Clarification on US and Canadian Engineers 17

[etch]

I read all these forums and find the sharing of ideas extremely helpful and informative, I would like to know about being licienced in northern America.

Is it compulsory?
do you have to take insurance out on yourself to protect against tort of negligance or substandard work, who pick the tab up is it the work or yourself.

Does this accreditation allow you to work anywhere in US?

WHy have it? (advantages/Disadvantages)

Can you work without one?

I read alot about people saying if they discover unethical practices , its thier legal duty to report it or they face expulsion. DOes this happen?

Is there different bodies?

Just to give you a comparison, we dont really have anything of the same idea over here, we have professional bodies like Institute of Engineers, but alot of the time its more a badge than an actual living body enforcing policy.

 

[i278]

So the question that I have for you is this. What are you going to do about it now that you know that?

dporte17,

At the risk of being ground beneath the heels of the profession, my honest answer:

I will continue to do absolutely nothing.

I don't even know for certain whether this practice is truly illegal here (this isn't Ontario). I realize that I could find out simply enough--the rules are probably the same here--but truth is, it won't change what I do. What would I accomplish? Stir up trouble for my employer, my coworkers, myself? All these people (my employer included) I consider friends. They are good folks working in good faith. Until I throw myself on the mercy of the court for speeding to work every morning and that illegal u-turn I made yesterday, busting my company would be hypocritical. And I'd be a jerk.

I realize that 'everybody else is doing it' is no excuse for not following the law. Other's situations will vary, of course, but for me the long and the short of it is: I have to live here.

Regards

 

[VoyageofDiscovery]

I have a stupid question,

Does the PEO want the design of every car out of Windsor and the like stamped by an Ontario P.Eng.?

I understand the automotive industry has very, very few professional engineers in their manufacturing.

VOD

 

[electroEng]

"...You can expect to see a large exodous of OEMs leaving Canada due to the costs associated with getting all your engineers licensed. And what does this mean? Nothing except potential heartache for engineers...."


buzzp,

Where is your proof that the licensing of Ontario engineers leads to increased cost and Exodus of OEMs from the province? The fact is, most Canadian engineers are already licensed in the province they work, whether you like it or not. This is inherent in the system of accreditation. Businesses aren't going to pull out just because engineers receive a university education, pass exams and get licensed. Instead, businesses here in Canada tend to worry more about things like taxation.

ElectroEng

 

[CanEngJohn]

dporte17

"that the situation that you describe is against the law in Ontario"

This could be true for the aircraft mod/certification aspect of the experience as listed (we don't have enough details). As for his OEM experience there isn't anything there that violates Ontario law. And as I posted earlier form the Professional Engineers Act of Ontario there does exist an exemption (Section 12) in industry where one can perform Engineering without a license if one is designing equipment or processes "for the person's employer".

The number of Tier 1 OEMS in Canada which encourage and employ licensed Engineers is on the increase however there is very little need for an extensive number due to the exemption clause found under section 12. And automobiles manufactured in Canada don't need a P Eng stamp since they were not designed in Canada.

As for the costs going up argument it barely holds water. Most Tier 1 OEMs pay their Engineers well enough that a licensed Engineer does not make that much more (typically 10% or less). Also there is very little that a Manufacturing Plant needs a licensed Engineer for so they will not go overboard on their hiring. Most plants will operate with a number of techs (6 to 8 for larger plants) and only 2-3 licensed Engineeers (1 Electrical, 1 Mechanical and 1 Manager) at most. Which would be enough to cover all the legal requirements quite readily.

 

[dporte17]

buzzp –
Following the logic that you present in your post, we should abandon all licensing because “Employers would still drive the final product and push it out the door when they see fit”. I disagree with that. If you are hired as a licensed engineer then you are protected by the law in the event that you do have to take a stand because you feel a decision is unsafe. If you are not licensed, you do not have the same protection. In the real world the situation is not so black and white, but I disagree with abandoning the system all together because there are deficiencies. I think we need to strengthen the licensing process and protection rather than weakening it by dismissing it as useless.

i278 –
I don’t propose that you become the proverbial whistleblower, but rather keep it in mind that the situation is not ideal. I am going to file a complaint only because I went through 4 months of raising the issues to my management and HR only to be dismissed. I did not present to them a situation where they had to fire all the non-licensed persons and replace them with licensed, but rather recognise that the people who are not licensed should not be holding themselves out as “Engineers” outside of the company, and if they have design responsibility, they are supposed to be licensed or have their work reviewed by a licensed P.Eng. It is when my pleas for change fell on deaf ears did I decide that I needed to file a complaint.(which might die after a letter, but I did what I could) Perhaps you can think of some moderate actions such as talking to some people about it, and hopefully in the future they will look to fill the positions with licensed engineers.

VOD –
No, that is not what the PEO wants. What they do want is that when engineering is performed in Ontario that is covered under the Ontario Professional Engineers Act that the person doing the Engineering is in compliance with that law. That is not just what they want, but rather the fundamental mandate that is at the heart of the very existence of the organization. And yes, there are very few engineers in the automotive industry. Being part of that industry, I know. That is the result of many factors none the least of which is the spill over of the industrial exemption in Michigan and the misconception that similar laws exist here. This is something that we can only hope to change in the long run.(also see further discussion of this below)

CanEngJohn –
I was working on the “I have, and my departments have, designed products for sale to both individual and commercial customers” statement for that, and the assumption that the statement would be true for at least one portion of the experience described. You are correct that I may have been incorrect, but I think we would need more information to understand that fully. That said, I think the exemption in Ontario is often misunderstood. Ken McMartin wrote and excellent article on this topic in the March/April edition of Engineering Dimensions (

http://www.peo.on.ca

– look under publications for an online version). And yes, you are correct that there are several employers in Ontario that are very good about encouraging licensing, but we still have a long way to go.

 

[buzzp]

If companies are required to have PE's then it is assumed they will be paying for the license fees and the insurance (if not directly then indirectly because of increased wages, someone said 10%). With the bottom line being the only thing important to executives then this 10% of wages for a company with 10 engineers is significant. Why have the added cost by setting up shop in Ontario? Go somewhere where PEs are not required. Save this added expense right off the top and not have to worry about an engineer signing the design.
The same law that will protect the licensed engineer is the same law that is apparently enforced (not) in Ontario. It would be a very uncomfortable situation for the engineer. "I would rather do it this way to make me feel just a bit better but the boss man does not want to spend the extra $1 per product". "If I don't sign off here will they give it to the new guy and he will get all the credit?" "Will they pass me up next time because they want an engineer who is more liberal with their stamp?" You see the consultant is in charge of their project and if the customer does it like it he can hire someone else (increased cost to find and bring another consultant up to date- so their is some deterrence not to change) where an exempt has to listen to what the company wants to do, if they don't like it, they will simply find an engineer who will do it their way.
I still don't see the logic in the argument. And judging by the responses, never will. I would encourage all the those in favor of eliminating the industrial exemption to gain some experience in this area before arguing for the elimination of this engineer. Working in both areas, I can say it would be a huge mistake and do nothing for the engineer just put him in an uncomfortable situation.
What do you pro licensing folks know about safety agencies? Do you know what they do? By arguing for abolishment of the industrial exempt you are also arguing for abandoning the safety agencies such as UL and CSA (these are the companies that test the products you specify to assure they are safe). There already is in place two sets of eyes looking at a prodcut. Abolishing the industrial exemption will reduce this to one set of eyes, and with bias.
Honestly, how many of you have experience in designing products (working in the exempt world)? If have none, then you really are lacking any ammo in this argument. Not to say your dumb just have not had that experience so you would not understand the barriers in the product design world or the hoops that are necessary to jump through to get a product to market. Adding a PE stamp to the mix only adds another hoop that has NO benefit.

 

[electroEng]

buzzp,

No one here is suggesting the licensing system should replace CSA and UL approvals for products. It is common routine practice for PEngs to specify CSA or UL-C approved components wherever possible in the complex systems they are responsible for.

Professional engineers also bring added value to employers by mitigating potential court challenges on the employer's due diligence should product liability issues arise.

You stressed the importance of a 10% savings on engineering wages but, think about this. In a world where cheap labor sources are abundant offshore, we in North America can no longer afford to compete based on wages alone. You probably already know India and China pay their engineers less than 1/5th of what typical Canadian or American engineers are paid. With that kind of wage gap, we have to compete based on quality, innovation and excellence. That is where PEngs can help.


ElectroEng

 

[buzzp]

Yes your right, how stupid of me. PE's are the only ones who can provide quality, innovation, and excellence! I see the light now. Thanks guys.

 

[CanEngJohn]

Buzzp wrote

"I would like to hear from a Canadian who is working at an OEM as an engineer (designing products) to see what their experience is rather than relying on input from all Canadian PE's."

I didn't respond to this earlier but just to let you know that I do fit the criteria. I am often part of the design team that brings new OEM products to the market. I work for an OEM that is also a Tier 1 supplier in the automotive world and I am a licensed Canadian PE based in Ontario.

Just to let you know since you seem somewhat concerned with who the voices are in this discussion.

 

[dporte17]

buzzp:

Along the same lines of CanEngJohn, I have worked at an OEM with design and release responsibility, as well as in another position that was manufacturing process related. I am now at a Tier 1 supplier. Both companies were in Ontario, and I am now in the final stages of getting my license.

I was incidentally involved in several recalls by that OEM, one of which killed people. The person who made the design change was not a licenced P.Eng, and was uncomfortable with the decision when he made it. Perhaps he was considering "Will they pass me up next time because they want an engineer who is more liberal with their stamp?".

Further discussions with the licensed engineers revealed that they feel that they can take a stand in that case. If they are fired or in some way reprimanded because of their refusal to make a decision they know that they can sue under wrongful dismissal. Being hired as P.Engs, they are expected to make those decisions and in doing so reflect the Code of Ethics as spelled out by the Engineer's Act. The same protection is not afforded to non-licensed Engineers.

I am under no illusion that in a court of law that things will be this black and white, and that the common law doesn't provide some measure of protection for un-licensed practitioners. That said, knowing that there is that support can mean tremendous amounts to the person in the situation, and can provide a legal framework to lean on.

If the engineer that made that decision was able to lean on that legal and professional support he might not have given in to the requests by management and perhaps those people would be alive today.

Can you see the logic in that argument?

Dave

 

[jetmaker]

Just my 2 cents.

I worked for an OEM of Aircraft components in Ontario a few years ago, and there is no requirement for the Stress Analysts, nor designers to be licensed by the PEO. This is not illegal as the PEO has no authority over aircraft components. The authority of aircraft components is governed by a Federal body, and hence overrides the PEO. I am sure this is also the case for the automotive industry.

Secondly, it could be argued that all components produced by engineers in the automotive industry are not actually providing a service directly to the public. Their products are designed for use by the manufacturer, and then that is transfered to the public. So only the company would require a CofA to sell their product to the public.

Not positive on the second point, but it could be a reasonable arguement for no licensing requirement.

Regards,
jetmaker

 

[buzzp]

dporte17,
I have avoided this thread for a while because it is going no where. In any case, your statement;

"The person who made the design change was not a licenced P.Eng, and was uncomfortable with the decision when he made it. Perhaps he was considering "Will they pass me up next time because they want an engineer who is more liberal with their stamp?"

Makes no sense. If the guy did not have his PE why would he think "Will they pass me up next time because they want an engineer who is more liberal with their stamp?" ????

If the guy had concerns, he should of brought it up and took actions to make it better. Thats all he can do. The ultimate decision is up to the company. Now maybe if he had his PE he may have had the thought above but you said he didn't. Furthermore, ultimately, the company will do what they want, PE or not.

As far as being sued for wrongful termination, the exempt engineer has the same thing to stand on. You don't get this option, magically, when you get your PE. It is for protection of every employee (at least in the US).

Every engineer is taught the code of ethics. PE's do not become ethical wizards when they get licensed. I would say most engineers practice good ethical guidelines, PE or not.

In your example, you must agree that the company would have done what they wanted, one way or the other. This means one engineer or another. The guy you use in this case apparently is not very ethically as he should of jumped up and voiced his concerns.

You make it sound like you inherit all these great traits when you become a licensed engineer; you become an ethical person, you are given legal rights that other engineers do not get, and you technically expertise becomes automatically enhanced. In reality, none of these are true.

ElectroEng,
Unlicensed engineers are allowed to testify in a court of law. There is nothing magical about the PE in this case. There have been several cases where the expert on the subject is not a PE. I don't recall any specific cases but there are some.
The 10% savings in wages is huge to the business manager. Granted that over seas wages are less than 90% of someone here in North America but it is still savings. Sending engineering work over seas is not an option for many companies. You should know that savings on engineering payrolls of 10% is a HUGE number to the guy counting pennies. Heck, I would not even over look that. So your argument is only good for companies that can and will send engineering work over seas. It may be that more of the consulting work is going over seas than the design work, I don't know but I could see it being true.

Okay Ill end for now.

 

[etch]

okay since i started it i better add my part now.

I didnt want to create a riff between the us and canadian engineers. To be honest i just wanted to know the difference, here in the UK anyone can call themselves an engineer.

Maybe you should all just accept that its the people that are skilled not the countries

 

[Hush]

Just to try and clear one thing up, there appears to be a misunderstanding on whether there's an industrial exemption in Ontario, there isn't leastwise not the same as in the US. Every province in Canada has a similar clause to the one referred to. I've heard it referred to as the millwright clause. Its main purpose is to allow anyone to design jigs, fixtures, processes etc. for the support of manufacturing or servicing. It does not apply to any product offered to the public. Also equipment designed for use by an employer may still require you to have a PEng anyways if it is covered under a safety code; boilers & overhead lifting equipment for examples.

The Certificate of Authorization is required in addition to the PEng license (not instead of)if you are offering services to the public and you must have a PEng on staff or available to obtain a CofA. However, a company may obtain a CofA and hire non-licensed engineers to perform engineering as long as they have one P.Eng saying he's responsible for their work. Theoretically you could have a hundred non-licensed engineers churning out thousands of designs as long as you had one PEng running around checking them all and taking responsibility. Course that he wouldn't be very ethical so I can't see that happening, nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

 

[dporte17]

buzzp:

In order to not go in circles forever, I will agree to disagree with you on this one. I support licensing because I think it provides another level of protection of the public and the engineer. You do think that it does, so in essence it becomes a cost without benefit.

I am not content with the status quo of the profession, and wishing to move forward I think one way we can improve things is to strengthen the licensing process. I am going to jump to the conclusion that many of the members of this forum similarly want to improve the engineering profession, yourself included. You don't agree that we need to use licensing to do this, but rather go about it in another way.

I think we are not going to convince each other of their respective perspectives, but hopefully you have learnt something of my perspective, as I think I have learnt something of yours.

Cheers,
Dave

 

[buzzp]

I will agree to disagree with you. I do not feel that licensing makes the public any safer. This does not mean that I support anyone calling themselves an engineer, if they go through the right accredited colleges. It sounds like in Canada that no test is required so there really is no difference in a new grad and the licensed person except experience. I just do not believe that requiring such a license will help anyone. I do believe it will hurt engineers in the long run.
I think in order to come up with solutions we first need to define the problem. What are we trying to improve; the wages? the publics perception? If you can tell me what you think needs improving then I think we can come up with better solutions other than requiring licensing.

I am still not sure if the exemption exists in Canada anywhere and judging by the responses, there is also disagreement amongst Canadian engineers.

 

[electroEng]

buzzp wrote:
"..Unlicensed engineers are allowed to testify in a court of law...."

In Canada, engineering is a regulated profession. By law, most engineer are licensed. The provision of expert testimony and advising on an engineering matter in a court of law might be regarded as practicing professional engineering.

Even the least informed lawyer should be well aware of the statutes relating to the practice of engineering in the Canadian jurisdiction. Furthermore, it is not difficult to find licensed engineers who are experts in any engineering discipline working in academia or industry, and who are capable of and willing to offer expert testimony on engineering matters. I would imagine that in a Canadian court, a cross-examination of an unlicensed expert witness might go something like this:

Cross-examining Lawyer:
You said you are an expert in XYZ engineering so tell us, Mr. Expert Witness, how long have you been licensed to practice engineering?

Expert Witness:
License, what license?

Cross-examining Lawyer:
I have no further questions.

I'm not saying that unlicensed engineers cannot testify in Canadian court of law, but when the testimony involves an engineering matter well within the domain of many licensed engineers, why would any lawyer risk the possibility of this kind of cross-examination in a court of law?


ElectroEng

 

[buzzp]

I dont know. You will have to ask the lawyers.

I have always heard a PE is required to testify in a court of law in the US. Up til about five years ago, I believed it. But there are many cases where the expert does not have a PE. I can see the cross examination by whichever side that called the engineer as being,
"based on your 30 years of working experience, your published books, and your chair of ____ IEEE committee, would you say that ____". It can go the other way very easily.

 

[dporte17]

buzzp:

As for the testifying in court, you are right it can go either way. Really depends on the matter on which the expert needs to render an opinion. In accident reconstruction, often times there are P.Engs involved in testifying, and being licensed and practicing in the field does help establish credibility, but there are often other qualified persons testifying such as police officers in the capacity of the expert witness. I'm sure there are specific examples of the same phenomenon in other disciplines.

As far as what needs to be improved in Engineering, that can be the subject of an entire other thread, which I think I am going to start. In my opinion there are many areas where Engineers are losing ground as a group; wages, respect of the profession by the public, employment security (conflicting reports of rising unemployment and undersupply of engineers).

I will start up a thread to that effect in the "Where is Engineering going" forum and see where it goes.

Cheers,
Dave

 

[electroEng]

buzzp wrote:
"based on your 30 years of working experience, your published books, and your chair of ____ IEEE committee, would you say that ____". It can go the other way very easily....."

In Canada, the type of expert witness you described above is typically a university professor. In Ontario universities at least, it is very common to find PEngs in electrical engineering departments. In one school I checked, about 3/4 of the ECE department comprised of licensed engineers. Of course, they all hold PhDs and not all of them would have 30 years of experience, but the ones who do have substantial experience (i.e. department chairs) are very likely to also have their PEng Licenses.

While one may find EE professors in Canada who have academic credentials, without PEng registration, I do think that if engineering students are to gain an appreciation for the profession, and what it means to their careers, there are few better examples than a professor who is also a licensed professional engineer.


ElectroEng