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]

RDK - I have several Canadian and European examples that support my previous argument. Some of them appear to amount to free trade violations, and others are simply just nationalistic attitudes, of the same variety that you would find anywhere. (shows you that people aren't so different, no matter where you go) I had a vested interest in one of the examples, and am not free to disclose too much. (I'm sure you can figure out what that means) A few more examples don't mean much, unless you are familiar with the specifics of the organization. European subsidies of EADS - the Airbus consortium - is probably my most recognizeable example, and YES, a clear violation of "free trade."

In short, we could play, "he said, he said," all day long. But my point was, there are other guilty parties in trade discrepancies, to which your point appears to be, that all others except the "Great Satan", America, are totally blameless. Do you really believe that all others are guiltless, just because you can't see it happening? You do know that reporting of current events differs from place to place? (emphasis varies widely)

I feel for Canadian companies who are getting the short end of the stick - I really do. But that's going to happen whenever people, on any side of the fence, feel threatened. That's why I say, there are problems with the current agreements, that someone, evidently, didn't have the foresight to predict, or just didn't give a damn...




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

 

[RDK]

Of course there are problems with the current agreements however they are the best that the parties could come up with. They were negotiated by people and people are not perfect.

Ever negotiate a contract? Ever have a disagreement with the other side as to what the words actually mean?

Why should free trade agreements be any different? If you want to wait for people to be perfect I predict that you will be waiting for a long time.

I notice that you have not come up with as serious an example as the US continued violations of NAFTA over the softwood lumber dispute. This is a case where an allegedly nation of laws is simply thumbing its nose at the many tribunals that have ruled against it.

How can you defend the dishonourable actions of your nation? How can you compare this is severity to the actions of some isolated companies when this is an action of your federal government to violate the agreement?

If you really do feel for the communities in Canada that have been economically devastated by the softwood lumber dispute then do something about it. Don’t apologize for your government write your president and other elected representatives and encourage them to honour their word and agreements.

Let them know that you want to live in a country where your government’s word is its bond and that written agreements actually mean something.


Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[solid7]

Ever negotiate a contract? Ever have a disagreement with the other side as to what the words actually mean?

Almost every day. I have an engineering business, and most people don't seem to understand what a "change of requirements" means... (change in requirements = change in price)

How can you defend the dishonourable actions of your nation?

I am not the spokesman for this nation. Why would you expect me to defend the actions of someone else? (as previously stated, I'm only guilty by association)

I notice that you have not come up with as serious an example as the US continued violations of NAFTA over the softwood lumber dispute. This is a case where an allegedly nation of laws is simply thumbing its nose at the many tribunals that have ruled against it.

I really don't understand enough about the issue! (but keep reading on)

If you really do feel for the communities in Canada that have been economically devastated by the softwood lumber dispute then do something about it. Don’t apologize for your government write your president and other elected representatives and encourage them to honour their word and agreements.

Let them know that you want to live in a country where your government’s word is its bond and that written agreements actually mean something.

With all due respect RDK - you're way too idealistic. I told you a long time ago, I don't put any faith in politicians. I don't care if they're yours or ours.

Unfortunately, even though I feel for them, I feel for a whole slug of other people, too. There are things that are unfair in the US. I don't believe in "letter writing." Before you go ballistic on that - understand, my little letter does NOTHING to stop the lobbyists behind the "cause." Unfortunately, we live in a society where bribery is legal, but ONLY for politicians. (see previous post, about politicians NOT being held to the same standards as companies) If YOU were profiting from the conflict, who would YOU listen to - American companies who are buying your vote, or some letter writing whiner?

And, whether you realize it or not, the American "2 party" system is KILLING us. They are both on the same bankrolls. Some just make more than others, depending on the cause.

Sorry to be so blunt, but unfortunately, the best way to resolve this conflict, may be to just starting putting your dollars into the politicians' pockets. If Canadians have to compete with Americans for the lobby, you will surely beat the American companies. (I don't think we do too well on exports) It becomes a game of "diminshing returns" on the part of the American companies, who are barely competitive now.

In that regards, you once again, have "free access to every part of our markets." That's exactly how everyone else has to play the game.

Once again, I'm a realist.




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

 

[RDK]

I may be an idealist who thinks and works for the world being a better place that a so called realist who is pessimistic and defeatist in believing that the world will not improve.

Merry Xmas.

Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[solid7]

I may be an idealist who thinks and works for the world being a better place that a so called realist who is pessimistic and defeatist in believing that the world will not improve.

Translated - "My ideas are superior to yours." OR "I'm better than you."

NOT an effective debate technique, RDK.

Your ideas may be different than mine, but they don't necessarily put you on the high ground.

I think this thread is overshot.




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

 

[imagitec]

stanier,

The US has some of the most lax engineering licensing laws of any industrialized country. If your work falls under what is typically called the industrial exemption, engineer away. If not, it's a different story, and for good reason. In your second post, you wrote:

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!

For that matter, why shouldn't an Australian car salesman who has the USA standards undertake a surge analysis for a consultant based in the USA? Because he clearly isn't qualified. Even a US engineer must prove his or her qualifications, so why not the Australian engineer? It's prudent and not anti-competitive. Whether the US and Australia have reciprocal licensing agreements or whatever - I do not know what there may be - is a subject for negotiation.

Even just knowing which standards apply is not a trivial matter. It is the responsibility of you the engineer, not your customer, to know and design to the correct standards.

Rob Campbell

Rob Campbell, PE
Finite Monkeys -

http://www.livejournal.com/users/robcampbell

 

[stanier]

rjcjr9,

Your argument lacks logic.

Simply the car salesman is not a professional engineer in his own country so would not be expected to be suitably qualified in any country to practice engineering. Whereas when the Australian engineer has demonstrated his qualifications to an international body, ratified by the USA government, he should be allowed to practice in that country without fear or favour.

It is straight out anti competitive behaviour.

 

[imagitec]

I doesn't lack logic. Most people would pick up on it being an intentionally ludicrous example. Substitute Rwandan engineer for used car salesman, or Albanian engineer, or engineer from some other country that clearly does not have the same standards, formal or informal, as the US. I hope you can now agree that that person should not automatically be granted the privelage to design buildings for earthquake-prone San Fransisco simply because (1) he has a job as an engineer in his own country and (2) the US recognizes that his country exists. Some kind of requirement for certification is reasonable, just as it is for domestic engineers. Whether that's a reciprocal agreement recognizing each other's certifications or requiring that the foreign engineer get domestic certification is a matter for negotiation to resolve and treaties or some other agreement to codify.

"Free trade" is not a specific term. All the countries in the world did not sign a "Free Trade" agreement in 1998 that said there shall be no restrictions what-so-ever on international commerce of any kind. Free trade is a concept that refers to a general loosening of regulations, reduction of tarriffs, and elimination of subsidies - for better or worse. It is only manifested in hundereds, if not thousands, of treaties and agreements between sovereign countries.

My Googling indicates that the Australian government doesn't certify engineers. There are professional organizations that do, and they seem to have reciprocal agreements with the UK, at least. I don't know if there is a formal agreement or if it is simply because Australia is part of the Commonwealth, but I'm sure it isn't simply due to negligence on either party's part. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

What "international body, ratified by the USA government" are you referring to? And did you mean a particular agreement? I don't think bodies are usually ratified. Please educate me.

Rob Campbell, PE
Finite Monkeys -

http://www.livejournal.com/users/robcampbell

 

[GregLocock]

So, your argument is that an Albanian structural engineer needs to be certified by the state if she is to design buildings for San Francisico.

I don't know your industry, so I'll take your word for it.

I can assure you that an Albanian automotive engineer can design cars for the USA, and needs no certification by any one in the USA to do so. In fact as I look down the row of desks in my section I see one German, one Italian, me (a pom) and oh yes, an Australian, all busy designing cars for the USA, China, India and Australia. These cars will also be sold in canade, South Africa and New Zealand, and some other places.

So thank you for proving my general point about the validity of industry exemption.

However, back to your example. How about a Japanese structural engineer? Might know a little bit more about quakes than the members of your little club.


Cheers

Greg Locock

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

 

[GregLocock]

sorry, not club, union.

Cheers

Greg Locock

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

 

[solid7]

How about a Japanese structural engineer? Might know a little bit more about quakes than the members of your little club.

"I can work here - *I'M* Japanese!" (see how far that gets you in ANY country)

The point is - and watch me now, because this is big - YOU CAN'T, AND SHOULDN'T BE TREATED ANY DIFFERENTLY THAN A CITIZEN OF THE COUNTRY IN WHICH YOU WORK. (no matter who you are, or where you are from)

Besides, if you really are who you say that you are, and can do what you say you can do, it's a simple process. Getting a PE in the states isn't half as cumbersome as getting a building permit these days. (that means I have no sympathy when people whine about having to put up with the same beureaucracy that the rest of us have to deal with)

That being said, this thread is probably much more geared towards the architects and civil engineers, than the automotive engineers. And even if it's not, consider this: If you are designing automobiles in a foreign country for import and sale in the US, somebody has to ensure that those vehicles are compliant with both STATE and FEDERAL regulations. It doesn't matter who is doing the designing in that case, because your design doesn't mean squat until it's been signed off on... by someone QUALIFIED.




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

 

[imagitec]

Greg wrote:

However, back to your example. How about a Japanese structural engineer? Might know a little bit more about quakes than the members of your little club.

Yes, he might. And there may be a particular Albanian engineer who is even more qualified. I don't want to be making subjective jusgements about who should be in the club. There must be some objective criteria used to judge qualifications - in the US, it's licensure.

If there is to be reciprocity or some other solution to allow engineers of one country to perform regulated work in another country, there must be some agreement. That is the nature of politics between sovereign countries. Free trade is based on such agreements, not on the lack of such agreements. If the US had such an agreement with Japan but not with Albania, the better-qualified Albanian engineer would be SOL (sh*t outta luck), but that does not make the US in violation of a nonexistant free trade agreement.

I doubt many free trade agreements are concerned with details as trivial as engineering licensure; they would be so unwieldily as to be nearly unuseable, and would still be incomplete. They do, however, typically provide recourse for those who feel they are the victim of an unfair practice. I believe my Australian friend would be disappointed by the result if he ever got his grievance heard. Countries do not give up all rights to self-regulation when they sign a free trade agreement. Regulating the practice of something with such a direct impact on public safety as some forms of engineering is not onerous.

Rob Campbell, PE
Finite Monkeys -

http://www.livejournal.com/users/robcampbell

 

[Ashereng]

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?

When I went from Canada down to Illinois to work, I crossed into the US under a type of work visa provided for under NAFTA, specifically for engineers (and a list of other professions), signed between the US and Canada.

In order for me to be a PE in the state of Illinois, to stamp drawings, etc., I would have needed to take (and pass)the state PE exam. I believe that the experience I have here in Canada is recognised by Illinois.

In our case, our discipline lead passed the Illinois exam, and was then able to stamp engineering drawings.

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.

As far as I know, NAFTA allows a Canadian engineer to enter the US to work as an engineer (you have to have a PE here in Canada). I am not aware that NAFTA includes any reciprocal arrangements between any Canadian province and American state for licensing.

As I understand it, the reciprocating arrangement between Texas and Canada (actually, I thought it was only Alberta - but I may be wrong on that too), was outside of NAFTA. As RDK informs us, that is now not so any more.

 

[imagitec]

Greg wrote in response to my post:

So thank you for proving my general point about the validity of industry exemption.

However, back to your example. How about a Japanese structural engineer? Might know a little bit more about quakes than the members of your little club.

and:

sorry, not club, union.

I really don't know what to think. Not in an "I'm shocked and offended" sort of way; I'm just not sure if this is directed at me and what it's supposed to mean if it is. And without looking at past comments you've made on the subject, I don't know if your point about the industrial exemption is that it's good or bad.

I think the industrial exemption is good. In my first reply to Stanier, I pointed out that the vast majority of engineering work in the US requires no qualification whatsoever. In some companies, an assembler can "work his way up" to engineer. That's bad, but it certainly isn't restrictive.

For what it's worth, I don't belong to a union and I work under the industrial exemption; always have. I got my PE license for the challenge and personal satisfaction. If Virginia Tech hadn't made such a point about undergrads taking the EIT exam (a pre-requisite for the PE), I wouldn't have bothered with the PE and been none the worse-for-wear professionally. I have worked at six companies in my career and only one other PE.

Rob Campbell, PE
Finite Monkeys -

http://www.livejournal.com/users/robcampbell

 

[solid7]

rjcrj9 - VERY well stated. Articulate, accurate, and concise. You made some very profound, and necessary comments about sovereignty, that as of yet, were only implied.

The statements that you made get right to the heart of the matter, and make the point in a way that I wish I could have made. Cheers to you.




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

 

[stanier]

rjcrj9,

The point you miss is that the USA has gone to great lengths to investigate and recognise qualifications in varous countries to establish that they are equivalent to those in the USA. I doubt if those in Rwanda have been so recognised so you dont have a worry. But Australia's qualifications and institutions and those of the UK have been recognised. We as engineers have been through the bureaucracy of our own countires to become recognised. Why do we have to do it again when there has been high level recognition of the equivalence of qualifications.

Just because you live in a particular state doesnt mean that is where you undertake projects. In fact in our global economy working outside where one is domeciled is more prevalent than ever.

 

[GregLocock]

rjcjr9 you shouldn't be shocked, offended or whatever. Puzzled is good, since I thought I was in a different thread where the usual diatribe about the evils of the industrial exemption comes up. Sorry.







Cheers

Greg Locock

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

 

[RDK]

The Washington Accord is the means by which degrees from the developed world are recognized by the different countries. It is not a USA effort but rather an international effort of the engineering community.


The issue is that although the free trade agreement pays lip service to allowing recognition of Canadian P.Eng status in the USA the individual stares have for the most part refused to live up to the terms of the agreement and allow Canadian P.Eng easy access to the US market.

US engineers on the other hand have an easy time getting a Canadian license on the basis of the PE status.



Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[EddyC]

I doubt that any engineer is the USA could get licensed in all 50 states or even be able to afford the fees. stanier seems to be proposing that he/she should have the right to practice in all 50 states of the USA because of free trade agreements (and what about the fees?). Why should we give a right to someone in Australia that we here in the USA don't have?

 

[imagitec]

RDK,

Thanks for posting the information about the Washington Accord. Here are few useful links:

http://www.washingtonaccord.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_accord

http://www.abet.org/

I'm not sure if Stanier was referring to the Washington Accord in his post, but it is not an agreement between the United States and other governments and it is not about engineering licensure/certification. The "US" signatory is the "Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology", which grants accreditation to university engineering programs. Graduating from an ABET-accredited program is the first step on the easiest path to getting licensed in the US, but it isn't the only path. Thanks to the Washington Accord, graduates of accredited programs in signatory countries - like Australia - are guaranteed access to the same "easiest path" as domestic engineers. But it does not waive all requirements to practice engineering (in the narrow sense of "practice" as it is being used in this discussion).

Rob

Rob Campbell, PE
Finite Monkeys -

http://www.livejournal.com/users/robcampbell