×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
• Talk With Other Members
• Be Notified Of Responses
• Keyword Search
Favorite Forums
• Automated Signatures
• Best Of All, It's Free!

*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.

# Arizona at it Again2

## Arizona at it Again

(OP)
This worries me. Using the logic of the legislature, (hire at your own risk, you can sue them afterwards...) they could eliminate any licensing for any profession. How soon before they come for engineers? I suspect the Koch's (ALEC) are at at it again. And if it flies in Arizona, expect the exact same stunts to be rolled out across the nation.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politi...

### RE: Arizona at it Again

Of course, those of us in exempt industry might have a different take.

"They would have to have a certificate of qualification from a national bureau of registration or certification or a degree from an accredited institution in the field."

However, I get the point about it possibly being start of a slippery slope.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

### RE: Arizona at it Again

I could make a very snyde comment here, but I will restrain myself...

Restrain...

Restrain...

Snap!

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

### RE: Arizona at it Again

Not about you Kenat - about the article and the results of such a fiasco.

The suggestion is ludicrous and irresponsible in my opinion, to put it mildly. And that was not my snyde comment.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

### RE: Arizona at it Again

The food packaging one is interesting, like engineers and unlike surgeons, they can kill by the tens or hundreds. And note to idiot pollie, you can't sue when your dead, or leave a negative review on Yelp.

Cheers

Greg Locock

New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

### RE: Arizona at it Again

I've already sent a letter to our esteemed Governor to veto this bill if it makes it to his desk. I need to research who my local representatives are (I recently moved jurisdictions) to write them and get this bill canned before it's too late.

--Scott
www.wertel.pro

### RE: Arizona at it Again

(OP)
Scott, thanks for your help. Every letter and call helps. By the way, the bill is the governor's idea.

### RE: Arizona at it Again

Sometimes the stupidity of the legislature knows no bounds. Once upon a time, there was no license needed for these professions. They came into being after people who indicated that they had the professional understanding of the job caused some type of harm (either physically or financially). In order to prevent these problems in the future, licensing was founded to assure everyone that the person having the license had knowledge at a certain level and a way for the State to have some method of dealing with people who were not competent but claimed the experience. It does not mean that the person with a license is infallible (although there are some P.E.'s I've dealt with who thought this way) or able to perform the work being requested (e.g., a Mechanical P.E being asked to design the foundation for a skyscraper).

Here's a few reasons why you wouldn't want the following professions unlicensed:

#### CODE -->

Professions               Problems if not qualified
landscape architects      improper water drainage, retention wall failure
food-packing contractors  as stated in article - tracking foodborne diseases - E. Coli & Lysteria
geologists                aquifer contamination, improper soil sample collection, improper groundwater sampling
driving school teachers   poor drivers, kids not getting their drivers license, accidents
yoga instructors          personal injury
assayers                  improper soil/ore classification (was probably VERY important 100 years ago) 

In a way, licensure is a barrier for entry. It's a barrier that is there to protect everyone to assure that the person with the license is aware of the job and the rules. A good example is a driver's license (vehicle operator's license). Just because someone thinks they can drive, legally they cannot drive a car without a license. They may be the best driver on the road, but they have not proven to the State that they are a competent driver and know the rules. I don't think anyone would think it's a good idea to get rid of driver's licenses.

### RE: Arizona at it Again

In my free-time, I like to investigate actual changes in the legislature for myself rather than rely on articles that are opinions. While reading the bills can be tedious, I find myself educated and sometimes highly interested.

I found the part that they are changing in this instance of a land surveyor interesting. Engineers still have to be of good moral character and repute, but land surveyors don't. Shouldn't all licensed professionals be required to be moral? I know it's subjective with no real way to measure that other than perhaps criminal record, but still what's wrong with leaving it there? I'd love to hear opinions on this!

### RE: Arizona at it Again

I'm all for removing unnecessary/irrelevant/unquantifiable items from such lists... some things should be obvious / a given. It should not be required to say "Person X must be moral." If person X does not have morals, that will become evident at some point. Making such a vague item a requirement diminishes the purpose of the overall set of requirements.

Dan - Owner
http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

### RE: Arizona at it Again

g and i, I bet it has to do with the question of how does one define "good moral character and repute". There are some who would say that if I choose to dye my hair blue, or join a roller derby team, then that would disqualify me. There are others who would push to disqualify everyone who isn't their brand of religion. Leaving such vague requirements is just like you said - very difficult to quantify and therefore open to abuse. My state board has "Rules of Professional Conduct" that apply to both engineers and surveyors, which greatly simplifies things. I'd be interested to see if that state then added something similar after deleting the statement.

Please remember: we're not all guys!

### RE: Arizona at it Again

SLTA,

If the unquantifiable portion of that is true, I find that it is not reworded to something like a requirement of being convicted of 0 felonies and/or a certain number of misdemeanors. I also find it interesting that if it is uncertainty in quantifying it, why isn't it being removed from all other licensed professions? Engineers still have it and it isn't anymore quantifiable based on Engineering as your profession.

I'm not saying right or wrong, I just find certain decisions to be interesting and try to understand the logic in making them. Certainly politics isn't always logical, but you would think if there was a driving principle, it would be consistent among all such rules. When it's not consistent, I try to ask who stands to benefit?

### RE: Arizona at it Again

The whole point of the vague requirement is not unlike the FBI applying the All Writs Act of 1789 to demand that Apple break the encryption on a device that couldn't have even been imagined in 1789. It allows the board to censure people for things they haven't necessarily considered before. For example, 100 yrs ago, being a racist or a misogynist would not have disqualified someone for moral grounds, but it probably is today, so rather than tacking on and itemizing each individual and potential moral break, there's a catch-all requirement that can be applied, regardless of anything else.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

### RE: Arizona at it Again

(OP)
It's a CYA for the state. Whenever I have to write a recommendation for someone to get a license, there's a box to check "Does the applicant exhibit good moral character?", yes or no. That way, if a total pud gets through, the state can claim to have asked.
If they don't ask, and there's a newspaper story that Bernie Madoff got a PE in Kentucky, it will make the agency look pretty stupid.

### RE: Arizona at it Again

How about the only requirement being that the company or person has the necessary insurance from a state approved company.

This would require the insurance companies to evaluate who they insure, and the risk they may hold.

### RE: Arizona at it Again

JedClampett,

Let's come that this from the opposite direction. I understand you need a license to be a hairdresser. Really? I believe strippers are licensed too.

You can regulate quality by requiring trained, peer reviewed professionals. Alternately, you can inspect work in process. This is a good idea when you handle food for example, where workers are not well paid or empowered. In the case of food, you should be more concerned about supervision and company culture than about workers who will be fired in an instant if they piss off management.

--
JHG

### RE: Arizona at it Again

The pitfall with that is that pool will eventually shrink to nothing, and premiums will go through the roof, because even though they're insuring only "good drivers," but that doesn't prevent these people from getting into accidents with the "bad" drivers.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

### RE: Arizona at it Again

A hairdresser can often work with some nasty chemicals... ever seen a chemical burn from a poorly managed bleaching? Permanent loss of hair, permanent scarring, etc.

Dan - Owner
http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

### RE: Arizona at it Again

I would imagine hairdressers can and do get sued if they screw up badly (beyond the chemical burns thing, though that too). I imagine licensing for hairdressers is probably pushed more by insurance companies than anything. I believe this is more or less what cranky108 was saying.

Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH)
American Concrete Industries
www.americanconcrete.com

### RE: Arizona at it Again

I would be more likely to believe hairdressers don't have insurance. The salon more likely has insurance.

Sort of like me. I don't have insurance, but my employer does.
(I don't want to be the deep pocket, or make myself a lawyer target).

For car insurance, people who are bad drivers either don't have insurance, or have high risk insurance (at a greater cost).

But like contractors, one should ask about being insured, before you hire them.

### RE: Arizona at it Again

" people who are bad drivers either don't have insurance, or have high risk insurance" - only if they've 'been caught' i.e. made claims/had claims made against them/got tickets etc - bad drivers who cause accidents but aren't in them or flee the scene & then don't make a claim... won't face the insurance issues.

Kind of like a background check only works on sloppy criminals not the 'good' ones.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

### RE: Arizona at it Again

"I don't want to be the deep pocket, or make myself a lawyer target"

If you are in a position that could potentially expose yourself to litigation, just because you have no insurance doesn't mean that you won't get sued. Someone who files a suit is likely to name anyone they can whether they have insurance or not. In fact, it's unlikely that they even know whether you have insurance or not. Doctors, while they do have insurance, can still lose their homes, etc.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

### RE: Arizona at it Again

#### Quote (cranky108)

...
For car insurance, people who are bad drivers either don't have insurance, or have high risk insurance (at a greater cost).
...

I am sure GregLocock's model involves mandatory car insurance, which we already have in many places. Law courts do have the authority to withdraw driver's licenses, regardless of what the insurance companies think. If you drive away from the accident undetected, the courts are no more effective than the insurance companies.

--
JHG

### RE: Arizona at it Again

(OP)
I think hairdressers and barbers should be licensed. Before someone messes around with my head, I'd like the security of knowing they met a minimum criteria, went to school, filled out a form, took a test and actually passed all those steps. It can't be all that onerous. Go to your local Great Clips and look around.
And the same times a hundred for engineers. Sure as shooting, if they allowed fly by night engineers, fly by night insurance companies would follow. And what good does an insurance policy do for a flood control project only tested every 50 years? Are you going to have a seance with a long dead engineer to find out his insurance carrier, who by the way, is also gone? The point is to avoid problems, not litigate them.
We engineers are designing buildings, circuits, pumps, etc. that will (hopefully) far outlast us. Don't the users of those designs deserve the comfort of knowing a minimally competent individual designed them?

### RE: Arizona at it Again

#### Quote (JedClampett)

We engineers are designing buildings, circuits, pumps, etc. that will (hopefully) far outlast us.
Pfft. The typical cellphone lasts a few years before being declared dead.

Dan - Owner
http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

### RE: Arizona at it Again

First Hairdressers, then flower arrangers and what next car oil changers?

Do we also have tests for store clerks, and car salesmans? Where does it end? And that is the concern.

We currently have the same debate with Uber.

As far as what I do at work, the public has no idea if I designed it, or if one of my coworkers designed it. The company is the one who stands behind it. And it is the company that assigns someone to do dam inspections, and oil spill mitigation, etc. The fact is many of the simple tasks are done by non-engineers, and they call us when they need help.

So what is the name of the engineer that designed the defective batteries? Or do you just sue the company he works for?

### RE: Arizona at it Again

If a store cashier fails to do his job, the worst that might happen is I don't get exact change or my pot roast was left out of the bag.

Dan - Owner
http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

### RE: Arizona at it Again

#### Quote (JedClampett)

I think hairdressers and barbers should be licensed. Before someone messes around with my head, I'd like the security of knowing they met a minimum criteria, went to school, filled out a form, took a test and actually passed all those steps. It can't be all that onerous. Go to your local Great Clips and look around.
...

Licensing is how governments manage limited resources, and/or ensure some minimum level of competence. At some point, it has to be done.

Quite a few years ago, I took my car into one of those Jiffy Lube places for an oil change. They asked me if I would like them to put some of their fuel injector cleaner into my gas tank.

What I should have done at this point was ask if they were licensed mechanics. What I did was say "Okay, yes." There were clouds of evil smelling smoke coming out of my exhaust for the next hour or so. Eventually, my engine light came on and I wound up taking it into the dealer for service. I don't think the problem here was licensing. The problem was me not recognizing that they were not qualified to touch my fuel injection. Now I know.

--
JHG

### RE: Arizona at it Again

I was surprised at the method which Warren Petersen (R-Gilbert) suggested for safety, "unhappy customers could write bad reviews... on Yelp". So, instead of a licensed landscape architect who ran calculations of the strength of a retaining wall, the state saved money by just hiring a guy with a bulldozer to just go put dirt there until "it looks right". The injured people in the neighborhood behind the retaining wall could now just write bad reviews on yelp, so other customers won't use the services of that retaining wall.
OK.

Darrell Hambley P.E.
SENTEK Engineering, LLC

### RE: Arizona at it Again

#### Quote (DHambley)

so other customers won't use the services of that retaining wall.

Ahahahahah, this is the perfect response and hilariously phrased. You should write political speeches for the opposition.

Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH)
American Concrete Industries
www.americanconcrete.com

### RE: Arizona at it Again

(OP)
The legislature for the Great State of Arizona has never been known for their deep thinkers. :)

#### 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.

Close Box

# Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

• Talk To Other Members
• Notification Of Responses To Questions
• Favorite Forums One Click Access
• Keyword Search Of All Posts, And More...

Register now while it's still free!