprestige]

Why do you think that should be part of licensing, rather than part of professional standards?

I don't understand the distinction you're making here.

To me, a license should be contingent on meeting the standards of the profession. Therefore, the candidate's understanding of those standards should be tested as part of determining whether to license them. The two are inseparable.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Whether it does or not (and I'm pretty sure it does, for many licensing bodies), I definitely think it should. In fact I think an ethics test should probably be a part of every licensed profession.

Hell, every employer I've worked for in the past thirty years has required me to take a battery of ethics tests every year, as a condition of my continued employment. And I'm not even in a licensed profession!

IOW it has nothing to do with the law mandating whatever. Ethics assessments go along with keeping racism, sexism, ableism, whatever out of the rank and file. In the last hospital I worked in (>3 decades ago) it was an annual sensitivity training.