Hacker News Reader

Comment by slavik81 | Hacker News Reader

The engineering association didn't really fine him for the campaign itself. They were upset that he claimed to be an engineer when making his arguments, despite not being licensed in that state. Even then, they gave him repeated warnings before issuing the fine.

In the end, the courts ruled in his favour. As a matter of freedom of expression, anyone can now claim to be an engineer in the state of Oregon.

View on HN

My problem with that has always been ...

If they were actually going out and enforcing that law generally, then it would have been reasonable. Maybe it would be a stupid law, but they'd be even-handed about it.

But, there's like, a ton of people you can find in five minutes on LinkedIn who are using "engineer" in the same way. They could have easily cracked down on that.

Instead, they leave the law mostly unenforced, and then throw the book at you the moment you make the government look bad with a well-documented study of traffic lights. What a crock. That's a blatant abuse of power.

In the context of what was basically "I have been educated as an engineer, which is why you should be giving me more credence than a random person", I feel the use of the word is perfectly fine.

The Professional Engineer title in much of the United States is an additional level of credentialing and is more rigorous than just completing an undergraduate degree in an engineering field (though I guess some areas let you qualify with years of regular demonstrable experience).

The Engineer license came up particularly to address quality control in civil engineering works [1]. So it's actually important to protect that, lest a bunch of folks start deciding they're qualified to give opinions on complicated structures or earthworks.

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

Yes but the man didn't claim to be a registered PE, qualified and entitled to practice in Oregon, he simply said that he has an engineering degree and is employed as an engineer. There are many many people who are engineers but who are not registered Professional Engineers.

Your description of his description is easily confused with him saying he’s an Engineer.

That’s a licensed position when you’re providing services to the public.

I think we’re desensitized by the software industry’s tendency to use the term for developers and technicians. “Software engineer” is not the same thing as an Engineer in the civil or electrical trade, for example.

No, it's not confusing at all. The guy never offered engineering services to the public.

This isn't anywhere near the same thing as "Software Engineer"

We're discussing this because he went and spoke at a public forum, and gave his expertise as foundation for why his speech should be influential. That can indeed be confused, and his obtuseness with not modifying his statements after multiple requests by the licensing organization would indicate that he meant this to stand.

The public are not experts on all things. Someone ignorant to the stages of licensing are likely to hear "I studied engineering and work as an engineer" and think, "I can trust this person with topics related to engineering." This used to happen, to undesirable effect, which is why calling yourself "an engineer" especially in civil engineering fields requires a license.

In the real world, professional engineers are bonded and are liable for errors like lawyers.

Are there jobs, other than being a judge or politician, where you are not liable for errors?

Software engineer

Software engineers, like everybody else, are absolutely liable for errors. However, their work is invariably licensed using a contract that disclaims liability.

Regulated professionals, by contrast, are often limited by law from disclaiming liability or otherwise shielding themselves from liability (e.g. by using a corporation). This is especially true for highly regarded professions like lawyers and doctors. Professionals and licensed workers more generally are also usually required to be bonded or carry insurance so that they're not judgment proof.[1]

[1] The reason you would rarely see a software engineer employee (or any employee) sued for negligence is that it would be a waste of money--they wouldn't be able to to pay a judgment. You sue the employer not because the employee isn't liable, but because 1) it's easier to prove a case against an employer and 2) the employer is the only one able to afford a judgment. For example, if a UPS truck driver runs you over, you always sue UPS. You may or not may not sue the truck driver, but unless the truck driver is secretly rich it's UPS you're expecting to pay out.

To cue up the old saw: Weathermen.

"You can be wrong half the time and still have a job" har har har

Are there many examples in the real world of this actually happening?

Countless.

Here's [1] an example of the Board pursuing a company and their Professional Enigneers for an org structure that facilitated signing off of engineering work without satisfying the 'direct supervision' clause of the act. Specifically, the guy signing it off was based about 1500 km away from the team doing the work, and the head of the team doing the work, who was in reality supervising it, was not qualified to do so as a Professional Engineer.

As a second example, the coroner's investigation into the Dreamworld fatalities from a few years ago came out just last week [2,3]. In it the coroner recommended that the Board of Professional Engineers investigate the engineering firm that signed off the certification for the ride, over potential gross failures of practicing with due diligence. This may result in the approving Professional Engineer having their license to practice revoked.

[1]: https://www.queenslandjudgments.com.au/case/id/76335

[2]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-24/dreamworld-accident-i...

[3]: https://www.smh.com.au/national/queensland/dreamworld-inques...

The discipline notices for these sorts of organizations are always public. You can browse through the cases on their website [1]. Most of the enforcement actions against licensed professional engineers in Oregon seem to be for failing to complete their required professional development hours (e.g. [2]), though I did find an interesting case of a P.Eng. who was sanctioned for revealing client data [3].

[1]: https://www.oregon.gov/osbeels/rulesstatutes/Pages/Disciplin... [2] https://www.oregon.gov/osbeels/Documents/FinalOrders/2019111... [3] https://www.oregon.gov/osbeels/Documents/FinalOrders/2019071...

Yeah, looking at the lists of violations makes it pretty clear that the system is obsolete. These are the same people that claimed they could fine every single engineer working at Intel for not technically being certified.

I'm sure that if they actually started going after people, everyone's job title would magically shift to "Technology Developer" or something similar.

Close to home... yes, the FIU bridge engineers could have been charged with manslaughter (https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article23659748...)

I'm pretty sure anyone that works on something that kills people "could" be charged manslaughter. The entire PE system seems antiquated and obsolute.

Yes but that has nothing to do with the State Board of Engineering Examiners or whatever Florida's equivalent is.

Appeal to authority is generally not a healthy line of arguing. Only the argument itself should be considered.

A valid choice if you have the time to make yourself enough of an expert on any argument that gets presented to correctly understand and judge its contents. Most people do not have that time or even the patience to waste it when we have various ways to identify people that should know what they are talking about.

If you do not use the validity of the argument itself, then you will keep ending up in this very same situation.

Remember, the original system was caused by "experts" in the area, whose authority far exceeded the person claiming the system incorrect.

Using authority as a measure would have lead to continued failure. It is always an error to use authority as proof.

Is that mentioned somewhere? As far as I am aware red light cameras are often abused as money makers and cities have been known to reduce wait times in order to maximize profit over the safety of drivers. So the "experts" in question most likely wouldn't have been engineers, they would have been bean counters.

Hah, the real world version of an internet argument I see time to time wherein people with engineering certifications are put off by software developers calling themselves engineers.

In some jurisdictions (like Canada), the title "engineer" is a legally-protected term. Someone like me who has 3 engineering degrees -- but have not taken any licensing exams -- cannot officially use the title "engineer" on a business card without being liable to a fine.

I can sort of see the intention behind laws like this, but I also think it's a bit of gatekeeping. The original intention was to prevent someone who isn't licensed from providing professional opinions and from signing plans without also being accountable/responsible for the outcomes.

This is all well and good, except there are many engineering disciplines (outside of civil, mechanical, electrical... and even within them) where signing plans and providing professional-grade opinions are not the norm. My father was a practicing engineer for 30 years and has never had to sign a single plan, and so has never taken a licensing exam.

A licensed engineer typically has an additional P.Eng. or P.E. title (Professional Engineer), and I agree that that title should be regulated like all other licensing titles. But the word "engineer" is so generic that it doesn't really make sense to try to legally protect it.

Are you sure you can't use the title "engineer"? I thought it was only the very specific term Professional Engineer that is legally protected, and what someone looking to hire a licensed engineer would be on the look out for.

Edit: According to wikipedia, there are plenty of titles in Canada like locomotive engineer used by a train operator even though the position is unrelated to the Professional Engineer license [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_and_licensure_in_en...

Pretty sure, unless the law has changed from when I took the required professional practice courses in engineering school. (I went to schools in Quebec and Ontario)

That part you cited in wikipedia has no citations and may not be legally correct. This is something that is codified in Ontario law [1] (not sure about other provinces, but I believe it is harmonized federally -- in Quebec the title ingenieur/engineer is protected.). This law has been tested several times (example in [2]). More info here [3]. Even Microsoft had to give up the use of the term "engineer" in Canada after being hit with lawsuits [4].

[1] https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p28#BK43

[2] https://www.peo.on.ca/engineering-licensing-body-clarifies-u...

[3] https://engineerscanada.ca/frequently-asked-questions

[4] https://www.canadianconsultingengineer.com/engineering/micro...

That doesn't explain how locomotive engineers are allowed to keep engineer in their title? Given 1 literally states ` uses the title “engineer” or an abbreviation of that title in a manner that will lead to the belief that the person may engage in the practice of professional engineering;` it all seems like bullying from the org trying to lay claim to Engineer so they can collect more dues when "Professional Engineer" vs "Engineer" is enough of a distinction.

also 4 is directly relating to training certs for a "systems engineer" not job titles which does make some sense, microsoft still seems to use the title "software engineer" in canada for jobs

(1-3 are not what i would consider unbiased sources)

I don't know enough about the legal nuances to discuss or to challenge the PEO, but these are the facts as I know them.

To be fair to Mats, I think he was a fully qualified engineer in Sweden. He was quite unreasonable in insisting on calling himself such in Oregon, but I suppose reasonable men don't change the world.

I also find it intriguing that all of the Professional Engineers in Oregon, including ones involved in setting up the timing on the aforementioned yellow lights, failed (or chose not to) solve a basic kinematics problem like Mats did. Why did it take someone who was not a PE to fix this issue?

I didn't realize that one's knowledge and skill is a function of location.

Different locations have different engineering codes. This is in part why US states do not recognize each other's PE assignations.

I can understand why he couldn't be hired as a licensed engineer because of that, but that doesn't make him not an engineer. He wasn't arguing over something that relies on local standards anyway. A second is a second regardless where you are.

FWIW, there are different types of seconds. Eg, Universal time seconds based on the Earth's rotation, and atomic clock seconds based on consensus. And leap smear seconds are variable length seconds to help merge one into the other. https://developers.google.com/time/smear

Reply on news.ycombinator.com