Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations waross on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Fined by the city for claiming to be an engineer - Suing on grounds of free speech 62

Status
Not open for further replies.
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

@drawoh,

My opinion on the FEA code is that a license shouldn't be required to write it. Licensure happens to protect the general public because without specialized training (the same training required to make them an engineer), they have no way of evaluating an Engineer's claim of competence. That's not true about a licensed engineer using an FEA tool. Someone who is competent, particularly a licensed engineer, can run through a few calculations that they've calculated solutions for and check whether the software is performing correctly. Whether the programming was done by a PE or not, mistakes are still made, so this is the duty of a professional anyway, regardless of how much no one likes having to do it.

Again, licensing is to protect the general public who has no means of checking competence of an engineer, which is why in many states, there is industrial exemptions because even though there are a lot of non-PE engineers in Aerospace and Automotive type industries, they are better equipped to check whether a consultant is competent or not that the general public, and so they don't need the same protections via licensing.

I also agree with IRstuff about the practicality of of getting PEs to program. The problem is that currently you won't find that many PEs writing the software. Which means someone who goes straight into writing code, even if they have an engineering degree, can't get a PE. Until there are many PEs in that field, or we grant some form of "amnesty" to anyone who has been doing it for 4 years and passes the PE exam, it requires someone to first practice in a different field then switch. While their engineering skills may be better as a result, their programming skills may not be. A mistake in either the math or the programming still ends up with software that doesn't function correctly. So, in my opinion the industry will need some change/temporary relaxation of licensing requirements related to the experience portion if they want engineering softwares to be written by PEs.


 
Maybe we should license the cafeteria's lunch lady too since she has a bigger impact upon engineering than the software tools' developers.

Realistically, selling to the public really isnt much different from a legal perspective than selling to private industry. Every project has a responsible engineer and they need to do their diligence. If they dont they run the risk of being sued and/or going to jail depending on the downstream results of their actions/inactions.
 
lacajun,

I wonder what it is we are discussing here. The people at Reason magazine are libertarians. They oppose regulation, and restricting work opportunities to guilds, societies and such. This incident is just the sort of thing that pisses them off.

On the other hand, Mats Järlström is accused of taking on the title of "Engineer". That horse escaped the barn a very long time ago. I don't think the Oregon professional engineers or any other professional engineers have a right to restrict the use of that word. I see no evidence that Järlström used the term "Professional Engineer" or PE/PEng, which is protected by law, and for which there is no need for a grandfather clause. The hard-core libertarians probably oppose that too. The Free Market will weed out incompetent bridge builders, along with the idiots who trusted them.

Maybe the engineering community should chose its battles carefully.

--
JHG
 
This is going to drag on for a while - and perhaps the "dragging on for a while" can help distill:
1. The limits of the state in guarding the public against charlatans that would diminish public safety, and
2. The limits of individuals in making exaggerated and/or false claims about their credentials for the purpose of self-gain.

Here's the status taken from a December 5th Oregonian:
[blue]The judge said she will issue her findings in two to three weeks.
Both sides can then challenge the findings, and the matter would be referred to U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown, who would decide whether to adopt the magistrate judge's decision.[/blue]



Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376
 
Many here are expressing the opinion that engineering licensure laws should be restricted to those who sell their services. Should unlicensed engineers medical doctors and lawyers all be allowed to practice pro bono without restriction?
 
"Should unlicensed engineers medical doctors and lawyers all be allowed to practice pro bono without restriction?"

>> They still offer their services to the public at large. This is different than the industrial exemption for engineers.

"What about the people who write code for FEA software."

>> What about ANSYS and NASTRAN? I doubt they have licensed software engineers for doing that, nor would they necessarily have licensed MEs for doing the algorithm description documents, particularly since detailed FEA math isn't something one might necessarily expect to find on a PE exam.



TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
 
I keep seeing "engineering services to the public", but that's an over-encompassing statement, IMHO. If I design and build a wind-up widget, say a clock, then I am performing "engineering" services and should therefore be fined. No public was harmed or will likely ever be harmed by said clock, unless it fell from a shelf onto their head... yet it still falls (no pun intended) under that guise of "engineering" and requires a license.

I would prefer if the requirement for a license be limited to those engineering tasks in which a minimum level of harm might result as of the malfunction of such a design (buildings, power supplies, fuel-powered equipment over some small HP rating, etc.). I'm sure we could slowly carve out fine details and exceptions, but I believe my overall intent is clear.

Dan - Owner
URL]
 
Dan -- your description is covered in California's industrial exemption, since you are not offering to do a custom design for each customer, but rather, you are selling a physical product that was engineered. There product liability laws that cover things like getting electrocuted by your clock if it were wall powered, for example.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
 
"You can design buildings, bridges and pressure vessels to your hearts content, and you can write books about it."

Actually, in most states, such as in the OP, the boards disagree with that statement. In California, "Any person practices electrical engineering when he professes to be an electrical engineer or is in responsible charge of electrical engineering work." Therefore, the mere act of performing engineering, and declaring oneself as only, "electrical engineer," even without "professional" is illegal:

California PE Act 2016 said:
or in any manner, use the title “professional engineer,” “licensed engineer,” “registered engineer,” or “consulting engineer,” or any of the following branch titles: “agricultural engineer,” “chemical engineer,” “civil engineer,” “control system engineer,” “electrical engineer,” “fire protection engineer,” “industrial engineer,” “mechanical engineer,” “metallurgical engineer,” “nuclear engineer,” “petroleum engineer,” or “traffic engineer,” or any combination of these words and phrases or abbreviations thereof unless licensed under this chapter.

Note, however, "software engineer" is not a proscribed title, nor is licensure required.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
 
Rick:
Rick said:
In my business, I may perform some level of the structural calculations and...

I don't disagree with this post. I might have slightly different opinions on a few points but otherwise I'd say I agree.

Rick said:
Under no intent would I suggest you work for less than your expenses but...

A few parts in this post I want to reply to, see below:

Rick said:
Clients aren't their for you to buy yourself a $100 Million super yacht. If you are serving predominantly clientele market with average income of around $50,000 a year then YOU need to operate and control your costs so that you can live and operate on a similar level income on the day to day....

Again, only speaking for myself, but I balance my approach between what I am willing to do a job for, the risk and complexity of the job, and the market value of the engineering services provided. So, a 2 mile skyscraper will be billed a lot differently than designing a few post for Mrs. Henderson's new deck. If someone is willing to pay me $100 million for an engineering job then I wont turn it down but I wouldn't ask for it.

I don't know about you but most engineers aren't making bank of their clients. I drive a 8 year old Ford Focus, wife drives a 17 year old Toyota Corolla, I live in a modest house, about my only luxury is I fly a small Cessna private plane that I share with a club. I could chase the money but I like what I do and I have enough to be happy and comfortable.

Rick said:
Even in architectual/engineering firms, most employees has to pay for their own licenses or certifications, professional liability and E&O insurances and other things from their own base salary.

They are bad at negotiating with their company if they are paying for them out of pocket (if they're not self-employed). These are business expenses, make the business pay. It's better for everyone financially if they do.

Rick said:
...That's only about $12,000. Some years, that maybe only 10% disposable income. That is about $6,000....

Rick, you keep making these calculations asserting essentially that one should live within ones means and not charge more than a market can bear, but there is a flip side to this. You don't get to hire a doctor or lawyer for $10/hr (unless they're generous or working probono of course). Why? Because there is an investment in time and money to become and maintain those professions. Same for engineering.

For example, pretend I didn't go to college and intern to be an engineer. For me personally this would have saved 10 years and about $40,000 (most engineers are probably in for a lot more money, too). Let us also include the hours spent studying for my licensure exam (lets do this at $10 per hour for my time); 600 hrs x $10/hr = $6,000. Assuming I make the average income for my age/education in a field like IT (or similar technical field), I'd make on average ~$46,000 x 4 years = $184,000. Let's say 80% of that is after tax = $147,200.

Summing all that I get $193,200 and lets subtract frugal living expenses of $25,000 per year for 4 years. We get $93,200.

So, if I had $93,200 when I would have graduated college 10 years ago, at a 4% monthly compound interest rate we end up with $138,945 of lost profit that I could have right now if I worked instead of going to college, and lived frugally while investing money at a mild return rate.

The fact of the matter is I invested time and money to learn my profession rather than go into a trade right out of high school. I was actually getting payed $12/hr to do IT work in high school and could have easily made a career out of it but decided to invest my time and money in a college education to become an engineer. I would hope to be compensated for this investment of my time and money.

If the market can't support it then I've lost my investment. Fair enough. But if the market can support it then like heck I'm going to design a house for a few hundred bucks. You need to pay me for my time invested and if you can't I'll just move on to the jobs that will.

This is all to say nothing of the fact that you incur a lot of liability by doing engineering. Assuming I will eventually be sued I need to ensure that the work I do during my career was worth it for this added risk of a lawsuit.

Bringing this all back around to the original topic. Engineering is a profession; literally. You "profess" your expertise. Thus, we invest this time and money to learn and earn that title. But if any old snake oil salesman, person with a BS in engineering, sales "engineer", or whatever other title self-imposed, tries to muddy the water then we've lost the trust in the profession. Thus, the reason for licensure. You need to have benchmarks to hold out that can be trusted by those outside the profession.

Car designers (IMO) don't need to be licensed, their profession stands out based on quality alone. People can quickly find out if a car if poorly designed and the designer of the car will be punished by the free market. There are also government oversight and other regulations and standards imposed, it's even more restrictive than engineering licensure. But the cost of this engineering is distributed over hundreds of thousands of cars. We can only distribute our engineering overhead to a few hundred jobs at most.

Regarding the original topic, some guy calling themselves an engineer in various circumstances is a tough question without an easy answer. Licensure tries to ensure that nobody can muddy the waters of the engineering profession. Licensed engineers can and should charge for their engineering overhead and liability.

In summary, engineers have to charge what a market can bear but the playing field needs to be level. Licensure helps to ensure that someone isn't competing unfairly because our industry relies so heavily on professing ones competency. That's why we get licensed and that's why we can and should charge more than an unlicensed person. If the economy gets so broken that our services can't be afforded then so be it. But then you'll get shoddy engineering, failures, loss of life and property, and the end result will be a push for oversight and, you guessed it, licensing of engineers.

Professional Engineer (ME, NH, MA) Structural Engineer (IL)
American Concrete Industries
 
Rick said:
Even in architectual/engineering firms, most employees has to pay for their own licenses or certifications, professional liability and E&O insurances and other things from their own base salary.

Wait... what?

Rick said:
The way the lending market works... even at best, it is likely to cover only 80% of the amount needed for construction based on national (not local) cost standards

Huh?

Rick said:
we are not going to be charging more than about $10,000 or so for 200 "billed" hours and yes, the total hours spent might actually exceed 200 billed hours because that maybe the amount of time explicitly towards the project in drafting.

Really?

We are a hard working profession that works 12 to 16 hours a day.

We do?

You don't make it rich doing a "professional/personal service" business/career. You do that by being making products that you can sell on a global market.

Whoops.

Sorry, it sounds like you've had a rough path in your career and business. But I don't think that's indicative of the profession as a whole.


----
The name is a long story -- just call me Lo.
 
Car designers (IMO) don't need to be licensed, their profession stands out based on quality alone.

Comparing building design to automotive design is largely apples and oranges for many reasons but the comparison does raise an interesting question - Are we all as members of "public" truly protected by engineering licensure or is it the legal and monetary repercussions that limit bad engineering? In the auto industry its the second, I've known quite a few non-PEs who've refused to release work due to noncompliance with govt regs and the ever-present threat of fines and/or spending a few years in prison. In those cases licensure really wouldn't protect anybody. Along a similar vein, reading the professional society rags it always seems like when someone is caught faking a PE its after theyve done so for years, never in the permitting and early planning stages of their first design. Admittedly, even the professional media is a bit sensationalistic so maybe those are overlooked for more dramatic stories.
 
IRstuff said:
Dan -- your description is covered in California's industrial exemption, since you are not offering to do a custom design for each customer, but rather, you are selling a physical product that was engineered.
But what if I am designing a custom clock for each client? It's a harmless product, but it's still considered engineering, and therefore a fineable offense.

Dan - Owner
URL]
 
drawoh, some of my friends and political acquaintances are Libertarians so I understand what irritates them. They may get upset and that's OK. I'm in a think tank run by a libertarian. That experience has enlightened me a great deal to the libertarian perspective. I'm not libertarian because of too many of the experiences I've endured. I know people have a great deal of difficulty regulating themselves. Some go to extremes of non-regulation and harm others.

Rick, I understand business competition. There is a broader point.


Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC
NSPE-CO, Central Chapter
Dinner program:
 
CWB1 said:
Comparing building design to automotive design is largely apples and oranges for many reasons...

Cars, aeroplanes and clocks generally are not built to code. Prototypes are built and tested. If you design an aeroplane wing and they put it in the whiffle tree and it survives and you tell them your wife's hairdresser did the structural analysis, nobody cares. When you build bridges and tall buildings, you have one shot at it, with awful consequences for failure. You manage risk by only allowing qualified people to do the work, and by requiring them to follow tested, accepted design methods.

--
JHG
 
I've a different perspective on this and regret Jarlstrom's win. Amendment 10 empowers states to regulate themselves where the federal government doesn't. Therefore, I see Jarlstrom's win as a loss for the ability of states to regulate themselves. Each state has the right to make its own laws to govern the people of that state.

Amendment 1 supersedes Amendment 10, by the raw language in Amendment 10.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -
 
Dan -- I think you are still exempted:

California PE Act 2016 said:
6747. Exemption for industries
(a) This chapter, except for those provisions that apply to civil engineers and civil engineering, shall not apply to the performance of engineering work by a manufacturing, mining, public utility, research and development, or other industrial corporation, or by employees of that corporation, provided that work is in connection with, or incidental to, the products, systems, or services of that corporation or its affiliates.
(b) For purposes of this section, “employees” also includes consultants, temporary employees, contract employees, and those persons hired pursuant to third-party contracts.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top