PE or Not PE
PE or Not PE
(OP)
I'm fairly new to this site and sitting in England reading about who can call themselves an Engineer, paricularly in the US and Canada, is confusing me.
I work for a multi-national company with a large operation in North America and I rarely if ever hear any of our engineers refered to as PE.
So my questions are
1. Who can call themselves an engineer?
2. What are exempt industries?
3. If the answer to 1. is only PEs then who drivers your railway engines as I believe they are called engineers?
If this has been answered in another thread can someone point me there as I can't find it
Ta
John
I work for a multi-national company with a large operation in North America and I rarely if ever hear any of our engineers refered to as PE.
So my questions are
1. Who can call themselves an engineer?
2. What are exempt industries?
3. If the answer to 1. is only PEs then who drivers your railway engines as I believe they are called engineers?
If this has been answered in another thread can someone point me there as I can't find it
Ta
John





RE: PE or Not PE
Here are my opinions to the ansewers:
1 - This is lined out by each state in the FAQ pdf that I posted in the FAQ's and on another thread. Also note that you can call yourself an engineer, engineer in training, or junior engineer in a lot of states if you are working under a P.E., but you cannot let anyone assume that you are a P.E.
2 - This is also lined out by each state, and differs between states. It is my opinion that a lot of people think they are excempt but are not.
3 - There are Railroad Engineers that actually require PE's. These are the guys that approve the designs of the railway itself and the bridges the trains go over. I had to deal with these engineers when I worked for a digital scale company when I designed railway scales for grain cars.
I believe everyone understands the difference of a Railroad Engineer that requires a P.E. and a Train Engineer which is like upgrading a Bus Driver to Bus Engineer.
----------------------------------------------------
It is also my opinion that the boards could be a lot more aggressive in enforcing their rules than they are.
The Federal Govt. is except here in the US about their titles which makes things confusing when they give kids out of HS the title of Engineer even though they may just be a ditch digger. When they get out of the military and into industry these kids don't understand why they can't keep the title of engineer, and why they can't be paid the same either since they have hardly any educational background. This leads to companies giving the titles to guys that should be called technicians rather than engineers.
These are my opinions, and I have been confused about it as well ever since the engineering laws have been drilled into my head during college.
RE: PE or Not PE
[quote ]6701. Professional engineer defined
“Professional engineer,” within the meaning and intent of this act, refers to a person engaged in the professional practice of rendering service or creative work requiring education, training and experience in engineering sciences and the application of special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences in such professional or creative work as consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning or design of public or private utilities, structures, machines, processes, circuits, buildings, equipment or projects, and supervision of construction for the purpose of securing compliance with specifications and design for any such work.[/quote]
The first sentence makes clear that unless you are doing engineering as defined therein, you are not subject to the PE Act. Therefore, classical railroad engineers and sanitation workers are not covered by this law, since their work and services are not within the definitions. As with trademark disputes, no one confuses the garbage truck with an engineering office. Note also, in California, the PE Act specifically covers only civil, electrical and mechanical engineers:
http://www.dca.ca.gov/pels/laws.htm
TTFN
RE: PE or Not PE
REGULATORY ISSUES IN ENGINEERING.
Wes C.
RE: PE or Not PE
Maybe you could start an ethics related thread. That would send a more positive message and keep this forum active. Discussion is always good, even if it does not directly relate to your industry.
ZCP
www.phoenix-engineer.com
RE: PE or Not PE
I do agree with you that diversity is important. However, I just read through a random sample of the threads in this forum. I can tell you that this forum is much less about ethics than it is about regulation. Specifically the issue of reguation surrounding professional liscensure. I am questioning the direction of the forum. I think that is more of an ethical subject, than liscensure. Maybe I will start another thread regarding this subject.
Wes C.
RE: PE or Not PE
Calling yourself an Engineer in a state that you can't call yourself an engineer without a license is an ethical issue
RE: PE or Not PE
Wes C.
RE: PE or Not PE
The Manitoba engineering act specifically limits the term engineer to those who are P.Eng’s.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng
Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com
RE: PE or Not PE
RE: PE or Not PE
The police never inforce that law. I have talked to my neighbor about the soda bottle law, and he informed me that he even breaks that law. :)
RE: PE or Not PE
RE: PE or Not PE
I feel I should apologize for my comment in my last post.
I honestly believe that this is in no way an ethical issue. You do. I must admit that you are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine. Ethics are an individual thing, as well as societal.
My premise. There are many exemptions, varying state to state for this to be a true ethical issue. If we want to have a discussion regarding this topic, it would be better in a forum that tackles the LEGAL issues of licensure, not the moral or ethical issues. This is a subject that sirs feathers on a daily basis here on eng-tips. It alienates many ENGINEERS that do not have, or are not required to become, or have no desire to become licenced.
I, for one, work in an industry where licensure is unnecessary, and historically irrelevant. If you wish to change this, then it is a legal issue, not an ethical issue, because I feel i have earned the right to call myself an engineer, as do my coworkers. The law says I may call myself an engineer, in the state that I live in. If i moved to a state where this was not the case, then I would contact my state assemblyman or senator and do what I could to change this, through the law and regulation, if I saw fit to do so. But I would still be able to sleep at night knowing, within myself, who I am. That is something that a rule of law can not take away. That is my ethic.
So you see, this topic of licensure would be better found in a discussion of regulation and law, and not one of ethics.
Wes C.
RE: PE or Not PE
do we really need seperate forums for legal vs. ethical vs. licensing discussions?
I suspect that none of us are being required to read each post in each thread of any particular forum...
cheers
Jay
Jay Maechtlen
http://home.covad.net/~jmaechtlen/
RE: PE or Not PE
RE: PE or Not PE
I AM BEGINING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE US.
Wes C.
------------------------------
There are no engineers in the hottest parts of hell, because the existence of a 'hottest part' implies a temperature difference, and any marginally competent engineer would immediately use this to run a heat engine and make some other part of hell comfortably cool. This is obviously impossible.
RE: PE or Not PE
RE: PE or Not PE
I don't begrudge you calling yourself an engineer, assuming its legal to do so, but I don't see the big reason to separate PE license issues from the Ethics forum. If you look at many ethics cases, such as those found here: TT Test cases....you will see that many times the interface between law, conscience, and morals all conflict into awkward situations, ethical dilemas that require rational thought, knowledge of the law, and community consensus.
In fact, legal issues are things dealing with the law and the law is simply a reflection of our common community ethical standards.
Saying all that, I agree that those who are not PE's may have zilch interest in reading posts about PE law and such. The site management, I'm sure, has read the comments above and its their perogative whether to add a separate regulation forum or not. But I agree with JayMaechtlen above - just don't read it if you find it distasteful.
RE: PE or Not PE
As you can see so far, the answer is a bit complex. I would generalize a bit as follows:
Someone offering/providing engineering services directly to the public must be licensed as a Professional Engineer and can represent themselves to the public as an engineer. These are individuals that can be held personally responsible by the public for the results of their work. From my experience, the majority of these individuals are Civil and Structural engineering practitioners. Each state has it's own requirements on attainment of licensure and title usage. Licensure in one state may or may not be readily recognized by another. The last information I saw from the NSPE website, indicated that ~2% of people practicing engineering are licensed. Most work under the "industrial exemption".
The "industrial exemption" allows unlicensed individuals to practice as the employee of a company. The company is held liable for its products rather than the individual. Engineering job titles are used freely under the "premise" that the the individual does not provide direct public services. "Exempt Industries" are most of those providing general consumer products. Also "exempt" is the Federal government.
Regards,
RE: PE or Not PE
PEs are legally bound by a code of ethics. Can't separate the ethics from the law since the ethics are in the statutes.
RE: PE or Not PE
In Canada (Unlike US) there is no "industrial engineering exemption". All engineers are mandated to be licenced, but there is a grey area between technology and engineering where some unlicenced graduates of engineering try to operate until struck by a $25,000 fine (some people will always park by a meter without feeding it no matter what the fine). In Canada some jobs are allowed to use the term engineer if they used that title before 1900 (i.e. loco-driver, stationary engineer [boilers] etc), but no modern deriratives such as domestic engineer, in Quebec the Superior court has even told Microsoft to stop using the term "software engineer" which might suggest that the holder is a "professional engineer"
RE: PE or Not PE
Maui
RE: PE or Not PE
RE: PE or Not PE
http
A lot of people make assumptions about industrial exemptions when a lot of states don't have them.
RE: PE or Not PE
I'm not sure if compulsory registration is a good idea. I don't know how it works in the US & Canada but here registration is through the engineering Institutes, which have a lot of academics as members. In the past they have stressed the theoretical at the expense of the experiance side. Also the Institutes are slow to react to changes in industry. HAving said that I am registered (I Eng) and belong to two institutes.
RE: PE or Not PE
Steve Braune
Tank Industry Consultants
www.tankindustry.com
RE: PE or Not PE
I have heard of it both in Oklahoma and Texas. You are legal to call yourself an engineer in those two states (maybe others) when you identify that you are working for a firm or company that has a certificate of Authorization (or in Texas under their exempt industries).
RE: PE or Not PE
I think the simplest way to understand it is, "does the work require a stamp?"
Slugger, NewFella, PSE, and even Wes all have good points. I think Slugger hit on another key - licensed firms or organizations. This is supposed to be what's used for companies that permit Engineering work by non-licensed Engineers, but it is enforced with a wink and a nod.
If Engineers got more political, it would actually help us all out. At the turn of the 20th Century, Engineers were as highly regarded as Doctors and Lawyers (and received commensurate compensation). We've fallen a long way, but it's our own fault.
I can understand how some view a position within a large product manufacturing, aerospace, or pharmaceutical company as confirmation of "Engineer" status. I've been there myself. Yet, the lack of enforcement - even for totally unrelated non-PE-stamped work - is tantamount to using our services without a "green card" (payroll abuse because of an "illegal" status). Even in industries where PE's are important, there is an awful lot of work that goes out the door without any PE input. That puts the Employer in the leveraging position.
P.S. Besides Railroad Engineers, there are "Stationary Engineers", meaning their boilers don't move.
RE: PE or Not PE
'Nonlicensure' Criteria Tantamount To Playing Regulatory Roulette April 2001:
Quote "Only in the U.S. has the status of professional engineers been made subordinate to that normally accorded physicians and attorneys in other countries, including Europe and developing nations. Engineering, once a distinguished profession domestically, has now joined the ranks of lesser-skilled trades. Moreover, despite bipartisan rhetoric extolling the importance of math and science education in the U.S., engineers' salaries are roughly equivalent to many blue-collar jobs. Interestingly, the federal government itself, specifically the Office of Personnel Management, which is responsible for establishing and enforcing federal government hiring policies, appears to be a contributing factor. According to OPM guidelines, completing 60 semester credit hours in an engineering curriculum is sufficient to be titled "engineer" in the federal government. OPM goes further as to identify such engineers as "professional," although licensure is not required. This is contrary to the agency's examination and licensing requirements that are imposed upon physicians and attorneys before they can avail themselves of professional titles.).
While the OPM offers considerable special pay and incentives to its physicians and attorneys, engineers are actually paid less than information systems technologists. The discounting of a proper engineering education and professional licensing creates a domino effect that denigrates the quality of public services at the state and local levels. Unfortunately, OPM's policies toward engineers may also have the effect of placing the public at further risk. Far too often, engineering decisions are made by nonengineers, and licensed engineers have been subject to coercion and intimidation by nonengineer supervisors to adopt flawed technical positions. Some of these ethical issues, questions, and ramifications have reached crisis proportions and have prompted a recent flurry of proposed federal legislation, including S. 201 and H.R. 5516, both of which address more effective and enforceable whistleblower protection for federal employees. Given the criticality of services provided by federal engineers, it is clearly evident that more, not less, stringent requirements must be enforced by the OPM. Discussions have been conducted with several federal agencies regarding interpretations of OPM's policies toward engineers, but the results are not encouraging." (James Ruglieri's conclussions)