Are you for/against licensing laws?

[Light.]

Another thread has just had me thinking on this. What shapes your feelings/ideas behind licensing laws and legislature? Do you think it's necessary? If it is necessary, are they going about it the wrong way, or do they have it about right?

 

[1oldone]

Are you for/against licensing laws?

How funny! This topic has been on my mind a lot recently, and I actually wrote a series of blog entries on this subject. I'm very much in favor of licensing for a couple of reasons:

1. As much as we'd like to believe that we're a profession of moral people, someone will always decide that opening up a massage school is a great way to make money. Currently, licensing exams are the only way these places are kept in check. For example, the average first-try pass rate of the State Board Exams in Ohio is around 55%. Some schools consistently have 100%, while others have actually had NONE of their graduates pass. The exam is the only thing that shows these schools to be what they are: moneymaking scams. I would not want them graduating massage therapists into the world willy-nilly.

2. The background checks that are required for licensure are incredibly important. Massage therapists are left alone with unclothed clients, with free access to their purse, wallet, and medical history. I would not want to put myself in such a situation if I were not sure that my therapist had been screened for a history of voyeurism, theft, and sexual assault.

3. If there is a basic foundation of knowledge and skill that every massage therapist can be assumed to have (since they earned their license), it's much easier to spot a fake. This can help our ability as a community to deal with issues of human trafficking and sex work.

Sure, I have some issues with the ways in which licensing is applied. I think there should be both a theoretical and a practical exam, with support provided for those with learning disabilities, who may have difficulties passing a traditional written test as administered. We've got a lot of learning to do about what a massage therapist really needs in her head and her hands before she should be considered ready to offer her services professionally, and even more learning to do about how to assess it. The alternative, though, is not caring what you've got. And to me, that feels unacceptable.

-Kat

 

[Matt991]

Are you for/against licensing laws?

Very well-said, Kat! t038

I've seen many opinions here both for and against licensing, and after being in a state where there were no requirements (state-wide anyway), the difference can definitely be told between people who might not really know what they're doing and really amazing, talented people. I'd like to consider myself in the latter category, and without some sort of standard, how would people differentiate between the two?

Like Kat says, it's hard to accommodate everyone with any kind of standardized test, as the human race is not standardized, but the great thing is that there's always room for change, and most states do make changes to laws. From what I've seen, they're typically not welcome at first, but at least it's an attempt at a step forward.

 

[Brigitte H]

Are you for/against licensing laws?

I was so happy the law went to effect 4 years ago in my state of MA. before is was by town and what a pain that was. Each town had their own set of rules and every town you had to pay to get a permit. So if you where like me and was working in 3 toens at the same time that was 3 town permits that cost anywhere $50 - $100 year so for me cost wises it was really adding up

 

[Lady Moe34]

Are you for/against licensing laws?

What shapes your feelings/ideas behind licensing laws and legislature? Do you think it's necessary? If it is necessary, are they going about it the wrong way, or do they have it about right?

You may also enjoy some of these old threads with opinions from some of our previously active members:

• Tiered licensing models
• THERAPIST or PRACTITIONER?
• Should we be allowed to practice massage?
• Licensing vs. non licencing

 

[Bitchy Blonde SUSPENDED.]

Are you for/against licensing laws?

I think the US massage therapy licensing model is the best. The 500 to 1000 hours of training are sufficient to provide the needed knowledge to a student. The licensing should be a natural consequence of the accumulated knowledge and should not be a problem. Very pragmatic, in a good way, and who complains about it, sorry but there are other careers out there...
In Canada the training averages around 2000 to 3000 hours !!!!!! Crazy...

 

[landscaper07]

Are you for/against licensing laws?

I think the US licensing model is crap! Though I agree that there should be some sort of licensing, to keep the public safe and all that good stuff, the fact that it is either state by state or town by town. I mean, we have a 'National Exam" that isn't even remotely national... pretty much it means nothing. When having a license means that you can travel freely through the country working legally, then maybe it will be something worth while. t013

 

[Pompal 09.]

Are you for/against licensing laws?

To answer the question as stated, I am "against" licensing laws. However, I'm not actively working to get them dismantled. I'm okay with the status quo, but I think there is a better way. Kat, your ideas are well thought out, but I do have some issues with them.

1. As much as we'd like to believe that we're a profession of moral people, someone will always decide that opening up a massage school is a great way to make money. Currently, licensing exams are the only way these places are kept in check. For example, the average first-try pass rate of the State Board Exams in Ohio is around 55%. Some schools consistently have 100%, while others have actually had NONE of their graduates pass. The exam is the only thing that shows these schools to be what they are: moneymaking scams. I would not want them graduating massage therapists into the world willy-nilly.

The exam itself is the money-making scam, and the schools make more money BECAUSE licensing and exams are required. If they weren't, no one would have to go through school in order to be a massage therapist. School would be voluntary. And what would be the problem with graduating massage therapists willy-nilly? Massage is not rocket science and the chance of hurting someone is EXTREMELY low.

2. The background checks that are required for licensure are incredibly important. Massage therapists are left alone with unclothed clients, with free access to their purse, wallet, and medical history. I would not want to put myself in such a situation if I were not sure that my therapist had been screened for a history of voyeurism, theft, and sexual assault.

Background checks are not standard for licensure in all states. And you could pass a background check and still commit those offenses.

3. If there is a basic foundation of knowledge and skill that every massage therapist can be assumed to have (since they earned their license), it's much easier to spot a fake. This can help our ability as a community to deal with issues of human trafficking and sex work.

Licensure does exist now and I don't see the public or my clients having any increased ability to spot a "fake." What would be required to remedy this is client education, public education, not more tests and bureaucracy.

with support provided for those with learning disabilities, who may have difficulties passing a traditional written test as administered.

The national exam does provide support for those with disabilities including an oral test, and they are willing to work with people to make accommodations for what they need.

I will admit it is probably giving some cred to the profession in the eyes of the medical professions and that does need to be addressed for the branches of massage therapy going in that direction. But I could easily see there being a separate "medical massage" license for those working closely with doctors, and a more casual "wellness massage" category for the rest, even though they may be doing technically specific work.

and after being in a state where there were no requirements (state-wide anyway), the difference can definitely be told between people who might not really know what they're doing and really amazing, talented people. I'd like to consider myself in the latter category, and without some sort of standard, how would people differentiate between the two?

This is also true in states where licensing exists. People can tell! Even newbies can tell when they get a bad massage. And they don't go back to that person. There is no real danger in unskillful massage therapists practicing massage. They will eventually not get enough clients to survive and will turn to other forms of work. There are already unskillful therapists practicing out there, who did well taking the test and are licensed and regulated but are giving a bad name to massage. All the licensing does is make money for the licensing board and for massage schools.

I can see both sides, and I agree that state or even federal licensing would eliminate the problems when there are no over-arching laws and then each city or town gets to make their own licensing laws. That's no fun. Given the current alternatives, licensing is probably the lesser of the evils, but I think the arguments people usually make for it are fear based, and/or self serving. Like, "why should *that* person be allowed to massage when they've had no training and I took a year to learn how to touch someone!" It's just touch, everyone can do it. I take issue with the idea that touch therapy is *ours* and no one else should be allowed to do it.

 

[Christine]

Are you for/against licensing laws?

I will attempt to provide concise responses to some of what has been stated in this thread. I can go on and on about this topic, so I will hold back a bit.

To answer the question as stated, I am "against" licensing laws. However, I'm not actively working to get them dismantled. I'm okay with the status quo, but I think there is a better way. Kat, your ideas are well thought out, but I do have some issues with them.

1. As much as we'd like to believe that we're a profession of moral people, someone will always decide that opening up a massage school is a great way to make money. Currently, licensing exams are the only way these places are kept in check. For example, the average first-try pass rate of the State Board Exams in Ohio is around 55%. Some schools consistently have 100%, while others have actually had NONE of their graduates pass. The exam is the only thing that shows these schools to be what they are: moneymaking scams. I would not want them graduating massage therapists into the world willy-nilly.

The exam itself is the money-making scam, and the schools make more money BECAUSE licensing and exams are required. If they weren't, no one would have to go through school in order to be a massage therapist. School would be voluntary. And what would be the problem with graduating massage therapists willy-nilly? Massage is not rocket science and the chance of hurting someone is EXTREMELY low.

The "schools just want to make money" is a straw-man argument. It's been done to death, and really doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Truth is, many MT schools are closing because it is not as lucrative as other types of programs. Owners of massage schools have told me they make most of their money from ADVERTISING, and NOT because licensing requirements exist. Even states without licensing requirements have schools that are offering ever-larger and more elaborate training programs because prospective students see the perceived potential market value of a higher level of training in a competitive job market.

There is a great problem with graduating poorly trained massage students, because massage does have great potential to do harm. The most common harm is bruising, soreness from mild tissue damage, and poor experiences resulting from lack of professionalism. However, massage therapists have multimillion dollar liability insurance because major injuries, serious side effects, and even death have resulted from massage.

2. The background checks that are required for licensure are incredibly important. Massage therapists are left alone with unclothed clients, with free access to their purse, wallet, and medical history. I would not want to put myself in such a situation if I were not sure that my therapist had been screened for a history of voyeurism, theft, and sexual assault.

Background checks are not standard for licensure in all states. And you could pass a background check and still commit those offenses.

Background checks are not uniformly administered in states that are regulated differently from one municipality to the next. Further, those conducting such background checks are more likely to miss offenses committed in other areas of the state or country. The California massage board proved itself more effective in screening applicants than most California police departments. Aside from petty theft, checks for criminal histories including fraud, sexual and/or violent offenses should be mandatory.

3. If there is a basic foundation of knowledge and skill that every massage therapist can be assumed to have (since they earned their license), it's much easier to spot a fake. This can help our ability as a community to deal with issues of human trafficking and sex work.

Licensure does exist now and I don't see the public or my clients having any increased ability to spot a "fake." What would be required to remedy this is client education, public education, not more tests and bureaucracy.

Without standardized professional training and credentials, public education campaigns are nearly worthless. We can't educate them on what to look for until we have first established what the standards should be.

with support provided for those with learning disabilities, who may have difficulties passing a traditional written test as administered.

The national exam does provide support for those with disabilities including an oral test, and they are willing to work with people to make accommodations for what they need.

I will admit it is probably giving some cred to the profession in the eyes of the medical professions and that does need to be addressed for the branches of massage therapy going in that direction. But I could easily see there being a separate "medical massage" license for those working closely with doctors, and a more casual "wellness massage" category for the rest, even though they may be doing technically specific work.

This is an ongoing discussion. Some favor a "stepped" approach such as you describe here, others do not. I have not yet taken a stance on this.

and after being in a state where there were no requirements (state-wide anyway), the difference can definitely be told between people who might not really know what they're doing and really amazing, talented people. I'd like to consider myself in the latter category, and without some sort of standard, how would people differentiate between the two?

This is also true in states where licensing exists. People can tell! Even newbies can tell when they get a bad massage. And they don't go back to that person. There is no real danger in unskillful massage therapists practicing massage. They will eventually not get enough clients to survive and will turn to other forms of work. There are already unskillful therapists practicing out there, who did well taking the test and are licensed and regulated but are giving a bad name to massage. All the licensing does is make money for the licensing board and for massage schools.

I can see both sides, and I agree that state or even federal licensing would eliminate the problems when there are no over-arching laws and then each city or town gets to make their own licensing laws. That's no fun. Given the current alternatives, licensing is probably the lesser of the evils, but I think the arguments people usually make for it are fear based, and/or self serving. Like, "why should *that* person be allowed to massage when they've had no training and I took a year to learn how to touch someone!" It's just touch, everyone can do it. I take issue with the idea that touch therapy is *ours* and no one else should be allowed to do it.

Again, massage is NOT a danger-free profession. Professional massage therapists learn about all kinds of contraindications, danger zones, boundary issues, etc. because they ACTUALLY MATTER. The untrained MT who accidentally spreads herpes zoster virus, or whose poor draping emotionally traumatizes a client, or who works too aggressively and causes severe uncontrolled muscle spasms... the list is endless... is a danger to the public. This issue is greater than simple "bad massages" - it really does involve REAL HARM inflicted upon innocent clients/victims.

As a business owner, I absolutely hate the patchwork of municipal regulations in my area. It costs us thousands of dollars of business each year. It also delays the process of hiring and starting a new massage therapist employee. Uniform, statewide or nationwide massage regulation would greatly improve the business climate for massage businesses everywhere.

I think the US massage therapy licensing model is the best. The 500 to 1000 hours of training are sufficient to provide the needed knowledge to a student. The licensing should be a natural consequence of the accumulated knowledge and should not be a problem. Very pragmatic, in a good way, and who complains about it, sorry but there are other careers out there...
In Canada the training averages around 2000 to 3000 hours !!!!!! Crazy...

I think the current 500 hour "average" is abysmally low. I had over 780 hours of training, and yet learned only a small fraction of what I might have. After a few hundred CE hours, I am finally starting to feel like I am achieving a base level of competence. I think 2000+ hours of in-depth training with greater emphasis on anatomy, physiology, pathology, neuroscience, research literacy and critical thinking sounds like a MUCH better way to start a massage career.

 

[Obama Exsisto Iuguolo]

Are you for/against licensing laws?

I think the current 500 hour "average" is abysmally low. I had over 780 hours of training, and yet learned only a small fraction of what I might have. After a few hundred CE hours, I am finally starting to feel like I am achieving a base level of competence. I think 2000+ hours of in-depth training with greater emphasis on anatomy, physiology, pathology, neuroscience, research literacy and critical thinking sounds like a MUCH better way to start a massage career.

I definitely agree here. After learning that some people here attended massage school for over a year going full-time, I wish I could have had that opportunity! I could have cared less about the whole "geteverythingdoneasfastasyoucanin7monthsthing" and wish my 820 hours were a little more spread out so I could have retained the information better. I can only imagine how horribly I would have failed without having gone to school and my state making sure everyone has that minimum 600 hours of basic training.

I also have a whole laundry list of CE courses I want to take and get frazzled when I think about it because I can't decide what I want to do first and sometimes feel like I'll never have the time or the money to do them all!

 

[CatsDogsFrogs]

Are you for/against licensing laws?

The "schools just want to make money" is a straw-man argument. It's been done to death, and really doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

Honestly, I'm more afraid of this being true,that many of our schools are simply incompetent, rather than greedy. Believing that they're in it to make a buck because they couldn't as massage therapists gives me more hope than the fact that some of these awful schools friends have attended might actually have been working in good faith.

I didn't realize that FBI and BCII background checks weren't required across the board. It's been true in every state I've worked in as a teacher, so it seemed normal to me when it was a part of my massage therapy licensing in Ohio. I've learned something new today!

-Kat