If 2018 was the year of occupational licensing reform, 2019 just might be the year of local licensing preemption.
That’s good news, given the success states like Nebraska and Missouri had over the past year in passing sweeping reforms to push back against licensing’s creep into more workers’ lives. Now, lawmakers are turning their attention to another problem that’s a little closer to home — local occupational licensing.
Too often, local governments follow in the footsteps of state governments and create unnecessary requirements and fees to work in licensed occupations, resulting in double the fees and the requirements, just to be able to work.
These doubled fees result in plumbers in Omaha, Neb., being forced to pay an original license fee of $100 plus a yearly $75 renewal fee. In Kansas City, Mo., photographers need to pay an annual $300 fee.
These excessive fees are enough to discourage work. This is especially true for service industry jobs where workers take on clients in multiple cities across a state and are then faced with an additional fee in each city.
Local licensing is also a problem because of politics: The more successful states are in beating back pro-licensing special interest groups, the more these groups will simply move their focus to the local level.
To fix this problem, state legislators can pass local occupational licensing preemption. To ensure consistent work environments across Nebraska, and increase economic opportunity, State Sen. Dave Murman introduced a bill that bars local governments from creating new licenses and placing additional requirements on occupations already regulated by the state.
In Missouri, State Rep. Derek Grier and State Sen. Eric Burlison, both Republicans, introduced bills this session to stop the growth in local licensing. Grier realized local licensing was a problem when he was forced to get the city’s permission to play saxophone with his band at a local business community block party. This “busking” license required Grier to audition in front of city officials and pay a fee, all to play at a free concert to help draw attention to local businesses.
Arizona, Indiana, and Michigan all passed local licensing preemption last year to protect the good work being done at the state level. Wisconsin and Tennessee also have strong state protections against out-of-control local licenses.
Despite the claim that licensing at the local and state levels is necessary because it “protects consumers,” there is little evidence this is true. The only results that consumers are likely to see are increases in prices and a reduction in choice services. As states that have successfully passed local licensing preemption have seen, if the rest of a state can maintain public safety, consumer protections, and fair competition without licensing an occupation, then it is unlikely that one city needs to do so.
Local preemption is another option in legislators’ toolkits, and it’s one that more states are picking up. Local control was intended to protect people from overreach from the state, it was never intended to let cities keep people out of work.
Andrew Meehan is an intern at the Foundation for Government Accountability, where Jared Meyer is a senior fellow.
