Software companies surprised they have to obey the law 5

[IRstuff]

Note, however, the industrial exemption mostly applies to essentially mass-produced products, while most of the PEs, at least in the US, are essentially doing one-offs, aside from cookie-cutter tract homes.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[jmec87]

There is no industrial exemption in Canada.

Note that while APEGA is claiming that only its members can use "engineer" in their titles, they do not go after power engineers (a regulated trade focused on running/maintaining heating/power plants) and possibly a few other non-P.Eng. types that use "engineer" as part of their title. So they can make exceptions if they want, but they don't want to make an exception for software engineers.

 

[IRstuff]

There is no industrial exemption in Canada.

I'm aware, but the fact that every engineer is required to go through an extra hoop is seemingly excessive government over-reach, IMO.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[GregLocock]

"There is no industrial exemption in Canada."

...and not much product development. There's more than one reason for that of course.


Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[Ingenuity]

...and possibly a few other non-P.Eng. types that use "engineer" as part of their title

Like the ubiquitous North American operating "engineer" members of the International Union of Operating Engineers.

 

[Sparweb]

The real liability for engineers is common law precedents in the courts which generally don't have much of anything to do with the EGP act. That's where you might lose your house and any other assets they can get their hands on.

Gotcha. That's tort law. Yes, indeed that is much more painful than the penalties a professional body can slap you with. As I prepped for exams, I remember a couple of books recommended by APEGA/ASET/APEGS on contract law cases in Canada that were eyeopeners for me.

GregLocock,
Can Australia say the same?

 

[GregLocock]

At the moment engineer is not a protected title in any state but QLD, so far I know. When the other states follow suit I will no longer be an engineer.

It is a legal requirement for professional engineers to register with the Board of Professional
Engineers before they can practise as a professional engineer in Queensland.
Engineers must be a Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland (RPEQ) to provide engineering
services. The rule applies to all persons who in their employment provide engineering services to their
employer. The exception is for persons who practise under the direct supervision of RPEQs.
Companies need to ensure that persons employed as professional engineers are registered, or work
under the supervision of a registered professional engineer. The requirement applies regardless of
whether the professional engineer is providing professional engineering services to his or her
employer or to external clients. Requirements of the Act
Definition of professional engineering service
Professional engineering service means an engineering service that requires, or is based on, the
application of engineering principles and data to a design, or to a construction or production activity,
relating to engineering, and does not include an engineering service that is provided only in
accordance with a prescriptive standard.
The dictionary in the legislation provides that:
Prescriptive standard means a document that states procedures or criteria:
a. for carrying out a design, or a construction or production activity, relating to engineering; and
b. the application of which, to the carrying out of the design, or the construction or production
activity, does not require advanced scientifically based calculations.
Examples:
 AS1684 – Timber framing code, published by Standards Australia
 AS/NZA 3000:2007 – Electrical installations (known as theAustralian/New Zealand Wiring
Rules) published by Standards Australia.

As to whether any engineers have been held personally liable in court, so far as I know they haven't, despite some widely publicised and fatal errors.




Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[GregLocock]

Late edit, yes at least one RPEQ has been found personally liable although he was also a director of the engineering company, so i'm not too sure of the reasoning.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=21dbb781-bfec-4f5f-b6d4-266f60844c67

Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[geotechguy1]

>Note that while APEGA is claiming that only its members can use "engineer" in their titles, they do not go after power engineers (a regulated trade focused on running/maintaining heating/power plants) and possibly a few other non-P.Eng. types that use "engineer" as part of their title. So they can make exceptions if they want, but they don't want to make an exception for software engineers.

Worth noting that Alberta universities have had Software Engineering degrees for quite some time. APEGA / the profession has actually been relatively proactive in trying to make software and computer hardware engineering fall under the jurisdiction of APEGA / EGP act for some time - with the degrees, then pushing for licensure, then repeatedly attempting enforcement against companies using 'software engineer' as a job title. They have been consistent and persistent on this topic. Who knows - it may pay off in the long run. There is alot of talk about machine learning and the value of computer programming in engineering firms these days - many conventional consultancies have started hiring computer programmers, and engineering software companies (eg. GeoStudio / Seequent) have staff who blur the lines between software development and the practice of engineering significantly more than people working at microsoft.

Curiously though, according to APEGA's regulation, the title "Junior Engineer" is also forbidden and E.I.T's legally are required to by styled, as an example 'John Doe, Transportation Engineer-in-Training' but a quick search on linkedin will tell you that most companies in Alberta break this rule and use 'Junior Engineer' and APEGA engages in zero enforcement.

 

[skeletron]

If the debate is "other big name companies in the USA use software 'engineer' in the job title, so we want to do the same because it allows us to be competitive?", I don't understand why they can't use another noun to describe their work. Such as:
-software scientist
-software technician
-software developer
-etc.

 

[3DDave]

Scientists typically don't create directly saleable product.
Technicians typically don't have 6-figure (dollar) salaries.
They used to be developers and programmers, but at the time those who had those titles mostly didn't have college degrees.

Here's the appropriate action - since this organization doesn't trust those non-engineers they should stop using software written by anyone without PE licensing. At the least they will be off the internet and cut off from all phone service. Post a letter? Guess how the addresses on envelopes get read so routing codes can be printed on them. I'd suggest analog HAM radios, but unlicensed EEs probably designed them.

 

[CWB1]

At the moment engineer is not a protected title in any state but QLD, so far I know. When the other states follow suit I will no longer be an engineer.

Are machinists still certified as "engineers" by govt? I had an ex-pat colleague explain the jargon and division of trades down under once, he had a trade cert that read something like "mechanical engineering, fitting & turning."

 

[GregLocock]

I haven't come across that. Turns out they want 50 hours of PDH a year. Not happening.

Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[Craig_H]

Note that while APEGA is claiming that only its members can use "engineer" in their titles, they do not go after power engineers (a regulated trade focused on running/maintaining heating/power plants) and possibly a few other non-P.Eng. types that use "engineer" as part of their title. So they can make exceptions if they want, but they don't want to make an exception for software engineers.

I've assumed that the train drivers, the plant power engineers, and the crane operators (International Union of Operating Engineers) were somehow exempted, and perhaps so because their trades existed in Alberta prior to the EGP act. I honestly have no basis for that assumption, and really wish that APEGA would provide justification for why they let those slide while going after others who use the title "engineer".

My own two cents is that these companies set up shop in Alberta and are now whining because they don't like Canada's laws. Go stuff it. If we allow this to slide, then what next? Every offshore "engineer" with dubious qualifications in ALL disciplines will be asking for the same exemption on the exact same grounds.