Veteran professionals less likely to favour licensing
In the various Pulse Surveys that have been conducted so far, there has typically been a broad range of opinion. This time we have a polarized set of opinions — the topic of licensing has relatively few fence-sitters.
Consider the main question: Should licensure be a long-term objective for the profession? Almost one-half (48 per cent) agree, almost as many (43.7 per cent) disagree and only a handful (8.3 per cent) have a neutral opinion.
Those respondents in favour of licensing most often cite the need to ensure standards of competence and accountability. A number of respondents see licensing as the logical next step for the HR profession. Some think licensing would lead to increased compensation for HR professionals. Several respondents feel licensing is necessary to maintain the independence of the profession against regulation by other regulating bodies. Some feel licensing would give HR extra clout in dealing with unethical employment practices in organizations.
Many of those who do not agree with licensing just don’t see the value of it. Some say it would position the profession more as a policing function than a business partner function. As with previous surveys, a number of respondents say efforts should be focused on fixing the current Certified Human Resources Professional (CHRP) certification process and getting HR regulated in the provinces where it currently is not (although there are a few who say licensing is necessary because the standards for the CHRP have slipped). Interestingly, many who disagree with licensing just don’t like the idea of regulation, or any more regulation than we have now. Some point out this would create a burden for smaller organizations.
Those who give a neutral response to licensing say they just don’t know enough about the issue to have an opinion. Some are not sure about the difference between licensing and the current certification process. A number feel this is a topic that should be explored and debated more fully.
Others in this middle category feel licensing might be worthwhile but only for limited areas of practice. More than a few respondents in the middle are sympathetic to the idea of licensing but point out some of the political difficulties that would be involved in making it happen, both from within and outside the profession.
Tenure a factor
The most important correlate of opinion on licensing in HR is length of tenure in HR — the longer the tenure in HR, the less favourable the attitude toward licensing. Of the respondents who have not yet joined the workforce, 84.6 per cent agree licensing should be a long-term objective for the profession. This drops to 41 per cent for those with 10 years or more of experience in HR, with the points in between falling pretty much along a straight line.
Based on the comments, those HR practitioners with more experience are concerned they would be required to meet additional or higher requirements in order to be licensed or if they chose not to pursue licensing, they would find their scope of practice somewhat limited.
Whichever way the debate about licensing goes, developments such as Ontario’s Access to Justice Act, 2006, have made licensing an issue HR simply can’t brush off. The most frequently checked-off response to the question, “What work should be limited to licensed HR professionals?” was “represent employers and clients at various HR-related adjudication boards” — selected by 76.4 per cent of those who checked off one or more responses to this question. Clearly, the licensing of paralegals is an issue in the background here.
Claude Balthazard is director of HR excellence and acting registrar with the Toronto-based Human Resources Professionals Association. He can be reached at [email protected] or visit www.hrpa.ca for more information.
