Metallurgical Help Line - Is This Legal? 1

[Maui]

At least one day out of each week the metallurgists that I work with are required to answer questions on a metallurgical help line that my company offers. This responsibility is in addition to their normal daily duties. My company is headquartered in the US, but we work with a variety of customers around the world. There is no way to determine if the individual calling is in fact a customer of ours or not. It could be anybody who needs metallurgical advice. Many of these people experience problems in their manufacturing processes, and they call this help line to elicit free advice from these unpaid consultants. Can we legally dispense metallurgical advice to anyone who chooses to call us without a professional engineer on staff? Is this a violation of the rules of conduct, or does the industry exemption apply here?

 

[MintJulep]

Free advice is worth exactly what you pay for it.

 

[NozzleTwister]

It sounds to me like the problem is with your own company procedures. Where I work, we have a Metalurgist on retainer that we are free to call for advice. I am sure that this consultant has a number of other clients as well. When I call I am required to provide:

1) My Company
2) My Name
3) My Phone Number
4) My Project Name
5) Job Charge Number

Our Consultant requires this for billing, but your company could adopt something similar to weed out the freeloaders.

NozzleTwister
Houston, Texas

 

[ChadInColo]

I don't believe it is good business practice, I wouldn't feel comfortable giving advice on the line.

On a different note, because I deal with it pretty much daily on my current project, is export of technology. You say you have overseas customers. You are not, I repeat, not allowed to give new technical information to another country without the proper paperwork. It took me 6 months to get mine all in place just to have technical discussions to give you an idea of the requirements. And I am still not allowed to improve the product, just have technical discussions.

Say someone from Iran calls, speaks perfect English, give you a problem. You say "We have this great new XYZ alloy, would you like to hear about it?". Minimum fine of $30,000 (I believe), up to 6 months in jail if the US gov finds out. Is it likely that it will happen, no, probably not. Is it worth the risk? I have huge oversight on my project, so I am not about to risk it, it's your and your company's choice though, but I would say it is not legal.

To open your boss's eyes, Loral recently was fined $14 million for giving a copy of a report on a satelite failure to the Chinese government before it was approved by the US government. An extreme case, but under the same laws.

 

[IRstuff]

As a general rule, most of what's restricted is the actual fabrication or manufacturing information regarding restricted items. In the case of Loral and Boeing, the rationale was that the failure report revealed information on how the Chinese could improve the manfacturing of their missiles and rockets. Information that is contained within publicly available datasheets are not necessarily restricted.

TTFN

 

[jmw]

An interesting conundrum.
Part of any company's stock in trade is its knowledge base. This is what can give you the edge in a product orinetated company.

The problem is with the quality of the people giving the advise and the quality of the advise they give. In these days when customer service is of increasing importance to companies being helpful to the customer is an important asset. This should involve very careful guidelines and proper training.

On the other hand, it is an increasingly litigeous world and one where one has to be clear about the legal implications.

When i first started out (in flowmeters) it was taken for granted that the applications engineers would ask for the process details and recomend the materials of construction. Today, the applications engineer may offer a choice of materials but the onus is on the customer to make the final choice of materials. In some regards there is a conflict here because of the requirements (within Europe) to provide equipment fit for the purpose intended. This means that some determinations must be made by the supplier. The supplier must be able to advise on meter choice, size, headloss etc. This is, in many areas where the customer is increasingly dependent on the supplier for technical advise and recomendations.

In an example, for some H2SO4 duties, the client may decide on cast iron as a material knowing that surface corrosion will provide an effective barrier to further corrosion but the flowmeter engineer may know that within the measuring chamber there are close toleranced moving parts and no corrosion is acceptable.

Incidentally, is this why it ss so difficult to get good advise from software helplines (mentioning no names)? Is it why all they do is refer you to published sollutions that may or (more usually) may not have a direct bearing on your specific problem?


JMW

http://www.viscoanalyser.com

Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[ChadInColo]

I would agree with IRstuff for the most part. The Loral deal was extreme, thus the extreme consenquence. However, remember, if you are using a known technology in a new way, or in a different application, it can fall under the same rules. I would think same thing with materials, however I am far from an export lawyer.

What JMW says is very true about knowledge base. Add in a little engineering arrogance and it makes for interesting interact. On my project, we are building something currently under construction in another country. The end customer (my company is a sub to the main US company, rather not say the name) has gotten very frustrated because we won't tell how we are producing a better result on a couple of the parts. What we are doing is common knowledge, using it in the way we are is not. The end result is what the drawing requires, and is much easier for us to maintain requirements than what they are doing. We consider it export controlled info, and are not passing it along.

 

[GOTWW]

Ever heard of Caller ID?, I think it cost about 3-buck a month extra. Do not know of the automation possibilities, though, sounds easy enough though. (ie. I they are not from a reconized number, the get the big and total pre-recorded sales pitch) its called free adverstisement! If they can endure that tourture, then you have to be suspect of their intentions, or their utmost desperation for you to sell them what they think they need.)

 

[funnelguy]

Maui,
Several domestic suppliers of tool steel and specialty alloys ended up with their products being specified in my customer’s designs because of their help lines. Isn’t this why the service exists?

ChadInColo’s comments would seem to me to apply to new materials or alloys the government has deemed sensitive, but how will prospective users get any information about your products if you can’t publish specs or discuss them with prospective customers? Another good reason not to do business with the Feds…

Lawyers and disclaimers should solve the “suitability for application” types of legal quandaries. I believe the designer will be responsible for the design content. Consumer products had better have a good paper trail with all the proper stamps. Claims of verbal advice, real or otherwise, would not seem to me to carry any weight. Some states allow recording of business calls without consent, however.

I hope your company finds a way to keep those help lines open. Otherwise, I’ll just buy from the lowest price supplier and continue to use “plain vanilla” products supplied by the lowest price supplier (probably not domestic).

 

[Maui]

Funnelguy, the help lines exist to service our customers. It gives us an edge over our competition because we can provide a service to the customer that adds value at no additional cost to them. The published specs for our products and discussing the published data with known customers is not a concern. The reason that I submitted the original post was to determine if we need to get a professional engineer on staff so that we are operating within the boundaries of the law for our state. Are we in fact violating the law by offering engineering advice to the anyone who chooses to call us? And if someone becomes injured as a direct result of that advice, can we be held liable? To date we have not been involved in such a situation, but I would like to know if we are in fact putting ourselves in a precarious situation by not having a licensed engineer on staff.

 

[IRstuff]

It doesn't matter whether you do any business at all with the Government. They've created a list of restricted technology under ITAR. Whether you agree or not to the validity of the list, export of those restricted technologies will get you in hot water.

TTFN

 

[funnelguy]

Understood, Maui. This is a legal question, after all. My hope is that your company can either continue on as you are currently doing or can continue to provide the service after protecting yourselves through a disclaimer.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV. My dealings with the legal system (both personal and professional) have left me with a generally unfavorable opinion of the legal industry. There is simply no way to protect your company against lawsuits in the US. That's a fact of life here in the US.

I would think having a licensed engineer on staff could actually lead to an increase in liability exposure. The licensed engineer would probably not be able to personally review each conversation. How could you prove suitability of advice given over phone lines even if your company hired enough PE's to man the phone lines 24/7? How would your company create and maintain records of all the conversations? Now you have a situation where the argument could be made that there was an expectation of expertise based on the knowledge that your company had a PE on staff for just such type of info.

I'd look at a disclaimer method that holds the end user responsible for suitability UNLESS the user has communicated in writing and has obtained permission from your company and the PE. That way your company could continue to provide their excellent service to the industry exempt types.

Will all of the people who replied to the thread on skate axles be tracked down and held responsible for any advice they may have offered up if someone gets injured using one of the axles discussed in this thread?

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?SQID=89180&SPID=330&page=4

BTW, I am not making a judgement about the advice given. I am just observing that information is available to many people from many sources. Who we hold responsible quite often has little to do with reality, IMO. Lawyers and their plaintiffs go after the deepest pockets in my experience. The risks and legal and insurance costs involved in consumer products are some of the reasons I’ll never enter into that fray.

 

[funnelguy]

Duly noted, IRStuff. I don't export.
I hope we (collectively) don't discuss anything sensitive unknowingly on this forum!

 

[etch]

Well basically Any ADVICE is that, its not a working instruction and certainly not a solution to the persons problems.

Being a metallugist, i am happy to help out people where i can, and i think in general its good for your company to do the same, alot of small foundries and companies need some informal discussions with somone with metallurgical knowledge to help with ideas. Im sure your company has benefitted from it by repeat orders and possibly even job offers for the advice givers from companies.


if you look at this site you will see that alot of people freely give advice asking nothing in return.