Rubber stamping vs review work of someone that works remotely in another country? 15

[Fischstabchen]

I have someone that is want to offer me work to review someone else's design or use it as a basis for mine. I suspect the work is being done outside of the U.S. and a PE is needed to approve the design. When is it rubber stamping and when is it taking a company's design and running through it for review? Is there any part of this that is ethical?

 

[Fischstabchen]

Mintjulep,

No it wouldn't be ok but a group being outside of jurisdiction means that they don't have to care one bit about local law and regulations. It likely would be a waste of their time to even try to be compliant. They just keep fishing offering cheap work until someone bites .

 

[phamENG]

a group being outside of jurisdiction means that they don't have to care one bit about local law and regulations. It likely would be a waste of their time to even try to be compliant.

Not true. They can still be fined, and the great thing about the states - you can't hide out from it. Also, boards share notes...get punished in another state and your home state will find out about it. If you don't tell them, the penalty is often much worse.

I agree that it could be harder if out of the country, but even if they are and they hold a PE anywhere in the states, it can come back to haunt them.

 

[271828]

The situation would be exactly the same if it were Indiana, Pittsburgh and the Mid-West.

Think about why you feel the need to bring the location into the argument.

https://www.nspe.org/resources/pe-magazine/septemb...

I wouldn't agree with rubber-stamping work from an engineer in Indiana, Pittsburgh, or in the Mid-west. However, they live in the same country as the project. They're probably a lot more familiar with how things are done in the country with the project. They're accessible for accountability if they do something wrong, whether that's in the design or a contractual issue.

It's just not the same if the sub is literally on the other side of the world.

This new thing of trying to see a racist behind every bush is tiring.

 

[phamENG]

This new thing of trying to see a racist behind every bush is tiring.

I see what you're getting at, but I think you're taking it to a bit of an extreme, too. Bias doesn't equate to intentional racism, but it can be just as problematic. And we can all use a little reminder that we all have a bias of some kind, no matter how self aware we are (or imagine ourselves to be). But to your point, no need to beat around said bush, MintJulep - if you want to question whether or not somebody is being influenced by some sort of bias, then just ask them. If they have no response, then they probably are. But in this case, there are plenty of other explanations.

 

[271828]

Maybe you're right, phamENG.

I'm in academia, so I'm overdosing on this subject. The desired level of detail is staggering.

Point of order: Bias is the least severe manifestation. It's the accidental form that non-terrible people have. That's on a different level from intentional racism.

 

[phamENG]

Counterpoint of Order: if you're on the receiving end of somebody's bias, does it matter if it was bias or intentional racism? You still didn't get the job. You still punished more than the other guy who did the same thing.

I agree that they are different and it's important that everyone understand that people with bias are not doing it intentionally. But it's just as important that people with bias (everyone) realize that the impact can be just as bad as intentional prejudice (doesn't have to be about race). Because if we don't, then nothing will change. And a change for the better is a good thing.

But then again, I'm just some middle class white guy, so how much do I really know? (A bit tongue in cheek, but also true. Most people's bias is in my favor.)

 

[AZPete]

The intriguing aspect about "bias", since everyone has it, is that it is subject to, and correctible by, discovery. Given time and extent, it will dissipate and yield to a rather consistent reality. The irony of anti-bias conditioning is that it is an implied declaration of universality (quite opposite to individual, unique perceptions) that strengthens its tenacity in the face of discovery/reality, and tends to cement the bias as founded somehow--quite the opposite of what the anti-bias conditioning intends for a result.

 

[phamENG]

and tends to cement the bias as founded somehow

That would depend on how the 'anti-bias conditioning' is carried out. I think of bias like a seed. It's planted by our environment - live in a suburb of all white people? You may have some bias against minorities. Come from a family where wives/mothers stay home and cook and clean? You may have some bias against women in the workplace. (Et cetera.)

If somebody attempts to remove that seed by force (like attacking you as a racist even though you aren't), then really they're just feeding it and - as you say - it will grow and flourish.

If somebody approaches the person respectfully and helps them to discover it, it can be rooted out before it grows into something more nefarious.

In short, we need personal solutions to this universal problem. Because while 'bias' is universal, the source and nature of it are not. It's the sort of nuance that seems lost on most people.

Given time and extent, it will dissipate and yield to a rather consistent reality.

This may be abstractly true for a single bias, but not bias in general. The 'new consistent reality' will then breed new bias. I've come to conclude that, in pretty much all things, life is a continuous game of whack-a-mole.

 

[AZPete]

"... - live in a suburb of all white people? You'll probably has some bias against minorities..."

You are projecting. There is no basis for your supposition. To therefore become an activist proponent is both morally repugnant and induces the opposite of the desired effect.

Some things in life iron themselves out. Natural bias is one of those things. That's why discovery through exposure is so naturally powerful and effective. One sees with one's own eyes. To condition someone via mandate is not a natural nor effective solution, despite the "honorable" intentions behind it.

 

[gte447f]

thread officially hijacked... congratulations all

To the OP... this topic or notion of reviewing and stamping someone else's (unlicensed) work is as tiresome as all this bias/racism discussion. The practice is illegal in a lot of jurisdictions for a reason, on the basis of a responsible charge argument, and, in my opinion, it should be universally rejected by the engineering profession on the basis of a "don't be a sucker" argument. I mean think about it, the only reason this ever comes up is because of two other unscrupulous parties upstream of the licensed engineer. Namely a cheapskate owner/client that is trying to get something for next to nothing and an unlicensed person offering engineering services at bargain basement prices without a license. Why be the schmuck that comes along and also undersells yourself to facilitate this unprofessional sham of a process?

When these "opportunities" arise, I suggest to tell the owner/client that they have wasted all the money they spent on the unlicensed worker, and you won't be needing any of their work product so don't bother providing it, but that you will consider taking the job, but you will have to start from scratch and charge full price.

 

[phamENG]

gte - in our defense the OP engaged in some of this line of discussion. I'm in complete agreement with you on the substance of the post, though. That's my approach to these situations as well.

AZPete - clearly we disagree. Those were meant to be examples of how our environment can plant a seed of bias - not saying that they will happen universally. Are they things that I have experienced and have witnessed in many people around me? Yes. Those are two particular biases that I've had to cope with. That's why I chose them. Other people deal with their own. The presence of bias is universal, the nature and impact are not. And while it will, hopefully, resolve itself naturally - how long does it take? If there's a way to reduce its effects such that fewer people over the course of fewer lifetimes are negatively impacted, is it so bad to try? And who said anything about a mandate?

It's not about targeting a bias, but ensuring that everyone is aware that they have them. Because a lot of people are blissfully ignorant of that fact. And it's hard to see with your own eyes if you've got blinders on. I am thankful for the people who helped me realize that I have them - without them I'd probably be in a much worse place.

Thanks, though, for calling me "morally repugnant." That was real nice.

 

[AZPete]

"Thanks, though, for calling me "morally repugnant." That was real nice."

That was addressed at the act, not you personally. Clearly, no offense intended. Apologies, nevertheless.

Re gte447f's comment, probably a summary would be this: Why not go to a qualified, licensed physician in the first place for a diagnosis? The alternative is an unlicensed of questionable competency, followed by a licensed one for an official second opinion. Makes little sense upon reflection.

 

[gte447f]

AZPete, I think I like your physician analogy. Imagine the licensed physician being asked to review, accept and bless the work of the unlicensed person. Of course the licensed physician would never entertain the idea, and would discount the entire unlicensed effort that came before as meaningless.

 

[phamENG]

AZPete - thank you for the clarification and the apology. Sadly this topic has been roped into the culture wars and, rather than being discussed rationally, has become a partisan issue and some of the rhetoric tends to get needlessly hot.

I, too, like the physician analogy. It also works well with lawyers. If you go to a lawyer and tell them some guy on the internet told you how to win your case, what are the chances the attorney is going to use that trial strategy?

I won't go so far as to say whatever came before is meaningless. The physician that served my grandmother's town would always listen to her ideas when he did his rounds. Maybe that guy on the internet had a case very similar to yours. Or maybe that unlicensed engineer/contractor has a good idea on how to do it. So it doesn't hurt to see it, hear it, consider it - and use it to inform your decision making to the extent that it makes sense. This is how you've always done it? Great. If it really works by the numbers, we'll keep doing it that way. But that doesn't mean you put your stamp on what they produced for a couple hundred bucks. You do all the engineering yourself and produce the requisite work product.

 

[CWB1]

The critical issue to consider is whether/not you are participating in the other company's design reviews as legally required to be in responsible charge. If yes then there are no issues, welcome to corporate CE in 2022. If they're asking you to independently review their work then you are not in responsible charge and would be rubber-stamping, the same as stamping your own work without reviewing with another engineer.

Not sure if this applies universally but I was under the impression that having engineering work reviewed does not pass design responsibility off from the designer to the reviewer.

Depends on the type of review. The collaborative design review required stateside generally pushes liability up to the company level unless changes are made independently afterward. Independent reviews do nothing and aren't recognized as standard engineering process, the only reason they get mentioned is bc some jurisdictions require the original engineer be notified if their work be publicly critiqued.

 

[GregLocock]

"a group being outside of jurisdiction means that they don't have to care one bit about local law and regulations."

I don't know who you think is engineering your American automobiles, but chances are 9 times out 10 they aren't in Kansas any more, Toto.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[hokie66]

Greg,

I don't think the OP's question is about automobiles, or mobile equipment of any kind, but rather about fixed infrastructure, which in the US requires registered engineers to design and certify.

But careful, if you don't want to be accused of xenophobia against Kansans.

 

[MintJulep]

MintJulep - if you want to question whether or not somebody is being influenced by some sort of bias, then just ask them.

I think I have. The claimed answer was "no, I'm not".

Then that answer was supported by a statement of prejudicial stereotype.

a group being outside of jurisdiction means that they don't have to care one bit about local law and regulations.

Group = Behavior. This is prejudice. Sorry, no other word for it.

I no longer live in the USA, but I still do work there. Did my moving somehow cause me to no longer care?

There are many respected, knowledgeable members here on Eng-Tips that live places other than the USA. Do they all qualify for membership in this group of people who don't care about law and regulations?

Stereotyping is wrong.

I'm no saint. I grew up in an environment and in a time where stereotypes were accepted and little effort made to break them down.

That time is no more. I'm trying to see my own biases and cast them aside. I invite you all to do the same.

 

[phamENG]

MintJulep - I agree; if it was meant as a behavioral stereotype, it's wrong.

I read that statement a little differently, though. "A group....means they don't have to care..." didn't come across to me so much as a behavioral stereotype as saying the only thing that exists to keep some people honest is their own integrity. There's no legal mechanism to enforce US law in a lot of places, so there's no legal reason to go along with it. Since it was said in the context of enforcement of engineering regulations, this seemed like the most reasonable interpretation.

To try to find a bias influencing my interpretation: I have a non-engineering business interest and my partner and I decided to hire a Russian software developer to do some work for us. Even before the war, we were aware that this presented a risk. We had no effective enforcement measure should they violate the contract or steal our IP. We chose to trust them and it has worked out amazingly well (apart from the minor issue of paying them between February and when they finally got out). BUT - we spent no small amount of time deciding how much weight to give the presence of a legal system friendly to US law when choosing who we wanted to hire. Not because we think foreigners are untrustworthy, but because hiring anyone is risky and a shaky legal framework amplifies those risks to our business.

 

[271828]

MintJulep, I apologize for my overly inflammatory comment yesterday. Also, my comments were either biased or prejudiced because I was sizing up the likelihood that a member of a group would perform well based on membership in the group.

As phamENG mentioned, this subject has become part of the culture war. There are extremely reasonable suggestions for improving the academic or professional experience of under-represented people. These suggestions are becoming harder and harder to communicate. Diversity /inclusion fatigue is real.

As an aside, another issue is that advice givers are universally starting at a disadvantage. Nobody likes unsolicited advice or correction -- for good reason. When I put myself in the position of advice-giver, I'm claiming to have superior knowledge or morality than the other person. If there's one thing humans are good at, it's detecting potential movements in the dominance hierarchy. To give advice, I need to already have a relationship with that person and be correctable myself. (BTW, I know I'm on thin ice for offering advice/insight in this paragraph. LOL)