Even on Veteran’s Day, complex licensing regimes hurt veterans
As the country recognizes its veterans, many veterans continue to battle high rates of unemployment. Despite the fact that veterans do very well once they are in the workplace, many obstacles prevent them from working. One of the most glaring obstacles is the continued presence of licensing regimes, which prevent skilled veterans from using their technical skills.
Onerous state requirements prevent veterans from using the skills they developed while in the military. Instead of being able to use their training and expertise, veterans are required to repeat courses and follow complex licensing procedures, just to “learn” what they already know. This problem is not only difficult for veterans seeking employment; it wastes the government’s expensive investment in training these citizens, and keeps companies from hiring skilled and experienced employees.
State licensing obstacles not only prevent veterans from finding jobs they also make it difficult for military spouses. Service members are often transferred to different states. Unfortunately, because each state has different licensing requirements, spouses are often unable to use their certification in a different state. In response to this issue, thirty-four states have enacted exemptions, but there are still many that deny our veterans this commonsense protection.
In the wake of these problems PLF continues to support not only veterans but all citizens’ right to earn a living. In our Obamacare lawsuit, we support a veteran whose business is threatened by an overwhelming government mandate. We also continue to challenge licensing requirements that prevent people from exercising their right to earn a living. To learn more about PLF’s efforts to fight for these rights please visit our website. And Happy Veterans Day!
What to read next
PLF asks the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that there is no “legislative exception” to the unconstitutional conditions doctrine
It seems that some governments and courts prefer to treat Supreme Court precedent as an option, rather than a requirement. The Supreme Court has ruled—twice—that it’s unconstitutional for government to … ›