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]

If one can design a piping system to B31.3 in Texas how should it be any different in Arkansas?

You say that as if it's the only issue. (???)

I was taught from the beginning, that engineering is not about designing the perfect product - but it's about learning how to make the perfect compromise.

What do I mean by that? Well, what you seem to not realize, is that federal bureaucracy is *always* more costly, and inefficient that state. The reason is really simple - the closer you get to the voters, the easier it is to get something done.

Now, back to the compromise issue - Suppose the federal government set engineering regulations for architects, as they do for automobiles, for example. They want to impose Miami Dade building code for South Dakota. While that is the ideal scenario, how well do you think that would fly with the residents of South Dakota, how now will be paying 1/3 more for a house, in an area that's not on par with the rest of the nation economically? And to have the federal government enforcing that? It would take 5 years to a site plan approved!

Our state setup is really beneficial, an a number of ways. But to make this easy, I find it refreshing that local politicians can have a say in matters that affect them directly, instead of having some out of touch politician flowing with the lobby, or turning the matter into election year politics. Plus, with the way federal agencies, by their very nature work, we'd end up growing the government tenfold, and still not get anything done.

This is where I could insert some nifty examples of federal oversight in various countries, but I didn't like it when it was said about my own country, so....




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

 

[RDK]

solid7

You are attributing things to me that I did not type.

NAFTA allows Canadian engineers along with a number of other professionals to obtain TN visa easily. A TN visa allows a Canadian (or Mexican) to enter the country and to work in the named profession. The list of included professionals is quite extensive.

The only restriction is that the person is otherwise acceptable for entry into the US. Thus a Canadian engineer with no criminal record or other reason to be denied entry into the US can easily get a TN visa to work there.

The problem is that it is very difficult for a Canadian to hget the P.Eng license transferred to the US.

http://www.worldexpertise.com/cross-border_engineering_prac.htm

After several months of negotiation between CCPE, USCIEP and COMPII, a Mutual Recognition Document (MRD) was initialed in 1995, subject to full ratification by the governing boards of the several groups involved in the negotiations. The MRD was basically structured to recognize successful professional engineering practice in each country, as certified by that country’s licensure system, and to allow engineers with a valid license in any of the three countries to be recognized to practice in the other two.


In Mexico, the relevant authority was the Federal government, and it ratified the MRD. In Canada the CCPE Board first ratified the MRD at the national level and recommended that its member provinces and territories adopt it, then each of the 12 licensing units in turn ratified it. In the United States, the NSPE Board fully ratified the MRD, and the ABET Board did also. The NCEES Board had more difficulty in accepting the MRD however, with many of its 55 member licensing jurisdictions being unwilling to accept the concept of mutual recognition of another country’s licensing system. Many of the state licensing boards insisted that any applicant to practice in their jurisdictions must comply with exactly the same process that a resident of their state or another jurisdiction in the United States must follow – an ABET accredited degree, two examinations, and four years of satisfactory practice. At the NCEES annual meeting in 1995, a provisional two year acceptance of the MRD was approved, to allow states which wanted to pursue it to do so. Only one state, Texas, has accepted the MRD to date. At its 1997 annual meeting, the NCEES Board declined to extend its endorsement of the MRD, so that document now has questionable validity.


Since the appropriate Canadian and Mexican authorities have fully adopted the NAFTA MRD, cross-border engineering licensing and practice is occurring between those two countries. The southern border state of Texas in the United States is also moving rapidly toward cross-border licensing, particularly between engineers in Mexico and in Texas. Other states in the United States are considering whether to follow the path of Texas, and to adopt the MRD in spite of the reluctance of NCEES as a whole to give it full recognition.

This is what I am talking about.

I can under the terms of NAFTA get a work visa and engineering licence in Mexaco.

Under NAFTA I can get a work visa but no licence to work in the USA.

Don’t you think that it is now time for the USA to honour the terms of NAFTA?

My engineering licence should be as easily transferred to any US jurisdiction as is my driver’s licence. That is what the MRD says and that is not what the US states are practicing.

Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[stanier]

Solid7

I thnk the remark you attributed to RDK was mine. No offence. I thinl that you strayed from the matter. i was talking engineering no architecture. Architects are more on the artistic bent and require engineers to conform to building codes. Yes there are local rules and requirements but a professional engineer can meet those base don competence not where he is licensed.

I would suggest that there would be far less restriction if one could register as an American engineer & be recognised in all states. Those who just wanted to practice in one state could register there but it does appear to be limiting.

With large USA companies going off shore there may be a problem. GEC to Malaysia, CH2MHill to Delhi and Fluor Daniel to the Phillipines, all to get cheap engineering done there could be a major problem in your backyard now and cetainly into the future..

These restrictive practices make USA engineering more costly and every licensing rule means another job in a third world country.

 

[solid7]

Are you saying that companies in your country aren't outsourcing also? Cause if you are, I don't believe you!

Canadians recently broke precedent, and starting the outsourcing game, also.

No matter where you live in th world, outsourcing is a reality. Even the countries who are doing outsourcing work, have work that is outsourced to someone cheaper.

There is still plenty of work for Americans. (and Australians) There are companies who refuse to outsource, due to the problem of language barriers alone. And, those nations who are more militarily advanced, and more free enterprise oriented, have plenty of work that can't go outside of their own borders.

Outsourcing is just simple economics, and it's here to stay. That being said, the competitive will continue to be innovative, and find ways to do business, while the non-competitive will whine themselves into obscurity. We, as entrepeneurs, are the leaders in this area. There are always creative ways to keep yourself in business, even if it means reinventing yourself a litle bit.

I really hope that more jobs do go to third world countries. In my opinion, the more competition, the higher that quality standards will have to raise, and that's NEVER a bad thing. The 1990's, with the mass influx of cheap chinese junk, totally turned manufacturing upside down, and as a result, you can get better quality stuff for less money, than ever before...




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

 

[solid7]

I thnk the remark you attributed to RDK was mine.

Yes it was. Sorry about that.

No offence. I thinl that you strayed from the matter. i was talking engineering no architecture. Architects are more on the artistic bent and require engineers to conform to building codes. Yes there are local rules and requirements but a professional engineer can meet those base don competence not where he is licensed.

Many an architect is also a PE. The example I gave earlier is valid.





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

 

[stanier]

The reality is that outsourcing to other countries has been met with mixed success here in Australia. There have been some catastrophies as the ideology as well as the standards are totally different.

Dont get confused about the Chinese junk you will find many a USA company behind the manufacturer taking advantage of cheap labour, lax environmental laws, low occupational health and safety standards. I have nothing but disgust for such companies and those who support them. MY point was that the protectionism offered by the states in this matter is only making easier for the MBAs in the USA companies to make a case to outsource offshore.

Europe appears to be slower to adopt such tactics. In Italy recently I could only buy Italian goods, not even product from the EEC. It was considered unItalian to go offshore or even across the border.

 

[solid7]

The reality is that outsourcing to other countries has been met with mixed success here in Australia. There have been some catastrophies as the ideology as well as the standards are totally different.

Yes, here, also. There are definitely pros and cons, as there are with anything.

Dont get confused about the Chinese junk you will find many a USA company behind the manufacturer taking advantage of cheap labour, lax environmental laws, low occupational health and safety standards.

And many other countries, too. This really needs some work, but it's one of the solutions that people who really want to stay in business, took advangate of.

MY point was that the protectionism offered by the states in this matter is only making easier for the MBAs in the USA companies to make a case to outsource offshore.

Well, if it's really such a problem, history will take note, and something will happen to change it. Again, a good thing.

But there's no "protectionism" offered by, for, or to the states. We don't have the same type of government as others. Evidently that can't be such a bad thing. The US is still the most prosperous nation on earth, with its citizens enjoying, quite possibly, the highest standard of living. Could that change? Sure, it could. But I'm not about to go "doom and gloom."

Lighten up a little. Most everyone in the US agrees that the public safety is first concern. That's the point of the licensure requirements. I know that we're portrayed as savages, criminals, and crooks everywhere else in the world, but we want to feed and nurture our families - just the same as you do, and everyone else in the world.

Thanks for the discussion. I'm out of this one. (I wish there was a moderator to close these over-extended threads)




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

 

[RDK]

I’m not sure what outsourcing has to do with the topic of this thread.

The issue is if qualified engineers from countries with free trade agreements can have their qualification easily recognized in the USA and vice a versa.

As far as the requirements for the US to remove all artificial trade barriers for Canadian and Mexican professional engineers to obtain professional licensure in the US that has not happened.

Canadian and Mexican qualified professional engineers can easily obtain licenses in the other country but the US is still practicing isolationism and protectionism and refusing to honour the terms of NAFTA and reduce this barrier to trade.

We can get a work visa but for those of us in engineering disciplines where licenses are required in the US cannot easily obtain recognition of our qualifications.

It apopears that the same applies to Australian engineers as well.

I know that the reason is that the state boards are independent of any central control. However in Canada the provincial associations are independent of any control other than by the members of the profession. We have lowered our trade barriers. When will the US?

Discussions about Chinese or Albanian engineers are simply read herrings and contribute nothing to the topic because as far as I know there are no free trade agreements between the US and China or Albania that require the US to reduce trade barriers.

Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[EddyC]

I'd like to share a story with you folks:

About a year ago my employer was asked by a USA based client to review a testing apparatus that had been designed & built in the USA and was being sent to Alberta, Canada for use. The Alberta authorities wanted to make sure that the apparatus was code compliant and not something that was "jury rigged" by non-engineers. The folks in Alberta were willing to accept a New York State PE stamp on the project drawings. I doubt if the reverse would be allowed.

 

[imagitec]

RDK wrote:

I can under the terms of NAFTA get a work visa and engineering licence in Mexaco.

Under NAFTA I can get a work visa but no licence to work in the USA.

Don’t you think that it is now time for the USA to honour the terms of NAFTA?

and

As far as the requirements for the US to remove all artificial trade barriers for Canadian and Mexican professional engineers to obtain professional licensure in the US that has not happened.

Canadian and Mexican qualified professional engineers can easily obtain licenses in the other country but the US is still practicing isolationism and protectionism and refusing to honour the terms of NAFTA and reduce this barrier to trade.

This is where you are in error. While the US may not, in your opinion, be living up to the spirit of NAFTA, it is not in violation of the terms of NAFTA. Here is what NAFTA says about cross-border trade in services:

http://www.worldtradelaw.net/nafta/chap-12.pdf

Just as in AUSFTA, there is no requirement for one country to recongize the professional certifications of another. Each party "shall endeavor to ensure" that requirements are not unduly burdensome, amoung other guidelines. If you think that means countries and states can't require that foreign engineers jump through the same hoops as domestic ones, you would make neither a good lawyer nor a politician. Take that as a compliment, if you'd like.

Rob Campbell, PE
Finite Monkeys -

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

 

[imagitec]

Stanier wrote:

Do not "domestic engineers" find the state regulations restrictive?

I find it annoying that I must inconvenience the same people who kindly gave me references when I applied for licensure in Vermont, when I want to apply again in New Hampshire. The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) has developed a partial solution to this problem. They created a repository to hold all such application information for engineers that wish to participate. Every state has its own rules regarding this, but it generally makes it easier to get recognized in another state.

Federalism and states' rights are enshrined in the Constitution and many people's hearts. Without these and the compromise they represent, it is unlikely there would have even been a United States of America. It may be hard to believe when we're talking about something as trivial as professional licensing, but that's what it all goes back to.

Rob Campbell, PE
Finite Monkeys -

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

 

[stanier]

If this were a commercial matter and the USA government were the holding company and each state was a separate subsidiary company owned by that company we would have all sorts of class actions.

Misleading and deceptive conduct would be up there.

The USA governement obviously cannot speak on behalf of the states. I am not argueing with this fact. I am not trying to change it. I accept it. But I do believe that the representations made, if not literally, but in spirit in the free trade agreements are misleading and deceptive. By the arguments put by our Canadian cousins they feel the same.

If this has happened in a simple matter of being able to practice as an engineer then what about the rest of the trade? Are there similar weasle words for the USA agricultural subsidies, car industry etc.

You are right we poor sods at the receiving end are mere mortals . Not politicians and lawyers. We get most of our information from the media. The Dirty Digger just got us again.

 

[RDK]

Rjcjr9

The spirit of the free trade agreement was that Canadian licenses would be recognized as equal to US licenses.

This applies specifically to engineers.

The parties shall meet within one year of the date of entry of force of this agreement to establish a work program to be undertaken by each party, in conjunction with its relevant professional bodies, to provide for the temporary licensing of in its territory of nationals of another party who are licensed as engineers in the territory of the other party.

This is from the reference that you claim that does not oblige the US to recognize Canadian licenses.

I think that I would make a better lawyer than you because I at least read to the end of the document before I claim that it doesn’t say something.


That is what has happened between Canada and Mexico but the US has reneged on their word in this matter.

I accept that the individual states have the right to make their own laws in this area. I know that, you know that unfortunately when your US national government signed this international agreement they forgot that.

A nation should have integrity just as an individual should have integrity. If you cannot honour an agreement then perhaps it would be best to not make these sorts of agreements in the fist place.

Now the US has access to our oil reserves, the second largest in the world, and we engineers do not have access to your markets in accordance with the agreement.

BTW The US often violates article 1202 when it restricts many government contracts to US citizens only. Your companies also violate this because many US job vacancies posted specify US citizens only as well.

Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[imagitec]

In reply to RDK:

I read it. Temporary licensing is analogous to the Massachusetts regulation that allows me to practice up to 30 days in the state on the basis of my Vermont license. Temporary licensing is not a bridge to automatic recognition of licenses. And it is subject to the same "wiggle words" as the general licensing section:

Temporary Licensing
5. Where the Parties agree, each Party shall encourage the relevant bodies in its territory to develop procedures for the temporary licensing of professional service providers of another Party.

Yes, I am reading Section C (Temporary Licensing of Engineers) as being a further specialization of and subordinate to Section A (General Provisions).
I'm going to give your Canadian negotiators the benefit of the doubt that they understood the United State's two-hundred year old system of government at the time they negotiated NAFTA, and that they did what they could in that light. Likewise, I'm sure the US negotiators involved in crafting the section on engineering knew what they could and couldn't promise under the US Constitution.

Rob Campbell, PE
Finite Monkeys -

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

 

[Ashereng]

The section quoted by RDK states that the "parties shall meet within one year of the date of entry of force of this agreement to establish a work program to be undertaken by each party, in conjunction with its relevant professional bodies". This states that a "work program" is to be established. It doesn't state that a PE is to be recognized by Canadian provinces, nor a P.Eng/ing. be recognized by American states.

This is consistent with my experience working in the US.
- I can work in the US
- if I want a PE, I need to take the PE exam
- however, my work experiences are recognized as valid (by Illinois anyways)

 

[RDK]

That is why I said that the spirit of the agreement is that the licenses issued in Canada shall be recognized in the US. The Canadian associations were more than willing to recognize the US PE as meeting the requirement for Canadian licenses, just as Mexico and Canada have mutual recognition.

A 30 day US license is useless unless one is only working on a 30 day project. Simply to take and pass the EIT and PE exams would take a year simply due to scheduling issues.


Scrap the exam requirement and our licenses are equal. There is the same or at least very similar requirements for education and experience. We work with the same mathematics and physics and there is remarkable similarity between the various codes and standards used. In many cases we all use the same code. Often the only difference between the US codes and the Canadian codes are that the US are in imperial measurements and the Canadian ones use SI. For example NFPA 70 and CSA C22,2 (Electrical Codes)

There have been many threads here on the exam process not meeting the needs of having a properly regulated profession so why bother unless it is to be protectionist?

The only reason the US uses exams is because they have not adequately policed the universities to turn out only quality graduates and not adequately policed the profession to only allow adequately experienced people into the profession.

This is a prime example of non tax regulatory restraint of trade and that is what the free trade agreements are all about. Making trade in goods and services free of tax and non tax regulatory issues.

Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[Ashereng]

RDK, yes, I hear you. There are two sides or more to most issues, and they are well represented in the above posts.

I was just sharing my experiences using a NAFTA visa to work in Illinois.

 

[imagitec]

RDK,

In the US, the jobs that require licensure are largely limited to those that affect the public safety in a very direct way, e.g., structural engineering. The faulty design of a toaster oven could easily cause injury or death, but the engineers that design them are not regulated in any way - that's the industrial exemption.

Does the industrial exemption exist in Canada in some form? How limited is it?

Must one be certified to call oneself an engineer, or to put it on one's business card?

Thanks,
Rob

Rob Campbell, PE
Finite Monkeys -

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

 

[imagitec]

RDK,

I did some Googling just after I made my post, and found this, by you:

Several of our American friends have posted here about the “industrial exemption”.

Let me be clear. This does not exist in Canada. In order to legally call oneself an engineer or any other title that may lead the public to believe that you are an engineer you MUST be registered as a professional engineer. Thus something like 90% of engineering school graduates are P.Eng’s (some never entered the field and some branched out into another field like law.) Most of the professors at engineering facilities are P.Eng’s.

The only exemptions are power engineers or boiler operators, train engineers or drivers or military engineers and then you have to be a member of the Canadian Armed Forces in an engineering capacity. To use the term engineer with any of these traditional exemptions one must use the full term i.e. power engineer.

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=47541&page=1

This is vastly more resrtictive for the degreed US toaster oven engineer who wants to work in Canada than it is for the Canadian bridge engineer who wants to work in the US.

Rob Campbell, PE
Finite Monkeys -

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

 

[RDK]

The industrial exemption does not exist in Canada. If you are practicing engineering then you must by law be a member of the provincial association where you are practicing.

In actual practice the law enforcement is very lax in this area. However most engineers in industry are licensed. It is as much a “social” license as anything else or a company employment requirement.

To use the title engineer in any way shape or form with limited exemptions one must be a P.Eng. The exemptions are railway train drivers, boiler operators and military engineers. In these cases the individual must use an appropriate modifier with the term engineer to distinguish themselves from professional engineers.. i.e. power engineer.

The Microsoft Certified System Engineer and other computer company titles are illegal in Canada and people have been fined for using these titles.

Most officers in the Canadian Military engineering branches are P.Eng’s. However again this is not a requirement for them to be but is generally a “social” license.

By social license they are registered for personal status, to be able to attend and participate in professional activities as opposed to almost everyone else being legally required to be professionally registered.






Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com