Does the Industrial Exemption hold down US engineers? 1

[Haf]

This is an intriguing question that many posters have commented on or alluded to (see the “Where’s the respect?” thread). I have heard the argument that engineers are not respected because many are not licensed, or because licensure is not required. Furthermore, I see that many engineers believe that “corporate America” created and continues to use the Industrial Exemption to its advantage and engineers’ disadvantage. I guess the thinking is that by allowing engineers to practice engineering without professional certification of some kind, industry can pay engineers less and treat them more poorly.

What are your thoughts on this?

For those who don’t know what the Industrial Exemption is (I have found that the majority of engineers do not): The "industrial exemption" works as follows: if you provide engineering services to your employer that are related to the design and manufacture of the company's product, you need not be licensed. The theory is that the employer assumes the liability in the case of harm to the public, not the individual engineer. (In the USA, Mississippi is the only state that does not have the industrial exemption.) The company most likely is covered by product liability insurance as well. In short, you can "engineer" a product for your employer, although without certification you cannot publicly call yourself an "engineer."

 

[GregLocock]

If a piece of paper gets you respect, terrific.

It doesn't seem to work that way in my world.

Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[havesealwilltravel]

Most companies support the "industrial exemption" and oppose required registration for 2 reasons:

o This eliminates the pseudo-engineer. (A pseudo-engineer is one who cannot meet the requirements of licensure.) This shrinks the labor pool and eliminates a source of cheaper labor.

o Companies categorically oppose any type of organization of labor. Whether they are unions or professional societies, companies find it easier to intimidate individuals if there is no group backing them up.

 

[patdaly]

Guys, you want to feel better because of a PE? Tell you what, I would get not ONE cent more in my current or past jobs, nor would it make me one scintilla more intelligent. I and I alone negotiate my salary with my employer, and PE or not, if they figured they could get a cheaper person to perform the job as well as I do, they would dump me in a New York second. Therefore, I perform to my potential, they get a good product, and the world ( with the possible exception of PE's) is happy.
Look around you, it appears as if the Engineering profession is attempting to go the way of Doctors, Lawyers, and Unions, that of artifically shrinking the labor pool. Tell me where that makes a country safer, or better equipped.
Now, with that rant out of the way, us NON PE's have a responsibility, and that is strict adherance to our level of conduct. Legislation or not, I am bound to refer questions regarding structures, Boilers,etc. to a registered PE, and at least in my estimation, is the way it should be.

 

[PSE]

I have not found my career in any way affected by the lack of a PE. In my view, licensing and political bodies have a choice to make.

Determine whether or not all engineering professions require licensure and do away with the Industrial Exemption.

Decide to restrict licensure requirements to those professions dealing with national infrastructure and direct public dealings.

This is undoubtedly a difficult issue. It will be interesting to see the course that this thread runs.

Regards

 

[rday]

Well I guess I'll chime in on this long running debate.

First off, I don't think the industry exemption is holding back engineers, we do that ourselves just fine by being an invisible profession. I think licensure is a good idea for all of us and it isn't about respect or dollars alone, there is so much more.

If you don't think licensure is a good idea for people who work in industry, more power to you. If you think your job never has been or never will be affected by licensure, or lack thereof, more power to you.

A few years ago I became involved with the NSPE and met a man who was "employed" by a company that I won't name. I say "employed" because he was an indepedant contractor and had been since the mid 1980s. It was at that time that the company decided to reduce overhead and eliminated it's engineering department. Every member of that department that had a license went back to work as a private consultant with an increase in pay. Everyone that didn't have a liscense was out on the street. Sure, it was a rude thing to do, but companies do have to focus on the bottom line.

Why should a company have engineering staffs and pay benefits and burden dollars when thay could hire private consultants and possibly do the work more cost effectively. I'm not saying every industry will,or should, go that way, but they could.

Just food for thought.

 

[leanne]

Using consultants does things for the overhead rates that you would not believe - beancounters strike again...On paper, it looks better for a company to have lower overhead rates & smaller staffing. Especially, publicly traded companies since the books & financial records are supposedly open.

If a company hires a consultant, they only pay consultant fees on a purchase order. They pay none of the overhead expenses like insurance, vacation, educational expenses, matching 401K, pension plans, (un)employment taxes, worker's comp....

rday: Every member of that department that had a license went back to work as a private consultant with an increase in pay.

An increase in "pay" does not always mean an increase in total compensation. The consultant is responsible for ensuring the IRS is paid quarterly (at minimum) and that they charge a rate sufficient to cover benefits they would have had as an employee.

I worked for a contract engineering firm (they deducted & paid my FICA, Medicare, SS,... to the federal gov't) for a while & even working as a contractor, the contractor must think about these kinds of things. Insurance was offered by SPEC/TMP but it was 3X the amount I had been paying as a regular, full-time employee. I do not recall any other bennies offered outside insurance & a non-matching 401K.

Being a contractor can be lucrative - I made about 1.5X my current salary. For a single person with no family or property ties, it's great - especially, if you are interested in that kind of nomadic life. If you have a family though, the benefits of FT regular employment make up the difference.

BTW,

http://www.roadwhore.com

is a resource (discussions, look for jobs, look for employees) for those interested in the contractor life.