Practising Engineering in USA States 17

[stanier]

Has the requirement for bieng licensed in a state ever been challenged as being in restraint of free trade?

Does the free trade agreements with Canada, mexico, Australia allow for engineers considered professional in their homelands to work without registration in the state?

I am a consultant working out of Sydney Australia and undertake work all over the world except as yet in the USA. I am primarily engaged by consultants as a sub consultant. Is it possible for me to work on USA projects? It would be a nonsense if I did my work but some other engineer had to sign off on it because he had a license and I didnt. The only relelvance that engineer may have to my speciality is knowing my email address and phone number.

 

[solid7]

What does this have to do with free trade? Free trade is about taxation, not compliance...




**************
Check out CATBlog!

 

[RDK]

Free trade is about much more that taxation. It is about allowing other countries and their companies and individuals to compete in your economies on the same basis as your citizens. You then get the same rights in the other countries markets.

The US likes to sign free trade agreements and then violate them. This along with softwood lumber and beef are examples of that.

Under NAFTA there is a clause that should allow free transfer of professional credentials from Canada and Mexico to the US.

That is if you are a professional engineer in Canada (with sufficient experience) all you should have to do is apply to any US state and you should be issued a license.

Texas was one of the few that allowed this to happen and they are as of 1 Jan 06 reverting to the usual method of having to pass the FE and the PE exams for all new applicants.

Unfortunately in the US the federal government can make these commitments to other nations but lacks the authority to bind the individual states to their agreements.

Makes you wonder about the validity of the agreements if they are unenforceable doesn’t it.

Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[solid7]

RDK - I know where your political bias lies - it's a common theme for you. However, at it's very definition, free trade *IS* about taxation - about breaking down tax barriers between nations. I don't care what politicians have tried to define it as, or how you want to see it. I've never seen any reason to allow someone with foreign credentials the ability to work in the US without a regional accredidation, or certification. I find the concept absurd. Especially in the MORE PROSPEROUS country, where MORE COMPETITION drives the need for MORE REGULATION. (unfortunately, a necessary evil in our attorney-ruled society)

I, personally, would love to see "free trade" agreements scrapped. Those agreements were, of course, meant for one-way commerce, at the behest of mainly the US automobile, aircraft, and electronics industries. (cheap labor, and no import tariffs) In the meantime, we have people all over the world bitching about how they can't just walk into our country, and do whatever they please, without proving a demonstrable knowledge of the subject matter, as it pertains to the locale in which they work. Why should *you* get that privilege, when we, as citizens, aren't even granted it? Thank God that states have adequate rights to overrule the federal government in all areas, barring the Constitution.

If I were you, I wouldn't invest too much of my soul in the integrity of "free trade" agreements. Most of us don't. (probably 90% of americans don't even have a clue what a "free trade" agreement is) Evidently you are taught from birth (in Canada) to put too much faith in politicians.

*sigh*




**************
Check out CATBlog!

 

[RDK]

Solid7

You also show your political bias. It is anti internationalism, anti free trade and pro isolationist.

I do also agree that Americans are woefully ignorant about international affairs.

Just the sort of attitudes that free trade is to combat.

Free trade is about much more than taxation. If you believe that it is only a tax agreement then you are missing the complete point of these sorts of agreements.

It is about two or more countries having free access to all aspects of one another’s markets. Taxation is only a small part of the agreement. It does reduce or eliminate import and export taxes but it also does allow free movement of capital and manpower. These are not taxation issues.

If the only point to free trade agreements were to give foreigners access to your markets they why would any politician in their right mind sign such an agreement? They also give Americans free access to Canadian oil reserves on the same basis as any Canadian firm or individual. Remember we have the second largest proves oil reserves in the world. They also give American companies access to the markets of our country and allow your companies access to our markets.

Free trade agreements are highly pro business.

Why else would these agreements have been agreed to between two right wing pro business governments?

The best example is the European community. Goods, capital and manpower can move freely, often without any documentation or other artificial impediments between countries that are party to the agreement.

As far as the regional licensing issue goes I see no difference between driving and engineering licenses.

I can drive anywhere in the US on my Canadian driver’s license. There are regional and state differences in driving conditions and driving laws. As a out of state driver I am obliged to follow all the rules and regulations of the state where I am driving. If I fail to do so and get a ticket then that disciplinary implications flow through to my Canadian license.

This is exactly the same as it should be with engineering licenses As a licensed engineer why cannot I practice engineering anywhere with the responsibility for following the local laws and being cognizant of local conditions solely my own? If I fail to practice in accordance with local standards then the disciplinary implications should flow through to my local license. ( I’ll acknowledge that internally within Canada I need a separate provincial license for each province but once I have one getting all others is simply an administrative matter.)

The only reasons for the restrictions are isolationist and protectionism.

I also recognize that your states have the right to make local licensing laws. However my issue here is that your federal government entered into an agreement where they stated that they would give Canadian professionals access to American work on the basis of their Canadian license. This is something that they simply did not have the right to put in the agreement. It would be like me entering to an agreement to sell your house. I could be charged with fraud. Just as should your government was dishonourable in negotiating something that they had no right to do so.

As far as your other comments on my political leanings they are simply straw man arguments only intended to discredit me and not to attack my arguments. I should have red flagged them but will leave them as evidence of the weakness of your argument against free trade. In the future please respond to the arguments put foreword and refrain from getting personal.

Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[EddyC]

I think what we have also touched on here is US federal government power versus state government power. The US federal government has decided to allow free trade of engineering within its jurisdiction. Now the US states must also be negotiated with to broker this same priveledge. Lets remember that the US state system was set up to achieve a balance of power between the central (federal) government and the local governments. The issue being posted by the Australian engineer above falls into this central government/state government structure.

 

[solid7]

You also show your political bias. It is anti internationalism, anti free trade and pro isolationist.

I'm not any of the above, and yet, I'm all of the above. You see, I don't go to extremes. Everything should be tempered with a shot of reality, which is what I'm hoping to present. Your perspective and mine differ, because we are on "opposite sides of the fence," metaphorically speaking. My comments about scrapping free trade agreements were made, because the free trade agreements that were passed, were conceived, nurtured, and ultimately passed, by crooked individuals, who didn't deal directly with their respective constituencies, but rather, behind the scenes. Again, thank God that the states have the ability to trump the federal government in certain aspects of these agreements. The so-called "will of the people" is definitely not being served, in most cases by these agreements.

I do also agree that Americans are woefully ignorant about international affairs.

Don't think that I give a free pass to anyone else. Most people *are* woefully ignorant, whenever it benefits them to be so. We all have the same human nature, and there is no sense being arrogant about it. I'm not calling anyone in particular arrogant - I'm just speaking to my previous point about being realistic, and assuring you that I don't have any nationalistic pride that prevents me from disseminating the issue. (I'm sure that you can understand my point, especially if we start talking about the difference between the French and English speaking provinces, and the differing attitudes of the people)

It is about two or more countries having free access to all aspects of one another’s markets. Taxation is only a small part of the agreement. It does reduce or eliminate import and export taxes but it also does allow free movement of capital and manpower. These are not taxation issues.

I totally disagree with you here. There are too many sensitive issues to allow "unfettered" access to each others' markets, in "all aspects." That's totally unrealistic, and I think we both know it.

And by the way - capital and manpower issues apply to corporate entities. (or other legitimate business entities) Therefore, these *are* taxation issues. Does your company employ any local people? Does your revenue become part of the GDP for the country in which you are working? Of course!

If the only point to free trade agreements were to give foreigners access to your markets they why would any politician in their right mind sign such an agreement? They also give Americans free access to Canadian oil reserves on the same basis as any Canadian firm or individual. Remember we have the second largest proves oil reserves in the world. They also give American companies access to the markets of our country and allow your companies access to our markets.

The free trade agreements, from what I can see, had less to do with Canada, and almost everything to do with Mexico. If you take the standard of living in the USA, and subtract the standard of living in Canada, the result is Mexico. That means cheap labor. Sure, we get some good stuff from Canada - electricity, lumber, etc. - but NAFTA was born in some back room in Mexico City. The returns of "free trade" are disproportionately skewed in favor of our neighbors to the south.

The feeling of being "screwed" is universal. Many Americans didn't want NAFTA, for some VERY legitimate reasons. Not necessarily because they were anti-free trade, per se - but because of specifics of NAFTA. (I'm not just talking about union members, either)

Canadians don't seem to be liking NAFTA right now. And Mexico seems to think that they're not grabbing enough out of the deal.

Serve everyone right for trusting the people who promised us how wonderful it would be, eh?

Free trade agreements are highly pro business.

Duh.

Why else would these agreements have been agreed to between two right wing pro business governments?

I don't like extremes, and I don't like unbalanced arguments. Right wing doesn't have much to do with it. It's pro-business, period. How many liberal, or "left wing" politicians do you know, who aren't as rich as their "right wing" opponents? Our last presidential election featured a liberal billionaire, running against a conservative multi-millionaire. Let's be fair... (liberals like to get rich, too - and they can be just as nasty)

As far as the regional licensing issue goes I see no difference between driving and engineering licenses.

I can drive anywhere in the US on my Canadian driver’s license. There are regional and state differences in driving conditions and driving laws. As a out of state driver I am obliged to follow all the rules and regulations of the state where I am driving. If I fail to do so and get a ticket then that disciplinary implications flow through to my Canadian license.

Again, a moot point. You cannot drive *indefinitely* on a Candian driver's license, in any place in the US. Eventually, the local authorities will come to *collect taxes*. (property tax) You will have to get a driver's license in the state where you are driving so much, and it may even be inconvenient. This is where states have the right to hamper certain aspects of "free trade." (I completely support it, too)

The only reasons for the restrictions are isolationist and protectionism.

No, not really, but to some degree, yes. And, to be perfectly honest, some of us have more to protect than others. You wouldn't throw away your prosperity to subsidize other countries. You might say that you would, but until you've been a US citizen, and experienced what I'm talking about, you have no idea how your position will change, when the shoe is on the other foot. You cannot believe how many of your own countrymen that I know - many of them right here in my own area - who have traded in their Canadian pride for the American dream. None of them look back. Number one reason? Taxes, (too high in Canada) of course! Socialization seems like a great idea, until you actually try to make it work. There's a similar parallel involved in free trade.

I have a problem with politicians and corporations that have agendas that don't consider their own people, or make promises that make them look great while in office, when they know that those same policies will fail miserably - usually when they're already out of office, and someone else can take the heat.

I also recognize that your states have the right to make local licensing laws. However my issue here is that your federal government entered into an agreement where they stated that they would give Canadian professionals access to American work on the basis of their Canadian license. This is something that they simply did not have the right to put in the agreement. It would be like me entering to an agreement to sell your house. I could be charged with fraud. Just as should your government was dishonourable in negotiating something that they had no right to do so.

Again, you put too much faith in politicians. Everyone with an ounce of common sense knows that if government officials were held to the same standard of conduct that the non-executive faction of public corporations are held to, they would all be impeached/discredited/jailed. You should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking that elected officials had honest intentions. (there have been scandals in Canada, too - they're no better than ours - just have less power)

By the way, are you not aware of the long standing dispute over the balance of power in this country? We have 2 main parties, with one claiming to support strong central government, and the other, states rights. They don't really play well together, and we've been having all kinds of fun since the birth of our country over this. It's not unusual for the federal government to overstep its bounds, or make promises that it can't keep.

Let that be a lesson to you, the next time you try to enter into some sort of deal with the US that sounds too good to be true.

As far as your other comments on my political leanings they are simply straw man arguments only intended to discredit me and not to attack my arguments. I should have red flagged them but will leave them as evidence of the weakness of your argument against free trade. In the future please respond to the arguments put foreword and refrain from getting personal.

I'm not trying to get personal. I was just trying to point out that all of your arguments are recycled from numerous other posts.

I have nothing against free trade. I just don't agree with you on the point of compliance. I think that local governments need to ensure that he individuals who are performing services, are held to the same standard as citizens. Aside from that, free trade does not mean that we should be burdened with the task of validating your foreign credentials, at our personal expense. In that regard, my friend, you have "free access to every aspect" of our market.

Thank you for taking the time to reply, and give your thougtful insight.




**************
Check out CATBlog!

 

[stanier]

Hi Solid7 Like your passion, acknowledge you point of view.

I must disagree with you about free trade only being about taxation. I serve on a number of Standards Australia committees and we are told repeatedly that the standards cannot and must not be used to prevent others marketing their product in this country. There is a history of weird sized pipes and flanges here that were once designed for just that I suspect.

Hence we see more and more ISO standards adopted although our conditions in Australia are somewhat different from Euroope in terms of temperature, UV radiation etc.

The laws of physics are no different in Australia to those in Canada, USa or Mexico. So why cant a practising engineer who has the USA standards undertake a surge analysis for a consultant based in the USA? Surely this is a form of protectionism? After all I would use American software just an Aussie brain!

 

[RDK]

Well solid7 at least you did respond to the arguments that I put forward.

You do seam to be weak in the consistency part. At the start of the post you claim that you are against free trade and believe that the agreements should be scrapped, by the end of your post you s ate that you have nothing against free trade. You also take exception to my being consistent in the underlying rationale for my posts on free trade issues.

I do agree with you that most politicians are corrupt by most ethical standards, however we, on both sides of the boarder tend to reelect them so we collectively get what we deserve.

I CAN drive indefinitely in the US on my Canadian driver’s license as long as I do not relocate my domicile to the US. Then I only have a period of a few days to get a US one. That is exactly the same in Canada. I can drive anywhere in Canada indefinitely on my current license but have to change it once I change my domicile.

However that license is good everywhere in the US and Canada, just as my current Canadian one is good everywhere. Why other than protectionism should not my Canadian engineering license be good everywhere, since I as a responsible professional or driver have to take responsibility for my actions?

The NAFTA agreement came about after the US Canada agreement was signed. It is essentially the same agreement other than Mexico became a signatory to that agreement and the only terms that were changed were mainly administrative to recognize the differing Mexican institutions involved.

As far as the federal government having overstepped their bounds in giving Canadian engineers access to the US market when they do not have that authority then the US government did not behave in an honourable manner. They continue to behave dishonourable in other areas of the free trade agreement, softwood lumber and beef being the ones that cause most Canadians the most grief. They also are a major cause of the dissatisfaction with NAFTA in Canada. I do not believe that the agreement is in trouble only US prestige and reputation for their not living up to their agreements.

I am strongly free trade in spite of these problems. I believe that free trade and integrated markets world wide is the way of future peace. I also believe that there will be short term hemispheric free market zones. The EU is currently the most advanced. NAFTA will eventually become a North and South America free trade zone and there will become an Asian one with Australia a member.

Any country not a part of one of these three agreements will suffer economically, politically and socially. That includes Africa and the Middle East.

Finally I am not asking you to validate my credentials at your expense. Once again you are assigning me motives that I do not have. I never said anything about the US associations having to validate my credentials. For starters I am a graduate of a university and program already recognized by your associations as acceptable. All you have to do is look at my wallet card to see that I have a Canadian professional license; I keep it in the same compartment with my driver’s license which is acceptable.

Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[solid7]

The laws of physics might be the same, but those are the only ones that are.

Nobody wants to keep someone else's products and services off of the free market. I welcome competition, as quality vs. cost keeps improving with the liberalizing of certian markets. My point still stands, though - free trade, or no free trade - you simply can't have any different treatment than a resident. That's perfectly fair, wouldn't you say? Therefore, free trade is NOT about compliance. By compliance, I mean licensing and regulation - that applies to US as well as YOU. We all have to pay our dues.

I haven't spoken to your other issues, about standards and whatnot.

I apologize to the world for the mess that our politicians have made. I don't like it, either.




**************
Check out CATBlog!

 

[solid7]

One last point - "free trade" agreements MUST NOT bring developed nations down to the same level as developing nations. If they tend to do so, some degree of "protectionism" must be enforced, and that's where the blessing of limited autonomy of states is beneficial to us...

Free trade is great, when it acts to stabilize other nations. But as I mentioned to RDK, great nations are not built on the premise of subsidizing the rest of the world, nor exploiting it, either.

Hope that sounds like a voice of reason.




**************
Check out CATBlog!

 

[solid7]

RDK - to make a long story short - I ONLY said that the EXISTING agreements should be scrapped.

I have NO PROBLEM with free trade, nor did I ever. I have a problem, specifically with NAFTA. (and you do, too, I believe)

Yes, we DO get the governments that we deserve. But let me tell you - I am ONLY guilty by association! (I didn't vote for either of the major players in our last election)

You *cannot* drive indefinitely in the US - although I concede that some states may allow you to do so, or turn a blind eye. Many more states, however, will eventually attempt to make you pay your dues. I can give you very specific examples of this, but I don't think that the issue, left unchallenged, is worth the space that it requires.

As for driver's license vs. professional license - did it take you 4 years of university to get your driver's license? If you think that having enough IQ to get a driver's license should be comparable to getting a PE, there is something seriously wrong with that thought. And, even in America, it's possible - even EASY in some places - to get a *fake* driver's license. This is currently a contentious debate in several US states. Again, should I, as US citizen, by virture of some "agreement", be burdened with validating your foreign credentials, when I, myself, would be required to demonstrate the same proficiency or compliance as you, to be certified, and work in other areas? It does cost money to validate someone's credentials. In the current atmosphere, we have to validate our own citizenry. How much more difficult, then, for foreigners?

Yes, our governement has behaved badly. I can't say if it's unintended consequences, or something more - but it happens to us to. Hasn't your government ever disappointed you?

I have no problem with your vision. I have a problem with the current implementation.




**************
Check out CATBlog!

 

[RDK]

The issue of driver’s licenses vs. engineering licenses is that the individual states in one case allow the other jurisdictions to determine who is allowed to do something. They also rely on the other jurisdiction to enforce their disciplinary rulings.

The same is not the case for engineering licenses. The position of the states is that only they can determine who can practice engineering in their state. They let other jurisdictions say who can drive but not who can practice engineering.

Some 50,000 people a year are killed by bad driving. Not that many people are killed every year by bad engineering.

I’m not asking for any different treatment than you give US residents. All I am asking for is the rights that your federal government traded away in the US Canada Free Trade or NAFTA agreements.

I really have no problem in the terms of NAFTA. What I do have is a problem with the US violations of that agreement.




Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[stanier]

Solid7

I have paid my dues but in another country. I am a Fellow of the Institution of Engineers Australia and The Institution of Mechanical Engineers (UK). I am a Chartered Engineer in both countries. Both governments have recognised these as universal qualifications of these learned societies. They both have requirements for continuing professional development. The USA has recognised the qualifications and status but it appears we need a free trade agreement with each and every individual state as the federal government doesnt have the power to make decisions for them. In Australia federal law overrides the states.

Why should I have to pay more "dues" because I want to work in one of your states? All I can see is protectionism by the individual states however it is dressed up. It does not provide a balance as you suggest it is pure protect our own ideology.

I see it also in consultant specifications prepared by USA companies. It is the fifth column at work as they basically rewrite the USA manufacturers catalogue and call it a specification. Thye attempt to keep imports out. That is why USA industry is going the way of he Holy Roman Empire--Out the back door.

At a meeting in Sydney last week ASME came to exalt the new relationship with IE Aust. 12 people turned up! That is the measure of interest. Of those most wondered why ASME were there except their membership is plummeting in the USA and they are trying to recruit numbers under the guise of globalisation. They are fighting a losing battle with the current protectionist attitudes of the USA states.

 

[GolfMeeting]

Maybe I could sue to start practising medicine and doing heart surgeries because it is against free trade to only allow MD's to practice medicine.

The MD's earned the qualifications. You are free to earn those qualifications or earn the PE qualifications.

 

[RDK]

Nice try with a red herring.

I’m not saying that free trade should allow anyone to practice any profession, quite the opposite. I am saying that the terms of NAFTA should be followed and observed by both sides. One of these terms is an open labour market for many professions. Having an open labour market means those licenses and other credentials should be easily transferable. To have these licenses non transferable is an impediment to free trade and is the opposite of what the agreement is all about.

The difference is that a MD in Canada has the training and ability to do those same operations; they also have little trouble transferring those skills from a Canadian to a US hospital. They also have little trouble getting US licenses to do so.

Engineers however have a lot of trouble transferring their P.Eng status in Canada to the US’s PE qualification. While we have the necessary skills and abilities to practice professional engineering, we have difficulty to get licensed to do so in the USA.

I am saying that under the terms of the NAFTA agreement the US federal government agreed to allow Canadian engineers to practice engineering in the US and that US states were to modify their state laws to allow Canadian professional qualifications to be transferable to the US.

This was a power that the US federal government clearly did not have to make these agreements.

However US engineers can easily transfer their qualifications to Canada and get P.Eng status here.

Is that fair trade?

Is that an honourable thing for the US government to do? Obtain access to the Canadian engineering market for US engineers while denying the same access for Canadian engineers?

What is fair about that?




Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[solid7]

I'm not saying that I'm supportive of bad deeds on either side - don't get me wrong. But Canada isn't exactly blameless in the issue, nor is Europe. Free trade discrepancies exist across the board.

Canadian companies seem to have a hard time coping with the idea of hiring American firms. As a matter of fact, your example about Americans easily getting a PE in Canada doens't surprise me at all. After all, getting a PE is one thing - getting a JOB is another all together. There are a number of issues that contribute to that, and not all are cost constraints. (although it's true that the American economy is much more "robust" than the Canadian)

Secondly, European and Canadian companies have a hard time with "letting go." Whether it be by subsidies, or by refusing to sell to American investors,(even when the American investor has cash assets in hand, and the national does not) it's all the same.

Where I am realistic about all of this, and it seems some "free trade" proponents are not - is that this is partially justified. Canada has a population of California. Any major industry that operates in Canada, plays a vital role in the economy. To lose a major industry, could wreak havoc. Similarly, American farmers are protected by subsidies and import tariffs. While this is a different debate, it becomes relevant, in that, a wrecked economy for any of the major players, benefits NOBODY in the long run. (if you really want peace and stability) Unfortunately, this is one of the areas of free trade, that as much as you'd like to have it in "black and white," it cannot - it only exists as a dim shade of gray...

Perhaps what needs to be realized, is that implementing truly free trade isn't something that happens overnight with a piece of paper signed. It takes year, even decades, to phase out non-competitive industries, establish new competitive markets, and bring economies on par with one another. In case you didn't notice, that's already happening.

In the meantime, better agreements can be realized, by understanding the realities of the present situation, and learning the lessons needed to put the process on the right track. In either case, free trade, itself, isn't going away.

In the meantime, you'll still have to apply for a local PE.




**************
Check out CATBlog!

 

[a7rshr]

Stanier and other folks....

Happy new year.

I am new to this forum and let me throw in my opinions....

Stanier, if you are so interested in practising engineering in USA, why can't you fly to one of the States (California, where I live is an awesome place)and take your PE exam and get registered? When you get in registered in one State, you can apply for registration in most of other States by comity without taking any additional exams. What prevents you from doing this, apart from financial reasons?

BTW, I am educated/trained in India and USA as Structural Engineer. Don't I need to take some exams if I want to be chartered engineer in UK and Australia even though I am already a PE in the State of Ohio, USA?

Thanks,
Senthil Puliyadi

 

[RDK]

Again solid7 I have to disagree with you.

I know several companies that have Americans on the payroll as well as landed immigrants of many other nations. I also know of several American firms that have been hired by Canadian firms.

I was once involved in a major bid where the main players were a joint partnership between two firms one US one Canadian. The US firm was involved in a lot of the engineering and the Canadian firm had brought me in to be their knowledgeable representative in that area.

At the conclusion of the bid the senior exec from the US firm told me that he was impressed with my work and that it was too bad that he could not hire me to work for the US firm. When questioned I was told that it was his company policy only to hire American citizens for any position.

I also have to question where you feel that Canada is not blameless or is this another red herring?

Do you have any examples where Canada has ignored many tribunals ruling against us in trade with the US and we have ignored these rulings, refused to comply with these rulings and made threats to the US should you continue to push for resolution on this issue?

That is exactly what the US has done over the softwood lumber issue. Do not underestimate the degree of dissatisfaction that the Canadian public has over this issue. There are strong feelings especially in those areas which have been economically devastated by the issue.

The really ironic part is that the US consumer is the one being hurt. Compare softwood lumber prices in Canada and in the US.


Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[stanier]

Hi a7rshr,

I actually work for companies all over the globe without leaving my office in Sydney. Like California a great place to live. Why would I want to leave? People send me briefs including drawings. I undertake the surge analysis for them and send a report. they send me money. Win win!

My original post was for clarification should I embark on marketting my services to the USA now we have a wonderful free(?) trade agreement in place between USA and Australia.

It would appear that there are still road blocks to offering services because the individual states rule the roost.This no doubt will prevent major consultants employing me as a sub consultant. I know I would be more cost effective than local American engineers as our dollar is so low in value. But good old fortress America just got in the way again.

Never mind I shall just have to continue boycotting USA goods in my specifications until the position resolves itself. As Solid& says the economies have to balance out. Its a bit hard when the field aint level folks. Like looking for a lake to water ski on.