Hacker News Reader

Comment by xigency | Hacker News Reader

I'm interested in this because I know PE exams exist and there are licensing bodies for engineers. But what I've heard from most people is that they are a waste of time and money for someone holding an engineering degree unless you are the person who rubber stamps things at the end.

Does someone who knows more about professional engineering know if this law in Oregon is uncommon?

Beyond a free speech argument, it seems like the law is a bit flawed considering other related fields like science, math, and software may not have licensing.

Also, it goes as far as saying someone can't put "engineer" on their resume with solely a degree. Seems very far off the norm.

View on HN

Every time wrongdoing by an 'engineer' comes up on HN, there's a chorus of voices excusing it.

IMO, the primary difference between the licensed engineer and the unlicensed engineer is responsibility. The person who signs off on the safety of a project does not get to pass the buck. They have to be willing to say 'no' to their client or their employer, even if it comes at a personal financial cost.

The rewards for taking on that additional responsibility are fairly minor. You have a little more job security than those without it and you might enjoy a small pay bump. I guess in Oregon you also used to get a somewhat exclusive job title.

You're right that if you have the license but don't have the responsibility, it's a little pointless.

> Does someone who knows more about professional engineering know if this law in Oregon is uncommon?

Most every state in the USA has some sort of Professional Engineering law.

But I think there are only one or two states in the US where generic Engineer is a protected title (as opposed to e.g. "Civil Engineer"). So in most of the USA, you can call yourself a "Sales Engineer" and not worry about anyone coming after you.

But it's definitely a much more wide-spread practice in other parts of the world. And even applies to software.

E.g., Microsoft was sued in Canada for referring to holders of one of their technician certifications ("Microsoft Certified (TM)(R)") as engineers.

I am a licensed engineer in Montana and can say that we have a similar law as Oregon. The law is essentially states that one cannot claim to be or practice engineering without proper licensing. One question that often comes up is, "how can a college grad work as an engineer without calling themselves an engineer?" This is accomplished by registering as an Engineering Intern (EI). Until I got my PE, my title was Engineering Technician.

It is the same thing in Canada. "Engineer" is a protected term so that people can trust that when someone calls themselves an engineer, or does "engineering work", offering services to the public, they can trust that means something.

One difference is that the profession is 'Self Regulating', meaning Professional Engineers Ontario is a non-governmental body made up of Professional Engineers that is trusted by the government to manage the profession. The Quebec version of this organization, Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec, was put under "trusteeship of the provincial government" when the government lost that trust after some infrastructure accidents [0].

The question of what constitutes "engineering work" is well defined in the Professional Engineers Act (Ontario) and would probably cover a lot of what you mentioned as 'science, math, software' not having licensing. So according to Professional Engineers Ontario, some of the types of work that those types of people could produce could require the sign-off of a Professional Engineer if it falls under the definition of "engineering work" by the PEO:

[1] Under the Professional Engineers Act, the “practice of professional engineering” means “any act of planning, designing, composing, evaluating, advising, reporting, directing or supervising that requires the application of engineering principles and concerns the safeguarding of life, health, property, economic interests, the public welfare or the environment, or the managing of any such act”.

To determine whether you are practising professional engineering, ask yourself three questions:

Are you planning, designing, composing, evaluating, advising, reporting, directing or supervising, or managing any of these acts? Are engineering principles required to carry out the act? Does the act concern the safeguarding of life, health, property, economic interests, the public welfare or the environment?

As a licensed engineer in Ontario, I'm to display my licence at my place of work. I also keep another image close by to make sure we all remember not to take ourselves too seriously.

https://imgur.com/Rd3XFyy

[0] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-engineers-regu... [1] http://www.peo.on.ca/index.php?ci_id=1848&la_id=1

The problem I see with that law, and I believe it is possibly the same issue in the U.S. with many state laws is that, as well defined as it is, if I mix and match the terms from the definition then someone with an economics degree from an engineering school needs a professional license to do their own taxes...

"The practice of professional engineering means... any act of evaluating that requires application of engineering principles... and concerns economic interests."

It's not quite a bullet-proof concept. I doubt the U.S. Supreme Court is going to take this issue on at the time. But if I had a background in engineering and law and considered these laws in context, they seem a bit stupid. Most B.S. engineering graduates aren't professionally licensed but obviously are qualified to work and designate themselves as some type of engineer, at least on LinkedIn.

In any case, it seems the term to be protected is "Professional Engineer" or "Licensed Engineer" and not the generic title itself, and the scope should be limited by specifying what jobs require that license instead of a blanket statement. For example, "all bridges on public roads require work to be certified by a professional licensed engineer."

Edit:

In the earlier discussion, there was some debate about whether measuring the hypotenuse of a triangle is legal in public in Oregon.

ugh windows 7. real engineers use templeOS

> any act of planning, designing, composing, evaluating, advising, reporting, directing or supervising that requires the application of engineering principles and concerns the safeguarding of life, health, property, economic interests, the public welfare or the environment, or the managing of any such act

In plain language, doesn't this pretty much cover everything? A CFO, or even just an accountant or bookkeeper is probably using things (accounting software) that "requires the application of engineering principles" and "concerns the safeguarding of ... property, economic interests".

I guess it's all moot until a lawyer argues, and a court accepts, reasoning along these lines.

It seems reasonable to me, in so far as projects for building structures (private and public), roads, bridges, dams, etc. are public safety issues. They should have plans which have been approved by someone who has been certified as having a professional level of competence.

These are very popular laws in the US with every state having some level of certification requirement for certain professions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_and_licensure_in_en...

Including FFS Estate Agents (Relators)

> Including FFS Estate Agents (Relators)

Yes, because before regulation buying and selling real estate was rife with scams, ripoffs, blatantly false advertising, and misapropriation.

These regulations don't come out of nowhere. I know that there is some residual teenage rebellion against rules, and there is without a doubt some downside and friction associated with imperfect regulation and enforcement. The alternative, though, is not better than the present.

We really do not want to live in the completely unregulated society that many tech-lad libertarians think would be Nirvana. It would be, instead, the hell we got rid of.

we don't have those problems in the UK where Estate Agents are not regulated and fixed fees ala purple bricks are getting popular

That's an interesting observation. I do wonder if there isn't some congruent regulatory mechanism keeping things in line.

Out of curiosity, what would a typical set of transaction fees be for buying and selling a property? In my area (US/TX) it is nominally a 3% fee to the agent plus no more than 2% of the transaction for all other costs including financing, title insurance, etc.

Between 1.3 and 1.8 % plus VAT at 20% plus £400/500 for a survey. Other costs vary by what mortgage you get but I add 1 to 2K.

Plus stamp duty You can claim a discount (relief) so you don’t pay any tax up to £300,000 and 5% on the portion from £300,001 to £500,000.

seems high but property taxes are tiny when compared to the USA

Reply on news.ycombinator.com