Why is machinists’ “licensing” a taboo word for some...

[cncprofessor]

In the absence of anythig better to do, I've been wondering...

On the issue of “licensing” machinists various competency levels, what would be wrong to have classifications such as generalist, specialist (CNC, EDM, Tool & Cutter Grinder, Tool & Die, Molds, etc.)?

If standardized tests (written and hands-on) were to be developed and administered by some nationally competent machining related business entity (other than government), why not make each test available to anyone interested in taking it irrespective of formal or informal training and experience one may have in the specific field of interest?

Why not make the “licensing” tests strictly VOLUNTARY (only) for everyone that feels competent passing it and proving, first and foremost, to him/herself where they stand skill wise among all others in industry?

Whether one has one grade of education or another (including Ph.D. level), is a self taught ‘machinist’, journeyman level, or was a ‘button pusher’ for just a day or since the beginning of time, he or she should have the opportunity to “prove” to themselves as well as to potential employers that they have the body of knowledge for the job they apply for. The operative words here apply to “the body of knowledge” rather than to someone’s personality, character, loyalty, productivity, ambition, etc.

Who would benefit from such a ‘licensing system’?

IMHO all who earned it, particularly those people who have competence but have to endure (without that piece of paper) a trial process on the job floor for 30-90+ days and for far less money than otherwise they could possibly start out earning. Also for employers, needless to say, this would be far less costly than going through the process of hiring and firing incompetent people despite the recommendations and self-promotion of “wannabe” machinists, right?

Like I started to say, I've been just wondering....

[fordbroncoxlt]

Now I'm by no means a machinist, but to me, it would seem that licensing would be too vague. How could you cover every individual machinist in one license?

[dertsap]

what would be the true benefit to it ?
there is certifation already in place , what would licencing do any further than that , catch all the flunkies who have already slipped thru the cracks ? its already been proven to me at least that the certification system is a joke ,there are far to many clowns out there with a ticket and 10 yrs exp. who know nothing beyond the green button
the experience speaks for itself quickly on the job and if it doesn t turf the guy and his bs

plus if ive got to have as many certificates as a brain surgeon to prove i'm a machinist then i want and desearve the same rate of pay as a surgeon


there is licensing for drivers as well and how many idiots are there on the road

[mxtras]

I believe this is an outstanding idea.

Look at all of the trades that do offer certs - welding, electrical, automotive. All of these certs require substantial knowledge and experience to pass.

I like the idea. Why hasn't this been done before?

Scott

[cncprofessor]

dertsap:

I appreciate your views on this issue. But, let's for a moment think of "licensing" as a 'certification' based on different level, not as typical Center Punch, and/or shiny Ball Peen Hammer certification test (with all due respect to such tests as well), shall we?

[cncprofessor]

I Why hasn't this been done before?

Scott

Why? Because we as people don't like changes, even if this "no change for me my friend" cost us much more!

[Switcher]

I believe this is an outstanding idea.

Look at all of the trades that do offer certs - welding, electrical, automotive. All of these certs require substantial knowledge and experience to pass.

I like the idea. Why hasn't this been done before?

Scott

I've never found a workplace that didn't require a welder to take a hands on welding test, before they got hired.

I've also welded along side some guys that went to a tech school, got that paper, & still had no clue what the heck they were doing (don't ask how they got hired on).

Paper is paper, show me the skills.


.

[laszlozoltan]

there is licensing for drivers as well and how many idiots are there on the road

perfect point

[dertsap]

dertsap:

I appreciate your views on this issue. But, let's for a moment think of "licensing" as a 'certification' based on different level, not as typical Center Punch, and/or shiny Ball Peen Hammer certification test (with all due respect to such tests as well), shall we?

how do you level it
and how many levels are there
when does it begin a tradesman qualifies as a machinist , and reaches the level they are no longer a machinist because they are in the elite group that has mastered every single aspect of the trade

take homebuilders for example ,you have roofer ,framers ,cabinet guys etc
each of these are a trade of its own
do we no longer call it a machinist trade and divide it up the same ?

[dertsap]

one thing i forgot to meantion is the fact the machining trade is a constant learning experience and its a constant evolving entity

[Geof]

....take homebuilders for example ,you have roofer ,framers ,cabinet guys etc
each of these are a trade of its own
do we no longer call it a machinist trade and divide it up the same ?

No, this is the problem; the 'Trade' is Carpenter all these sub-divisions are make believe trades. They are equivalent to the button pushers, deburrers, whatever, in machining.

A "Machinist" is too general for a license; licenses only work for a specific sub-division. Welders were mentioned, the license or certification there is applicable to pressure welders. The ordinary Joe Blow welder doesn't need any special qualification.

[Caprirs]

I am resistant to making things more complicated and more difficult. I'll try not to be overly long winded about this.

My first reaction to the idea of licensing is that it's trying to solve the wrong problem. To apply for a job, the applicant typically has to fill out an application, submit a resume, and go in for at least one interview. If the applicant is considered seriously, the potential employer might contact the references in an attempt to verify what was written on the application, claimed on the resume, and said during the interview. Adding licensing strikes me as an additional filter to deal with the failures of the application, resume, interview and references. (not to mention the drug testing, criminal background check, credit check in some cases) If a suspect applicant has bluffed his way through all the previous steps, I cannot see how the license will "call" the bluff. Seems to me the issue is fixing the application, resume, interview and reference processes would be more effective instead of adding another process.

My second reaction is the employer should know damned well and good how to hire people. If the employer is not good at the hiring process, I do not think they will last long as an employer. I suppose it's kind of a Darwin outlook on business. Not everyone is meant to survive and succeed. Just because a guy is a great machinist, that does not necessarily mean he should grow to be CEO of a huge shop. He might be awful at managing and human resources. If he is awful, he does not deserve to be in charge and I do not think the rest of us should change to "protect" him from his own ignorance. He should learn how to hire people, not all the potential hires change their paperwork.

My third reaction is that I just don't see any system of licensing to be a panacea that will keep out the liars and bullstuff artists. That' perception comes from how effective state MVDs are at licensing drivers. I get frustrated meeting drafters with their CAD certs yet unable to generate a comprehendable print. I meet IT folks with MCNE certs who cannot get my email working. I meet degreed engineers (which I am) who are at times dangerous. It's not the license/cert/degree that makes the person a good hire.

Good thing I didn't get long winded.