The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
(OP)
In response to some questions made in the Architectural/Structural Fee Residential post I felt that this topic needed its own thread. This topic has been covered before in the more social forums but usually they get overrun with the mechanical/electrical types which, in my experience seem to have a much better deal than those of our particular profession.
I read the website of the burj dubai under design and found the following paragraph second down on the page.
"Ultimately, the honour of designing the world's tallest tower was awarded the global leader in creating ultra-tall structures, the Chicago office of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (SOM) with Adrian Smith FAIA, RIBA, consulting design Partner. The selected design was subject to an extensive peer review program to confirm the safety and effectiveness of the structural systems."
The reason why I point this out is that the only person mentioned is an architect followed by a description of tasks that would have been carried out by structural engineers. In my brief search I found no mention of the structural engineer who was the person responsible for the design.
If we cannot get recognition for one of the greatest engineering achievements this decade then when are we going to get it? It was an engineering achievement, it was not an architectural achievement. Architecturally impressive, yes, but there are far more ground breaking architectural achievements out there. But somehow it is an architect that gets the only mention.
Is our problem that we are constantly in the shadow of architects? The only parallel I have been able to find is that of nurses to doctors even though I am not happy with the comparison.
I am a strong believer that we only have our peers to blame and that only ourselves to pull us out of this. I disagree with those who say that we just need to educate the public and all will be alright. If you could get a lawyer for $20 and hour would you offer to pay them more because they deserved it? Of course not!
I also strongly disagree with those who say that the knowledge of our profession is not as unique as those of a dentist e.t.c. To those people I say that a dentist only needs to understand teeth, gums, the effects of drugs and the effects of working with the required materials, a structural engineer needs to understand steel, concrete, aluminium, glass, timber, structural analysis, corrosion, and has training in mathematics, materials, physics, chemistry.... We often underestimate the breadth of what we have learned to get to where we are.
As far as comparing our responsibility to that of a surgeon I will quote one of my university lecturers. "a surgeon can only kill one person at once, as a civil engineer you can kill thousands of people!"
I have rambled on enough, but I am interested in hearing any comments regarding fees, the state of the profession, what to do about it and anything else that people want to air about this great but underappreciated profession.
I read the website of the burj dubai under design and found the following paragraph second down on the page.
"Ultimately, the honour of designing the world's tallest tower was awarded the global leader in creating ultra-tall structures, the Chicago office of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (SOM) with Adrian Smith FAIA, RIBA, consulting design Partner. The selected design was subject to an extensive peer review program to confirm the safety and effectiveness of the structural systems."
The reason why I point this out is that the only person mentioned is an architect followed by a description of tasks that would have been carried out by structural engineers. In my brief search I found no mention of the structural engineer who was the person responsible for the design.
If we cannot get recognition for one of the greatest engineering achievements this decade then when are we going to get it? It was an engineering achievement, it was not an architectural achievement. Architecturally impressive, yes, but there are far more ground breaking architectural achievements out there. But somehow it is an architect that gets the only mention.
Is our problem that we are constantly in the shadow of architects? The only parallel I have been able to find is that of nurses to doctors even though I am not happy with the comparison.
I am a strong believer that we only have our peers to blame and that only ourselves to pull us out of this. I disagree with those who say that we just need to educate the public and all will be alright. If you could get a lawyer for $20 and hour would you offer to pay them more because they deserved it? Of course not!
I also strongly disagree with those who say that the knowledge of our profession is not as unique as those of a dentist e.t.c. To those people I say that a dentist only needs to understand teeth, gums, the effects of drugs and the effects of working with the required materials, a structural engineer needs to understand steel, concrete, aluminium, glass, timber, structural analysis, corrosion, and has training in mathematics, materials, physics, chemistry.... We often underestimate the breadth of what we have learned to get to where we are.
As far as comparing our responsibility to that of a surgeon I will quote one of my university lecturers. "a surgeon can only kill one person at once, as a civil engineer you can kill thousands of people!"
I have rambled on enough, but I am interested in hearing any comments regarding fees, the state of the profession, what to do about it and anything else that people want to air about this great but underappreciated profession.






RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
http://www.som.com/content.cfm/burj_khalifa
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
Well they mention (at the bottom of the list) that there were some unnamed engineers involved, but the only person identified as a designer is an architect, and wikipedia is in no doubt about the person responsible for the design:
"Adrian D. Smith (born August 19, 1944) is an American architect who has designed skyscrapers including the Burj Khalifa, Jin Mao Tower and Trump International Hotel and Tower."
But to be fair to Wikipedia, further search finds:
"The tower's architecture and engineering were performed by Skidmore, Owings and Merrill of Chicago, with Adrian Smith as chief architect, and Bill Baker as chief structural engineer.[10][11] The primary contractor was Samsung C&T of South Korea.[12]"
So a star to Wikipedia, and a "could do better" to SOM.
The only recent project I know of where the engineer has received due recognition is the Millau Viaduct. The engineer Michel Virlogeux even gets first mention in the Wikipedia article! I know nothing of the office politics during the design stage, but I strongly suspect that the only reason that Virlogeux gets a high profile on this job is that he demanded it, and I guess that's the message to all of us. If you are head of the engineering team on a high profile project you owe it to yourself, the team and the profession to shout about it.
Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
I wouldn't admit it then, but he was right, very few people have any idea what we do, and even fewer give a damn. People like, and are willing to pay for, things that they can SEE, particularly if it will impress their friends. Nobody cares about design - they care about a shiny new car, a big TV, granite countertops, and high end appliances. They see engineers as another PITA cog in the PITA bureaucracy, who only have work to do because busy-body officials want to make life hard on people that are actually trying to get stuff done.
Structural engineering is often very hard, as I'm sure you know. The education, licensing journey and process, and daily work of an engineer can really beat you down, and then there is all the liability. Relative to the knowledge base, skills, tools, liability, job pressures, and personal investment required, we are paid crap.
Here's a real life fer-instance. I started renting out portable dance floors (the kind you see at weddings, set up in a carpeted conference room) in December, and am making a lot more per hour than I do, or ever did, engineering. People can SEE my floors, and they ooh and aah over them, and fork over the cash. It's obscene how much better it pays, and besides some heavy lifting, it's cake. Except that is a horrible business, and nobody else should try to get into it, especially in Dallas.
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
Here's another real life fer-instance for you. In a previous life I assembled storm doors. Yes, working in a factory assembling storm doors. My last year doing that while going to school part time was 8 years ago.
As you can imagine, there was a busy time of year and a slow time of year. I worked on average 1700 hours/year (about 33 hours/week). I made 30% more in 1700 hours of assembling storm doors 8 years ago than I do now working 2500 hours as a structural engineer. I didn't have near the stress or responsibility that I do now. When I clocked out I was done for the day. I didn't need to worry about bringing work home with me or finishing up a design on the weekend.
Just to be clear, I wouldn't go back. I love what I do. I enjoy the diversity of the projects and feeling like I'm making a difference. I just hate how poorly we're compensated.
I can't tell you how much that boggles my mind every time I think about it. It's disheartening, really.
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
I did say website, not just web page. If you click on "Structural System" in the upper right corner, it goes to the page about the structure, where three engineering executives are attributed. That was the page I copied, but some websites automatically index on the front page.
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
the quote was taken from the tower owners site.
http://www.burjkhalifa.ae/
My point was that they skipped from naming the architect to talking about the structural system in the same paragraph. When the information comes across this way it is no wonder that the public are not aware that the structural engineering profession exists.
IDS,
I think more of us should demand recognition for our efforts.
soiset/Lion06,
I saw on a program for Australia that a cable telivision installer could be earning more money than I was earning there with 5 years experience. Go figure.
I could write a ten page essay on this and what my opinions are. In fact I probably have if you count up my multitude of posts on this topic. But I neither have the time nor the audience for it.
So what is the problem and what should be done about it?
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
Yes, the structural engineer is rarely acknowledged - the little bronze plate on the building only show the names of the client, architect and main contractor involved...
I guess we'll just have to start insisting on recognition from the beginning of a project. For instance, including a clause in the agreement documentation which states that whenever the project is to be mentioned in any publication whatsoever, the entire team will be given credit. As IDS put it "If you are head of the engineering team on a high profile project you owe it to yourself, the team and the profession to shout about it."
As for the remuneration - the last couple of years we had to tender for professional services. It started with 5-10% discount on the prescibed engineering fees and tariffs, but it has gotten out of hand. The companies are tendering at 50-70% discount! Now it has become a quantity over quality type profession, just to be able to show profit at the end of the day.
I must say that I am proud to be an engineer and I also like for my work to show that pride. Therefore, I still put in more time than the 'allowable' to produce quality work, and as such, profit margins are low (if any). The problem is, it is making the structural engineering profession cheap and degrading.
Since you'll always have some guys tendering at ridiculously low prices, the problem cannot be fixed by just sticking to your guns and keeping to the prescribed rates when tendering - you'll run out of business in no time. I believe that the only body that can sort this out is the country's Engineering Council/Institution and I hope something is done...soon.
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
Have you considered that maybe you have the wrong customers?
The problem is that the profesional institutions are normally stifled by competition laws. Their only tool is really that they can specify minimum standards of care for a given type of design and potentially discipline members who do not meet them. Does not help unless membership is compulsory.
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
I don't know if that's true. I don't know how many one-man shops are around willing to work at ridiculously discounted rates, but it's certainly not enough to put everyone out of business. I mean, if you turned down every job like that, eventually they're going to run out of people willing to work for that. I just don't believe that there are enough that could take on a big influx of work at 50% of what they should be charging.
It's the bidding that is the problem. Knowing that there's the possibility some guy is going to come in super low could easily affect what you quote as your fee. Maybe you think, I'll come in higher than the other guy, but can get the job based on superior credentials and experience with this client.
I'm not saying it NEVER happens, but I've never seen someone walk into the dentist and say, "You know, XYZ dentist only charges $50 for a cleaning. You want to charge me $120? Why? Can you beat AYZ's price?". They would simply reply, "Got to XYZ".
Why don't engineers do that? If a client says, "We've worked well together and I like our relationship and the service you provide, but Joe Schmoe down the street said he'll design this building for half of what you want, can you come down on the fee?" we should really be prepared to reply, "Then go to Joe Schmoe down the street" and stick to our guns.
Joe Schmoe down the street can only take on so many projects at once. I recognize that there is more than one Joe around, but there's not enough to take over all of the projects that are out there.
I'll disclose that I've never been on the business end of the profession, so please recognize that I'm speaking mostly philosophically. Though, truth be told, it seems to work well for the dentists and other professions.
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
I'll say this and you can take it with a grain of salt and it will likely tick you off. You are worth what someone will pay you & often you can control that.
It amazes me how those in the engineering world will sit back and be paid crap....often the same wage for years. I don't stand for it. Unless you were making a hell of a lot of money for a door assembly guy, you're being taken advantage of right now.
I worked for years building houses, many of which I was the general contractor. I made more money then as well, but the up and down of the home building world (which we have all seen in recent years) drove me away. Paying for health & business insurance was also tough. I still do projects on the side and the extra $ is great.
I also suspect that those in commercial and residential design work are jipped even more.
The other part I love is being "salary" like that is some great thing...."here is a respectable salary position. Now I can ask you to work twice the hours for the same pay".
I don't go for that either.
Don't get me wrong here...I love engineering, but I'm not doing it for cheap b/c I enjoy it.
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
I hear you. I know I'm being taken advantage of right now. My company has been good to me in other ways, especially right now - going through an extremely difficult personal situation. I don't think that's a license to underpay, but I'm expecting a pretty big raise this year. We'll see how it pans out. If it doesn't, I will be seriously looking for a new job before the end of the summer.
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
You seem like a hell of a bright guy. I often look for your replies when I post a question on here.
Believe me, I don't like giving advice, but the way I always looked at is like this...if they wont pay me fairly it can mean one of three things:
1). They are blatantly taking advantage of me.
2). They are literally ignorant to what I should be paid.
3). They can't afford to pay me more.
All three of those are very bad signs.
I worked for a company once that literally never gave me a pay increase...even after becoming licensed. After some years I asked for a raise and got it and then I resigned anyway. I figured, if they are only going to pay me fairly after being asked to do so and that is only once every five years, well It's best I go anyway.
Some people/owners think engineers are interchangeable.
Even when they find out the hard way that they are not, their pompous egos will not let them admit it.
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
I know this is not always the case, but I have seen it happen more than once.
Also, how do you get engineers to treat there profession like a profession. I have run across many engineers that don't have anything of an engineering library or even choose to keep up-to-date with codes and new developments which to me is part of the job. Every lawyer's office is always shown with a bunch of law books and such, yet I have come across engineers that just don't want to learn. I mean I have seen engineers that have been practicing engineering for several years that could not draw a free body diagram, and could care less about it.
I always strive to be a better engineer. If I don't know how to do something I try my hardest to figure out how to do it, but others will just avoid it and they are usually the ones that charge the lower fees. For example, I had a colleague that only knew how to design a typical isolated footing with a computer program. One day they asked for help to design a combined footing, and I asked them if they had checked one-way and punching shear on the footing. All I got was a deer-in-the-headlights stare from the person. How can something such as this be tolerated in the profession.
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
I agree 100% with where you are coming from. Career professionals tend to get better loans, not because their jobs are more stable but because it is normal for their salaries to increase significantly over time. So even if you are getting an inflationary increase you are really not getting what you should be. This is something that some people seem to have missed.
ash060,
Yes I see exactly where you are coming from. There is more to a profession than producing the required output.
Image counts for a lot, dress like a tradesman and you may get treated like one, dress like success and...
I have worked with more than my share of out of date and incompetent engineers, not sure how they survive but they do. I do my best to avoid these types by interviewing my potential employers as much as they do me to ensure they have adequate knowledge to spot those who dont.
When someone finally has a real level of engineering competence about them we tend to push them into full time management. Good engineers often make very poor managers so providing management as the only viable career progression means that you are bound to get a lot of incompetent managers, hence the low quotes and poor quality e.t.c.
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
I never understood why anyone cared about recognition for anything anyway. We are just as important as a doctor and plumber in that we provide a necessary service for society. Anyone that says "My services should be at least worth what this guy's services are." I think will always be unhappy. To love your work and live a comfortable life doing it is already a luxury. To expect more is just serving the ego.
www.idecharlotte.com
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
I largely agree with your philosophy, i used to get too carried away with what others earnt compared to me and that is definately the way to make yourself unhappy.
In charlotte I would not expect that the cost of living is particularly high so what you earn probably goes a lot further than in other parts of the country.
On this side of the pond, it would be hard for us to support a child if I was the only one working which is crazy for someone with a 4 year degree and 13 years experience.
you seem to have it figured out though, not sure about the no calcs thing but whatever works for you.
By the way, I like your website, and a lot of what you say is in line with what my company's philosophy is going to be (when I start it). I am hoping to shake things up a bit over here by pushing things from a different angle but I have not got my head around the best angle yet.
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
I full agree with the part about the Architects getting the credit. But that is mainly for building design. With bridge design, I have seen the structurals getting the credit. Maybe you should move to Bridge engineering?
And as for the Dentists, my father-in-law was a dentist(DDS), and we had many conversations over the years relating the similarity of the structural engineering and dentistry fields. There are many, many more than you think. A dentist basically is a form of a structural engineer, just a much smaller scale, as many of the same principles are used. Not to be fececious, but the making of a "dental bridge" involves stresses, deflections, foundation analysis, knowledge of materials, adhesives, etc., etc., etc. Similar principles are used with crowns, bite balancing, root canals, dental implants, etc. He did take Chemistry, Physics, Anatomy (body structure), materials courses, Calculus, etc., many that structural engineers take. I have always been amazed at the many similarities of the professions.
Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto: KISS
Motivation: Don't ask
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
Remember that dentists and other health care professionals still do may need to negotiate their rates - not with the clients, but with the Insurance csrriers. However, if the doctor or dentist does not take insurance, and does not need the business, he can set his own rates, separate from anyone but his competition.
Engineers do not have the insurance aspect though... yet.
Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto: KISS
Motivation: Don't ask
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
Looks like the census is one thing istructe is more progressive on than sei as they have managed to get structural engineer in as a specific category on the recent census here in the uk.
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
Only 3 out of 105 took the structures option classes in my 1972 class at Mich. Tech.
That's not to say that some of the others did not end up doing structural work with only the basic design and analysis classes in their arsenal.
gjc
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
so the result is that there are many more dentists that there are structural engineers rather than the other way around as some have implied.
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
csd72, don't do structural engineering for fame.
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
This can also be a life philosophy discussion, which simply boils down to how much money do YOU NEED to be happy? We all have bills and want to provide a nice life for our families if we have them, but how much happier does more money make you? Maybe we are chasing windmills sometimes if that is what we think of first and foremost in our profession. Maybe I could go back to school and become a lawyer and end up making double, but my soul is worth more than that....
With that said, I also believe in being paid what you are worth and seeking that out is very important. Just try not to let it be the only factor, if you enjoy your job but not the money, find ways to fix that. Maybe even do a little moonlighting. Or reduce the financial demands in your personal life. How much "stuff" do Americans need to feel satisfied? I often think for many of us this is limitless, and is chasing a dream...
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
I worked full-time in a Safeway store for 11 years at night and went-to school part time in the day to get my CE degree. When I graduated, I was making less working 60 hours a week at a small engineering firm than I did goofing around in a grocery store for 40 hours a week. That ain't right....
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
a lesson that i learnt quite a while ago. I may complain a lot but I dont let it make me unhappy.
I always say that I would rather a job that i enjoy that pays reasonable well than one I hate that pays 20% more.
But the thing is I always feel that we are being taken advantage of.
I did an emergency facade job once where the local authority had put an improvement order on the front wall of a terrace/row house that was threatening to fall in on the street. I spent quite a few hours on this making sure that the job was as reasonable as possible so I felt a little aprehensive when I gave hime the bill of about $1200. Your the cheap ones he said, everyone one else including the building surveyor are charging me much more.
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
This will surely offend some (here if not all).
A huge factor in pay/respect in the industry is personality type.
A strong "Type-A" guy won't hang around in a design engineer position. Strong/arrogant personalities are not common in design engineering in my experience and if one exists it is usually at the project management level. These guys are common (by no coincidence) at the higher levels and they naturally drive up the salaries at those levels.
Worker-bee type engineers are often afraid for the their futures and happy to have a job punching calculator keys and are often self-deprecating types.
The type A's with engineering degrees that have big salaries simply don't work in engineering.
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
I'm one of the calculator punchers. I've never thought of it quite that way before, but I think you're dead on the money.
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
It is just sad that you need to stop doing engineering in order to get paid in this industry. It is almost as if our profession has a lack of self respect.
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
My problem is that I love to layout rebar and make barlists!
But seriously - the first step to gaining back our self respect is to stop putting in extra hours for no pay.
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
Amen to that. I was really taken advantage of when I was salaried and vowed to never let that happen again.
I am hourly now - but discovered last fall that I don't get paid overtime for any non-billable hours over 40. So even when I'm writing proposals or visiting potential clients that are thinking about doing a project those hours do not count. Needless to say, I make sure that I don't do much extra on "my time" within the same week.
gjc
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
IMO not getting paid for all hrs at a minimum of straight time is illogical/ completely unfair.
Most employers like to treat you like salaried employee when it suits them and an hourly employee when it suits them. The line between the two is hard to determine sometimes.
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto: KISS
Motivation: Don't ask
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
Now we're complaining about not getting the respect/compensation from within!? Paid for overhead - really?? Hey, if you're busting your hump until 9pm skipping the family dinner to get a proposal out, sure, you deserve recognition. Hopefully if your company gets that project and you are compensated for your work. But you guys can't honestly sit here and try to justify getting paid over 40 for overhead! Its not like the partners in most firms are lining their pockets. They're not making a dime on you when you're logging overhead, but you're costing them benefits. Sub inflationary raises? BS. Billing you out at a 3+ multiplier - BS. Paying you straight time over 40 for billable work but not overhead - hey, that's pretty good and more than most firms do.
I'm the first to complain about the industry and its poor compensation status quo, on a project level and employee, but lets not get ridiculous and expect our bosses to make money appear out of thin air. It is what it is - you're in an industry with very few windfalls and a tight profit margin. Go work for an ENR top 400 GC if you want to make get paid for overhead.
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
I don't know about other firms, but I know the principals at my firm are living pretty well. Living in million dollar houses (not exaggerating) and driving Mercedes/Lexus.
Additionally, when you get a big project that has an agressive schedule you know the firm isn't getting any less for the project. If anything, they're getting more as a premium to meet the aggressive schedule. They're getting paid some set amount for a much shorter period of time. That usually means (at least it has in my case) that YOU are working longer hours. So you put in 480 hours (12 weeks work) in 9 or 10 weeks. You're the only one losing out on that deal.
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
I refuse to work saturdays because I know that every other profession there would not be there if they didnt get paid for it.
I do agree though that there has to be a bit of give and take as deadlines need to be met and workflow is not easy to keep in steady 40yrs/week lots. When it is expected every week then you are just diluting an already poor hourly rate even more.
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
When I graduated I started working for a well known firm of consulting engineers. The work was interesting, I learnt a lot and for the most part enjoyed it. However, the pay was lousy. My starting pay was low (to be expected for a graduate) but you had visibility about what your colleagues got paid.
Senior Engineers with 10-15 years experience were getting payed 10-15k more than a fresh graduate. An associate director who was happy to divulge his salary was on 21k more. From there you could see just how much you could expect to get in terms of a pay increase as you gained more experience. Not a lot.
After 6 years I changed industry. I know work as a structural engineer in Oil and Gas, typically subsea. It is chalk and cheese. The renumeration is far better. I get paid for all my overtime for instance. If, im honest the variety isn't there which means it can be less interesting but i'm not so worried about paying debts.
Im fully aware this is all down to the volume of cash available in each industry. In traditional building work I cant see that the clients are going to start to pay more money for their product. So without more money circulating I dont see how we can expect a large increase in engineers salary without a commensurate increase in cost/price somewhere else in the chain.
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
I am not happy with the general situation but there are possibilities out there.
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
Don't take offense. I applaud you for what comes across as a 'go getter' attitude and work ethic, but your comments about overhead and your willingness to work for free without being reasonably compensated for providing a valuable or necessary service to your employer seem a little naive. Of course you should be paid for time spent on such tasks as preparing proposals for new work. You do realize that the principals in most firms do less than half of the billable work that you do and get paid 3 times as much, right? I'm not saying this is wrong; if they are doing a good job managing the firm, they are worth it. Either way, they are getting paid for every minute they spend on the company's business (except for after hours smoozing with clients, but even then the fringe benefits can amount to substantial compensation). My point is that billable hours have nothing to do with whether you should get paid or not for working diligently for your employer. You are not a robot that comes to life at the flip of a switch to plug away at a calculator or click away at a computer mouse until someone switches you off and says 'you can go home now'. Firm principals and receptionaists get paid for their nonbillable time, so should you. You are no less human than they are; don't allow yourself to be treated as such.
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
gte447 - I hear you, and agree on one or two of your points. But - managers (at least the ones here) aren't getting paid over 40 for their non-billable work. I see the timecards my boss fills out and his boss fills out. They put in 55 or 60 hours a week, and no one on salary is getting overtime unless its for billable efforts, which it never is. I'm just happy to get paid straight over 40 for billable work, my last employer mandated overtime and gave zero compensation.
I have had some managers play games: push you to work overtime on a project that has run overbudget unbeknownst to you (no overtime available), by implying you'll be compensated. Work a ton of hours, get it done, only to see 40 hours compensation on the next check. That's one way to treat your employees.
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
I have seen that in the past quite often. Managers lie about dead lines, force you to work free OT on jobs that are sometimes T&M, then the "deadline" shows up and the managers are saying nothing. You ask "isn't such n' such due tomorrow?" only to hear "no, we got an extension". Then rinse and repeat. When you see this type of thing happening, you're being used. I dealt with it fresh out of school and it only took me about six months to figure it out. A little while later I resigned. Upon resigning I was offered 1.5 X's my salary at the time. I asked "where was this money when I was working 60 hrs a week?"
I got a blank stare from the owner and then he got very irritated, probably from being called out for what he was.
Don't be so naive...the owner of that firm lived in a very modest house and had a somewhat modest car, but I know for a fact he had made millions over the years. That's good by him. But, I doesn't mean I should work 20 extra hrs a week with puppet mangers lying about deadlines.
Csd- its very true from my experience....industrial work has higher margins than residential and commercial....most often because architects are not involved and if they are, it is on a very insignificant level.
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
Here is a link http
It talks about how even a 50% increase in Structural Engineering fees is a drop in the bucket of the overall cost of a project. The author is absolutely dead on the money.
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
I wasn't always this jaded, but 37 years in I have seen a lot of BS that companies spew and I no longer drink the kool-aid.
Since 2008 we have had the policy in place that if you are not on active projects we work 32 hour weeks. OK - shared sacrifice.
We charge our marketing/proposal time to a clients marketing account rather than general. My guess is so there is some metric as to how much total effort goes into total project revenue. Probably also helps in determining the billing rates.
What gets me is that because my former employer is one of our customers I have the personal relationship with some of their PM's so that it makes sense to have my name out front. But suppose my boss asks me to write the proposal(s) early in the week and then we have a deadline requiring OT hours - the other engineers on the job will get paid for their OT but I won't because of the non-billable time I spent earlier that week.
That's not fair. It may even be discriminatory.
The proposal work is not billable but it still benefits the company, unlike general.
As to the owners hours and compensation - they put in a lot of time but my guess is they take home way more than I do, both in salary and then with the year-end bonuses.
We do get the overtime, but minimal bonuses and a match on the 1st 3% in the 401K. Better than some places I have worked, but certainly not anything extra-ordinary.
gjc
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
I have to say that I somewhat agree with ToadJones with regards to deadlines. I once worked with in a contractors office doing engineering work. There were two of us there myself and an engineer (PE) who was 42 years older than I was. He couldn't care less about the job deadline. He would always say "the job will be done when it is done and not a second sooner".
I'm actually surprised that people get any compensation for overtime. A few months ago, I worked on an emergency project until midnight. The company billed the client at 10x my pay and I never saw a dime.... in fact, you could argue that I did the job for free because the job didn't come in until I was about to leave for the day.
I also agree with Lion06 with the fact that in the big picture, our fees are a drop in the bucket. Unfortunately, our one of the few things that a client remembers (at least how I see it). If you raise your fee slightly the client usually comes back and says "this isn't what you charged me on a similar project two years ago". It's not like you are a fabricator or mason who can hide behind commodity price increases. Theoretically, all we should need is a slide rule, a calculator, some paper, and a pencil to do our work.
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
What's the consensus on what this would do to our industry?
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
To stay on topic somewhat, I took about 2.5 - 3 years of only engineering classes to get a BS in 1998. I understand most programs have slimmed down to try and get it done in 4 years, which I don't know what was wrong with 5 anyway. I did 5.5 years to get another football season.
OK, compare with other professions, and this is probably not exactly accurate but I am just painting a picture with a broad brush:
Accounting- BS degree, I assume about 2 years of mainly business and accounting classes
Law- 3 years of law school, any undergrad degree
Optometry (lots in my family)- 4 years of optometry school
Pharmacy- 3 years, undergrad usually in a related science if any undegrad
Dentist- 3-4 years of dental school, depends on the program
Med Dr- 2 years of med school, 2 years of clinicals (ie on the job experience); undergrad usually in a related science, but I have heard not absolutely necessary. Then of course you have lots more interning and residency, specialties, etc., all ON THE JOB training
Back to us. We have to work a min of 4 years in most US states under most circumstances to be able to sit for the PE. My attorney friends all did this practically fresh out of law school. So my 2.5 + 4 years of experience= 6.5 years> 3 years of law school. That's the way I see it :)
I would say with a BS we have as much profession-specific classroom education as an attorney, and not far behind other professions listed above. Our on the job training is on par with a DOCTOR. So maybe I did just make a good argument for a MS degree requirement, but it is the "requirement" part I don't like. I know too many really good engineers with only BS degrees.
I really don't know if the industry will respond to this MS program with automatic higher salaries. In fact, I know they won't. Maybe it will get you a few extra bucks from your boss, but an architect or owner is not going to overnight increase our total fees by 25% because now we all have to have Master's degrees. Is their building any better for it?
And I don't have good answers, other than a slow process of demanding to be treated as professional consultants, experts in our field, not a per square foot commodity.
I always say, god forbid you tear your knee, do you go to the yellow pages and look for the cheapest doctor, or do you ask around for referrals? If you get yourself into legal trouble, is your first question to your attorney "How much?" or is it how many of these cases have you handled?
I think the "big boys" in our industry do this well, and for big projects it is much easier for them to sell themselves as experts with lots of specific experience. When someone needs a cable-stayed bridge, skyscraper, tunnel, stadium, etc. they seek out the expert, the best of the best in our field, and cost is a factor but usually not all that important since the right engineer will save them so much in construction costs it will not matter.
But for us regular joes out here doing mid to low rise, we are usually a commodity unless you can just get yourself established over time with an architect or owner as a trustworthy, performing, economically minded team member. I had some success with this in the past with contractors and architects. We gave them good service (answer those phones and RFIs), good designs, and fair fees, so they kept coming back.
BUT, even then, don't think someone can't just slide in and undercut you!
Sorry if this was a tangent.
RE: The Structural Engineering Profession (Structurals/Civils only please)
Lets look at horizontal structural engineers. I work with a number of them (although in different dept's - we really don't work together, just under the same roof). I see their RFP's all the time. It's mostly qualification based bidding. Yes, cost is a factor. But points are assessed on a number of other criteria which is meant to give credit to the team which will produce the best product and ensure the best route to get there.
While I understand this is a pipe dream in private sector vertical buildings, I wish one single qual-based RFP came across my desk. If this was the norm (never will happen) we wouldn't all be so focused on undercutting each other and would ultimately get less pressure to work at break-even fee's from Arch's and Owners.
Again - pipe dream, but it makes me want to go design bridges so I can take my time and not be under the gun every minute.