×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

That'll teach em.
15

That'll teach em.

RE: That'll teach em.

Come on, really. What a bunch of (well I won't use the word here) with way too much time on their hands!

Wes C.
------------------------------
Make a dent in the Universe... do something great...

RE: That'll teach em.

A $1000 fine is barely anything.  That is why a lot of people and companies don't take licensing serious.

RE: That'll teach em.

Too bad it wasn't 100 times that much.  Better yet, MS could have paid 10,000 times that much.

RE: That'll teach em.

Just off the top of my head, I figure that, given the price of training materials and certification fees, and especially the collateral sales that accrue from the MCSE program, MS could pay a $1000 fine for each of the 35,000 persons whom it has certified in Canada, and still not lose money on the deal.  


Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

RE: That'll teach em.

So, what happens to sentences if the offender repeatedly re-offends? They go up. SO MS has been told to stop, the ball is now in its court.

Cheers

Greg Locock

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

RE: That'll teach em.

I am a bit surprised that the OIQ was satisfied with the outcome.  It does not even amount to a slap on the wrist.  It might have made a larger statement if Microsoft had to pay for the court costs as well.  While I do not know the Canadian legal structure, I do wonder if Microsoft can appeal to yet a higher court or what would happen if they still ignored the ruling.

Regards,

RE: That'll teach em.

2
The decision is typical of a court that feels that while the suit had legal merit; it was a waste of the court's time.  

The $1000 penalty is simply large enough for the OIQ to save face.  A $1 penalty was probably what the court would have liked to impose.

TTFN



RE: That'll teach em.

2
(OP)
Who's wasting the court's time? That face saving $1000 fine is what Microsoft took to the appeals court.

RE: That'll teach em.

If I was a quebeckian, I'd write my representative telling them what a waste of time, and (tax) money, over something so trite as a title. Honestly, this isn't Hollywood.

Wes C.
------------------------------
In this house, we OBEY the laws of thermodynamics! - Homer Simpson

RE: That'll teach em.

(OP)
And I'd be writing to increase the fines imposed on multinationals caught breaking the laws and encouraging others to do so. I earned my title, and it took a bit more time and money than what these "network engineers" went through. It's also a matter of consumer protection. We don't allow any one with a piece of paper from a diploma mill to hang a shingle as a medical doctor or lawyer. We should allow them to be engineers?  

RE: That'll teach em.

because it's a completely different kind of work...

tomato - tomato

thread1010-133755

Wes C.
------------------------------
In this house, we OBEY the laws of thermodynamics! - Homer Simpson

RE: That'll teach em.

Wes,

This same story has played out in Texas as well with not only Microsoft, but lots of companies.  Where you are heading to is one of the most portective states in regaurds to licensing.  Be careful what you call yourself in your new state until you get that license.

RE: That'll teach em.

Honestly, I have no intention. I believe that after 10 years (and never having worked a day under a "liscensed engineer), it has become a venture not worth my time persuing. As a matter of fact, I have a good number of friends in Texas in the aerospace industry and they do just fine calling themselved engineers w/o a piece of paper that says they can. I am not a believer in the kind of protection that a state could offer me regarding a title. I feel not particular need to be called an engineer. And if I were to be sued, and lost, I would feel no less shame in calling myself a designer. I will still engineer.

Wes C.
------------------------------
In this house, we OBEY the laws of thermodynamics! - Homer Simpson

RE: That'll teach em.

God why do I always get sucked into these liscensing discussions.

I guess I'm going to get out of it, and in the future just write my congressman.

Wes C.
------------------------------
In this house, we OBEY the laws of thermodynamics! - Homer Simpson

RE: That'll teach em.

Wes, just say "no"

TTFN



RE: That'll teach em.

Texas hit the companies with a $3000 per day per "engineer" fine in either 2002 or 2003.  The only "Exempt" industry they had the last time I checked was Telecommunications.  All other industries are playing with fire unless the company has a Certificate of Authorization.

RE: That'll teach em.

Microsoft will have larger fines and the individual MSCE’s will also be open to fines under this ruling.

The issue is not the $1,000 fine but the establishment that the law is the law and that a US company cannot flout Canadian law in Canada.

The engineering acts here are generally clear. The usage of the term ‘engineer’ is protected to those who are members of the provincial professional engineering association.

http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/e120e.php

Clause 58(1) (b)

Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com

RE: That'll teach em.

I'm in the USA and I don't think that Microsoft should have the right to refer to their employees as "engineers" unless they are real engineers. It seems to me that they are in reality programmers and technicians. Misuse of the title "engineer" is detrimental to the engineering profession. These "MCSE" folks are constantly exposed to the public and are not at their office hidden from the general public. They are therefore operating outside of "exempt" requirements and should therefore meet the legal requirements of the "engineer" title. The fine should have been much higher.

RE: That'll teach em.

(OP)
And they've stuck the word "certified" in front of it. A little too close in meaning and intent to "registered" or "licensed."

RE: That'll teach em.

2
And they solve actual problems.  A little too close to actual engineering work....

RE: That'll teach em.

"And they solve actual problems.  A little too close to actual engineering work...."

They are more like technicians.  They program routers and internet equipment.

They don't size power cables, worry about designing the HVAC systems, worry about structural loading of their cables, worry about fire codes, or worry about the structural loading of the building they are putting their equipment in.

I have taken some of their classes.  It was cool, but not engineering.

You should see some messes these microsoft certified technicians have created accross the country inside various companies.

RE: That'll teach em.

At some level, we are all just technicians.  We are not "creating" anything new, just putting together different components, and making them work.

Let's not get too full of ourselves here.  If we aren't careful, we will start sounding like doctors.  They have this overinflated sense of themselves, yet all they do is patch us up when we're hurt.  They are glorified mechanics, with a lot of schooling.

RE: That'll teach em.

(OP)
By that definition, nobody creates anything. When I'm hurt, I'm not worried about anyone's ego. I'm also glad to know the Doctor had to do more than pass a few exams to get his credentials.

RE: That'll teach em.

However, the issue is that you would not go the "Rug Doctor" to fix your hurts.  

And the AMA doesn't even bother to worry about that possibility, so the "Rug Doctor" happily coexists with real doctors.  And I'm sure that many MD's are Rug Doctor clients and vice-versa.

TTFN



RE: That'll teach em.

IRStuff,

Are you saying that anyone should be allowed to refer to themselves as an engineer as long as they have some carefully worded title? If Microsoft (or anyone) is allowed to refer to their various employees as engineers, then the title "engineer" will no longer have any meaning. Why then have licensing or universities or BSCE, BSME, BSEE, etc degrees at all? All we have to do is go find someone on the street, hire them, train them the way we see fit and give them the "engineer" title. Because thats what will happen if we allow companies like Microsoft to do as they please.

RE: That'll teach em.

(OP)
My board went after some "domestic engineers" (house cleaners) but backed down after figuring there was no confusion. "Certified engineer," however, is a bit close in my opinion.

EddyC,
This is not Microsoft calling it's own employees engineers under the industrial exemption. They are selling the title to anyone who has the cash and can pass a set of exams. http://www.microsoft.com/learning/mcp/mcse/default.asp

RE: That'll teach em.

Rug Doctors have no degrees whatsoever.  There's no confusion here and no one is offering cut-rate surgery at the local Rug Doctor.

Likewise, there's no confusing an MCSE for a "real" engineer.  They couldn't possibly offer nor perform ANY electrical, civil or mechanical, etc., engineering.  

Frankly, anyone who does go to an MCSE for licenseable engineering work is a blithering idiot and would probably get ripped off no matter what happens, since the law is spottily enforced at best and someone that idiotic WILL find a fake PE to get himself ripped off.  There was recently a website offering to sign off drawings, allegedly by real PEs.  BUT, the rates advertised would have these guys spending less than 10 minutes per drawing to make any money to speak off.

TTFN



RE: That'll teach em.

"IRstuff (Aerospace) 18 Oct 05 1:59  
Rug Doctors have no degrees whatsoever.  There's no confusion here and no one is offering cut-rate surgery at the local Rug Doctor.

Likewise, there's no confusing an MCSE for a "real" engineer.  They couldn't possibly offer nor perform ANY electrical, civil or mechanical, etc., engineering.  

Frankly, anyone who does go to an MCSE for licenseable engineering work is a blithering idiot and would probably get ripped off no matter what happens, since the law is spottily enforced at best and someone that idiotic WILL find a fake PE to get himself ripped off.  There was recently a website offering to sign off drawings, allegedly by real PEs.  BUT, the rates advertised would have these guys spending less than 10 minutes per drawing to make any money to speak off.
TTFN"

I know lots of managers and upper management that wouldn't know the difference.  It is the non-engineers in management that need educated on what engineers are.  These are the same guys that hire a "engineer" through a temp company that has no background or degree and think they are getting a better deal than hiring the college grad out of school with his engineering degree for a few extra $$.

RE: That'll teach em.

And is getting rid of MCSEs going to make these managers smarter?  And wouldn't it be pretty obvious that when someone like that hires an MCSE to do structural engineering that there's a huge disconnect?

McDonnell Douglas used to hire college grads irrespective of degrees or capabilities even before there was a Microsoft, so can't really lay that one on Bill's front step.  One July, we got a brand spanking new BS computer science grad from USC.  The fact that we did no programming, had no computers to speak of and that we were primarily a semiconductor physics group didn't seem to enter into the allocation equation.

But I digress... What's my motivation for helping an idiot like that?  Do I really want to make it easier for such a dunce to keep his job by making sure that he can't make hiring mistakes?  

Fire his ass and help him get a decent job at McDonald's is what I would vote for.  I think it would make for a pretty good laugh if someone like that did hire an MCSE to do electro-optical systems engineering.  Would make my day

TTFN



RE: That'll teach em.

Quote:

I know lots of managers and upper management that wouldn't know the difference.  It is the non-engineers in management that need educated on what engineers are.

I suppose it is these same people that hire Electrical Engineers to work on rotating machinery (hard-ware engineers).

Wes C.
------------------------------
In this house, we OBEY the laws of thermodynamics! - Homer Simpson

RE: That'll teach em.

2

Quote:

I suppose it is these same people that hire Electrical Engineers to work on rotating machinery

Things like generators and motors, for example...?

----------------------------------

One day my ship will come in.
But with my luck, I'll be at the airport!

RE: That'll teach em.

Scotty... You got me... my attemt to be funny failed :(

Wes C.
------------------------------
In this house, we OBEY the laws of thermodynamics! - Homer Simpson

RE: That'll teach em.

2

First of all, I will state that I am not believer in any State, Provincial or Territorial board or association having the right of ownership to a word in the English language when used as part of a title, legislating that it can only be used by those who are licensed to carry out work in the various branches of engineering. Engineering being interpreted as what some of the people here perceive it that is. The boards and associations should concern themselves more with the misconduct and incompetence of some of their members.

However, there are some of you, and you know who you are, that insist on getting their knickers in a knot over this issue. Since the MCSE seemed to have been the whipping boy here, let’s look at him. Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer is not misleading to me. The words Microsoft and Systems tell me that the guy is in the IT business and the word Certified, being where it is placed in the title, tells me that Microsoft has certified him as being able to engineer networks using their products. The word Engineer however, certainly doesn’t make me lose sleep thinking that this guy is going to get involved in tall buildings or bridges when things are slow. Furthermore, his title is a little more imaginative and descriptive than “real” engineer.

The first time your local EMS network is down and brought back up pretty quick, give guys like these some credit as the do really engineer networks. You would be surprised what runs under Windows these days.

As a closing comment, a little professionalism is lost on some of the egotistic and snobby attitudes here. A four year degree, three Greek letters on a sweatshirt and membership in an association does not always make a good engineer. The comments regarding the medical profession, I won’t even acknowledge.

Angelo D. Papadakis P.Eng  ( C.Eng, M.I. StructE.)     

RE: That'll teach em.

Angelo

Those microsoft guys aren't engineers.  I work with plenty of them.  They won't be engineers until they start taking into concideration of the HVAC loading, power cable sizing, infrastructure, and ect that their equipment is housed in.

They should be called Microsoft IT Certified rather than Engineer.

I have had to clean up to many messes created by Microsoft Certified people that has created dangerous situations that they don't even realize they are creating.  I have seen floors overloaded and nearly collapsing on the floor below due to too much equipment being installed in a facility by a Microsoft Certified  Engineer or a Cisco Certified Engineer.  These guys need to open their eyes and realize they are network programers and designers.

RE: That'll teach em.


Slugger,

The situation you described cannot be blamed on the Microsoft guy as there was clear lack of planning and communication between the parties involved. The Microsoft guy's job was to engineer and install his networking equipment. It was not his job to do an analysis on floor loading. A structural engineer should have been involved. The whole issue is, these Microsoft guy's, by using the word engineer in their title were not professing to say the floors were structuraly adequate for the loading conditions. They do there thing, other types of engineers are called upon, or should be, to do theirs.

RE: That'll teach em.

(OP)
There are ABET accredited four year programs in computer and software engineering. But a high school dropout who can pass a set of exams gets a title that sounds equivalent. And to what purpose? Simply to make him/her sound deserving of a higher salary or position. I don't mean to sound egotistical or snobbish. Maybe a better word is uppity for daring to suggest engineers are like other professionals. I really consider us all to be equal on this planet, but our worth as measured by salary is set by the market. False titles are a market manipulation tactic. But it goes way beyond money and gets into safety concerns when unqualified people are tempted to work outside their area of expertise.

[quote] The comments regarding the medical profession, I won’t even acknowledge.[\quote]

You just did.

My head hurts. I think there's a pharmacist in the parking lot.

RE: That'll teach em.

Ah huh… I should go and tell the high school kids to get their Structural Certificate of Engineering from some structural engineering society so they can call them selves Structural Engineers.  I know this is absurd, but that is what Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer sounds like.  Somebody got certified by a company to have the title Engineer.  Our (USA) government does not even recognize them as Engineers.  So why should they have the title?  

If a title does not really matter, then why are non-engineering degree people so up in arms about not having the title of Engineer in their title?  Designers should not be embarrassed to have design in their title, techs should not be embarrassed to have technologist in their title, draftsmen should not be embarrassed to have draftsmen in their title, …what is so embarrassing about not having the title of engineer in your title?  They will still be treated and paid the same, engineering title or not.

Go Mechanical Engineering
Tobalcane

RE: That'll teach em.

My next set of cards I want to read...

Wes616
Innovator


... everythings else is so limiting.

Wes C.
------------------------------
In this house, we OBEY the laws of thermodynamics! - Homer Simpson

RE: That'll teach em.

I'm gunning for Clue Distributor.

 

Cheers

Greg Locock

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

RE: That'll teach em.

The point is still being missed here. During my career, I have been site superindant on many projects. I have always found that treating everyone as an equal, regardless of their skill or trade or what they choose to call themselves, makes for a pleasant and healthy work environment. This always culminates in a very successful project completion. This is what engineering is all about. Forget the title thing. For those who disagree, don't ever go to work in Britain...you will spend more of the productive day arguing over titles than keeping your mind on the task at hand. I know what I can do, you know what you can do, that should be reward enough.

RE: That'll teach em.

stevenal,

I should add that the Microsoft guys were more than likely instructed to place the equipment as specified by someone else. Doesn't that tell you something? They are not getting into areas beyond their expertise.

RE: That'll teach em.

AngeloPapadakis says:-

"Don't ever go to work in Britain...you will spend more of the productive day arguing over titles than keeping your mind on the task at hand"

As an engineer working in Britain for over 25 years I've never come across this attitude so I think some evidence needs to be presented.

RE: That'll teach em.

A  true IT engineer, i.e. someone with an ABET accredited degree and membership in an engineering association, should have enough cross discipline experience and knowledge to know that he should ask a structural engineer about floor loading.

That is the difference between an engineer and someone with only some technical training. Engineers know at least enough about the other disciplines to know that they should be asking them some questions and ensuring that the final solution is safe and workable from all perspectives, Someone with only technical training, in one field, simply does not have this background to know when to ask someone else for help.

Engineers know that engineering is a team activity.

Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com

RE: That'll teach em.

Rick you beat me to the post.

I have seen those issues first hand too many times.  The  someone with only some technical training tends to think that they know everything while the engineers acknologes they only know a specialised area in a vast sea.

RE: That'll teach em.


RDK,

I have never worked on a project where the IT guys place their equipment where ever it takes their fancy. Locations are specified on drawings and floor loading has been taken into account by the appropriate person. This is where engineering is a team activity. Another storm would brew if the IT people dared question the structural integrity of the floor.

RE: That'll teach em.


Jordonlaw,

I will attempt to clarify my statement in the form of an explanation. In the U.S. and Canada, licensed engineers are, for the want of a better term, very particular as to the use of the word “engineer” in a job title. Rightly so I might add, as in most, if not all States and Provinces it is unlawful to use this title unless one is a Licensed Professional Engineer. Anyone who is not licensed, even with industry exemption, meaning someone not providing services to the public, can be brought before the courts and fined if they use the word “engineer” in their title. These actions should be restricted to any individual who falsely represents themselves as being licensed and offers services to the public.  Personally, I don’t agree with the ruling solely on the word use as I think it is a trivial matter but that’s just my opinion.

As you will be well aware, the use of the word in Britain is widely used in may job descriptions ranging from tradesmen to licensed professionals and, being from Britain myself, was used to this and never at any time did I take offense, hence my opinion on the use of the word in a job title. An example of this would be the tradesman installing the HVAC system would routinely introduce himself as the heating engineer.

My statement about spending half the day arguing about titles was in reference to many of our Canadian or American colleagues who may have difficulty accepting this as being normal and generally accepted.

RE: That'll teach em.

I get to meet many telecom "engineers" who will place equipment anywhere, with the disclaimer "I'll do whatever my employer wants". This is what happens when someone is not under the state code of ethics and doesn't really know what engineering is. These technicians get introduced to the building owners as "engineers" while I, a PE, get introduced as an Architect (Which I constantly correct). One of these "engineers" asked me what Dead Load was. I told him that it was the self weight of the building. He still didn't know what I was talking about. Someone who is a real engineer would have understood.

RE: That'll teach em.

(OP)

Quote:

They are not getting into areas beyond their expertise.
This is universally true? I'd hesitate to make that claim even for PEs universally. What mechanism is in place to avoid it? Is there an MCSE code of ethics that places their certificate on the line if they violate it?

RE: That'll teach em.


EddyC,

There is something missing in the examples I am reading. If equipment would impose loads of questionable magnitude on the floor, since when is it the telecom guy's employer's call as to where it is placed. There seems to be important players who should be making these decisions missing on some of these projects.

All I am saying is the telecom engineer or the network engineer isn't hoodwinking anyone into believing he is something he is not by using these job descriptions.

RE: That'll teach em.

Structural engineers should be employed to work on structures. Electrical engineers should be employed to work on electrical projects. Microsoft Certified Systems Engineers should be employed to work on Microsoft Systems.

I'm a chemical engineer and I suspect you'd be better off getting an MSCE to look at your floor loading or your power cable size than asking me to do it, even though I've got a degree and I'm allowed to use the title engineer (OK so not quite yet according to your rules, but it won't be too long off and I'll still not know any more about those subjects!)

Being an MSCE doesn't necessarily mean you are stupid. Being a PE doesn't necessarily mean you are smart enough to ask for help.

RE: That'll teach em.


Stevenal,

I agree that there are some PE's in certain diciplines who might cross their borders of expertise just enough to raise concern even if it is bad judgement rather than blatent misconduct. The MCSE however, regardless of calling him/herself an engineer, isn't any more likely to dabble in structural engineering any more than you are.  

RE: That'll teach em.


Well said kchayfie,

Dirty Harry was of the same opinion with his line..."Every man should know his limitations"

RE: That'll teach em.

The problem with some in the telecom world is they forget that anything (gravity, electrical loadings, earthquakes, ect...)exists outside of their piece of equipment and configuring it.

I have replaced alarm equipment in a flood prone area where the equipment was placed underneath the floor.  You can guess what happened everytime it flooded, the alarms wouldn't report problems because they went down before the equipment.  I have seen structural damage after earthquakes where beams were pulled from the wall, but Cisco Certified Engineers were still trying to stuff equipment into the facility.  I have seen HVAC problems from these same guys all over the world.  These same guys forget about physical security as well, but they do remember the software security.

RE: That'll teach em.

Again, it's not the job of an MSCE to do the structural analysis.  Almost any installation where that might be a problem has at least a facilities coordinator whose job it is to ask about and check these sorts of things.  

Obviously, the MSCE should say, "Oh, BTW, you do realize I'm adding 5 tons to the floor load?"  But, when the bid and proposal is made, the customer has the ultimate responsibility to realize that there's more weight being added.  If the customer doesn't raise a concern about floor loading, I think that the MSCE has a reasonable basis for assuming that the floor loads are acceptable.

For that matter, how the BH would an MSCE come up with unstacked IT hardware that exceeds 100 lb/sq ft flooring loading?  

TTFN



RE: That'll teach em.

Some people need a big truck... others are ok with driving a honda.

Wes C.
------------------------------
In this house, we OBEY the laws of thermodynamics! - Homer Simpson

RE: That'll teach em.

In Canada the word engineer is protected due to the liabilities professionals assume here.  I know Britain's liability rules are different despite being a base for our court system.

A professional in Canada is held to a higher standard of law with respect to tort and negligence.  I agree electrical and computer engineering have to lowest dollar value claims made against them but the principle is to prevent dilution of the term engineer.  An engineer has a duty to protect the public, a MSCE has a duty to make some cash.  A MSCE would not face disciplinary actions for violating the engineering code of ethics.

I have found computer techs to have some questionable ethics, including those working on systems that protect the public.  In their defence, a group called C.I.P.S. is attempting to create a professional organization with ethical standards and organization for the IT world.  For some jobs this obviously isn't required but think of some of the computer hardware and software in our daily lives that affects public safety.

>Personally, I don’t agree with the ruling solely on the word use as I think it is a >trivial matter but that’s just my opinion.

RE: That'll teach em.

"electrical and computer engineering have to lowest dollar value claims made against them but"

They may have the lowest dollar claims because most people never realize or see what happens when one of their systems fail.  It may be poor programming that allows identity theft, or mis-routing of a 911 call that costs time in an emergency.

Their failures can be as divistating as a bridge falling down, but the destruction can't be viewed with helicoptors on the nightly news.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources