First note that this battle is specific to Illinois. Second, I can name more than a dozen jurisdictions around the world where "engineer" is protected, and this individual would have been discovered proactively.
With that level of experience, I am sure that an equitable solution involving the waiver of confirmatory examinations in lieu of experience could be arranged. And a payment of fees to the board, of course...
Seems mighty-opinionated for a technical magazine's Editor-in-Chief to be writing, mind you.
I thought this dead horse was made into hamburger meat and finally sold at market.
However in this case I can see how the disgruntled customer has a case. Because "Engineer" was in the title of the business, that there was a PE on staff (at the least), but it turned out it was not the case. Kind of what fraud is defined. In the US it is understood that if the title of the company had the word Engineering in it that there was a licensed and insured engineer on staff. If not, other legit companies’ / customers can not use them due to legal and liability reasons.
From the two last paragraphs of the article, I actually find pompous and small minded. If anybody can use the word engineering in their company title, this will be the beginning of the end of our profession (or has it started already). Before we know it we will see titles like McDonald’s Engineering (we build burgers), Smith’s Car Repair Engineering (engineering care for your car), and my favorite Janitorial Engineering (where mopping is an engineering wonder). To my understanding in England, the word engineer has not been regulated, thus being abused by other professions that have nothing to do with engineering, which brings the true Engineering profession down.
Tobalcane
"If you avoid failure, you also avoid success."
up here, north of the 49th, "engineer" is a protected job title, but "engineering" isn't; though it is a stupid title. I haven't heard that companies are limited in the use the word "engineer"; i know the company needs to be licensed to offer engineering services ... in my case my company needs a CofA to offer my services as an engineer (so the local association gets two fees !) ... sigh, it was ever thus.
Two questions here, and maybe someone licensed in Illinois can answer them:
1. When, in Illinois, did it become legally mandated that one had to be licensed to practice engineering? FYI, this happened in Washington in the late 60's, with most of the engineers I was working with at the time either taking the test, or being grandfathered in.
2. That being said, if it is really so important to him now, why did he not take the time to solve the problem simply, rather than grandstanding now? Personally, I do not know the individual or his reputation, have to question his judgment. If he had really been an "Engineer" as he states, he should have been aware of the engineering ethics laws with which we all must comply. It's not all technical competence that qualifies you for the licensing.
Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto: KISS
Motivation: Don't ask
If the IL laws are like my state (MO), then he is prevented from using variants of the word "engineer" in the name of the company and prevented from offering engineering services (such as product design) without a liscense. He would not be prevented from offering an engineered product for sale which his company designed internally, even if it was cusom engineered, as long as he didn't charge for the engineering service, and not subject to any ethics laws or such associated with the P.E. profession.
While I don't share the editor's opinion, I can sympathize somewhat with the guy in question (although he should take the "engineering" out of his company name). Most manufacturers are providing engineering to their customers in the form of product design, but are not required to have any liscense as long as they don't charge directly for the service.
I can see a lot of arguments on both sides for requiring PE's in manufacturing...
The editor is apparently unaware that almost every state in the US has, and has had for years, similar language.
This is actually a subtle attack on the engineering laws in that they take a very highly talented individual who has a splendid career and use his "poor" situation in an attempt to trash the state laws.
The other linked website even begins to imply that the rules prohibiting the use of the term engineer is only promoted by a "private group" and are not actually state law.
I'm very much in favor of engineering licensing laws.
I'm also very much in favor of industrial designers, within their own company, not needing to be licensed.
But this guy who was charged was apparently promoting himself to the public as an engineer, selling consulting services, and that was simply against the law.
Based upon what I read about this, the client believed he was hiring a professional engineer based upon the advertisement in the Yellow Pages (Engineers - Professional) and was charging $125/hr for engineering design.
He hired the engineer to do some design work. Unfortunately, the design did not work as planned. The client eventually sued the engineer for Fraud and later the State of Illinois investigated when they heard about the lawsuit.
I think I read somewhere that the engineer was not carrying any insurance.
If liscensing is all about protecting the public, then why is it okay to sell an engineered widget but not the engineering for a widget without a PE?
I reckon they have to draw the line somewhere, and defining, requiring, and enforcing liscensed engineering in manufacturing would be a nightmare for all concerned. 100 HP mooring winches and red rubber balls both require engineering to manufacture, but the safety and complexity spectrum in between is vast.
But some concrete examples from recent news: Toyota no-stop'em cars and lead painted toys from China. From the very complex and inherently dangerous to the very simple and seemingly harmless. Would these problems have been less likely to occur if there were mandated PE's in the loop?
MikeMech - not sure but maybe you know - I suspect that widgets tend to be tested by the company that sells them to ensure control of risk/liability. Also in the states there is UL testing/approvals.
No offense to the OP, as the article is interesting, but this subject has been beaten to death on these fora. It has almost reached the level of politics and religion.
"Good to know you got shoes to wear when you find the floor." - [small]Robert Hunter[/small]
"I thought this dead horse was made into hamburger meat and finally sold at market."
I ate that hamburger meat....it was OK on the way down, but it took a while to settle.
You know, it amazes me that all those planes fly relatively safely, ships sail, cars drive... when there is no legal requirement for a PE to sign off on their design.
The day when you tell somebody that you’re an engineer and then they associate you with Janitorial Service Engineering, you will have the same sentiments as we do.
Tobalcane
"If you avoid failure, you also avoid success."
![[deadhorse]](/data/assets/smilies/deadhorse.gif "[deadhorse] [deadhorse]")
![[pipe]](/data/assets/smilies/pipe.gif "[pipe] [pipe]")
![[peace]](/data/assets/smilies/peace.gif "[peace] [peace]")
