edit: the term "software engineer" indeed is not exempt but an attempt to exempt it is part of Alberta legislation that has been tabled
Software and computer engineering have been designated as disciplines of professional engineering since 1999 and 1998, respectively, and are currently listed as disciplines of professional engineering under the Regulation.
Non-registrants are prohibited from using titles like “Software Engineer” or other high-technology-related engineering titles such as “Firmware Engineer”, “Hardware Engineer”, “Data Engineer” because they imply that the individual using them is a registrant and that they are authorized to practice the professions of software or computer engineering in BC.
We do, however, recognize that not all software development constitutes software engineering. In some cases, individuals mistakenly use a title like “Software Engineer” when they are not actually engaged in any engineering work. Individuals may have roles more appropriately characterized as a “developer”, “designer”, or “programmer". For more information on software engineering and for help determining whether work constitutes software engineering requiring registration with Engineers and Geoscientists BC, please see our software engineering applicant webpage.
Edit: added missing word
The entire Canadian regulatory system is crazy anachronistic with a bunch of legacy colonial and British cruft. It's like the worst parts of American federalism were mixed with the worst parts of British centralization.
https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p3VD.pl?Function=getVD&TVD=...
That's pretty fortunate for employed people (IE, you have a tangible and well-defined path to a specific salary number) but sucks for employers, lol.
Not so great for the people, too... harder to get a job instead of just letting the new standard engineer go to the highest bidder. They might as well make it very hard to fire him to fix that problem, and then they'd could go full circle and be in France: it's so hard for employers to fire you that they never want to take a chance on you in the first place, and then they want to pay you less because you might turn out to be a bad hire. At least you get endless vacations :)
Or, just make it easy to hire and fire.. better for everyone.
Would you put your money in a bank account if you knew that withdrawing it later was an uncertain, long, expensive process?
Of course not.
The same logic applies to hiring. It's a huge deal to hire someone if you know there's a lot of red tape and expense around lettig them go if you have to.
Easy go, easy come.
I'm not familiar with the situation in France but if it's as you say, you're just using the fallacy of the excluded middle to reject out of hand the possibility of a fair compromise.
The externalities are the killer here; companies slow down their hiring by default, economic velocity decreases, and escape velocity becomes unattainable.
> Your argument could equally be applied to a university degree, or to prior experience - both mean you expect higher pay and so by your logic companies are less likely to even interview you
That higher pay is not a given because it's not mandated. You might expect higher pay but then be sadly disappointed when you find out that the market doesn't value your additional experience or university degree the way that you do, even though you owe $100k for the piece of paper. (Of course, the opposite can also be true and hopefully often is, but the point is that the market decides based on what's most efficient for the company and will help them generate more money fastest.)
Free markets are essentially self-optimizing.
I'm not sure what your economy and job market are like in Australia right now, maybe this is a misguided assumption.
Also, in America, there's almost no ways to guarantee you a specific income, since minimum wages for salaries outside of government positions don't exist.
Usually the only people are the ones signing off on safety critical software or in defence.
Even in nuts and bolts engineering its only really required for flight safety/ vehicle safety, and most commonly structural engineering. Usually civil engineers take a masters in structural engineering and there the chartership and rubber stamping on stuff is much more important.
You can be a regular electrical or mechanical engineer and never need to be chartered for your entire career if you don't go near safety critical stuff.
However, in general, there aren't restrictions on calling yourself an engineer and all sorts of basically technician roles use the term liberally.
The line is testifying in open court or advertising or performing engineering as a service where the state engineering boards might get involved.
Is it "tabled" as in "stick in a drawer and forget about it", or "tabled" as in "next on the agenda"?
Generally, articles about Canada, the United Kingdom, and other Commonwealth countries use the 1b definition, whereas articles about the United States typically use the 1a definition. I can't recall any article about Canadian news in particular, which uses the 1a definition for "tabled."
"[W]hen the British brigadier reported the position to his American superior in the United Nations joint command, he did so with classic and — as it turned out — lethal British understatement.
""Things are a bit sticky, sir," Brig Tom Brodie of the Gloucestershire Regiment told General Robert H Soule, intending to convey that they were in extreme difficulty.
"But Gen Soule understood this to mean "We're having a bit of rough and tumble but we're holding the line". Oh good, the general decided, no need to reinforce or withdraw them, not yet anyway. [...]
"The programme says: "Any hopes of relief were dashed by an American misunderstanding of British understatement.""
Are these sentences really similar to a British English speaker?
To me the first one means "we have some minor issues" if talked literally, or "we have bigger issues but I decided to add a layer of nonchalance so that you miss the point"
However, in that specific case, the British general supposed that it was the point of pride for a British officer to rarely admit a weakness or lack of control over a situation. So, the slightest admission of the circumstances being "a bit sticky" should have been a sign that circumstances were severe, or otherwise he would have avoided making any admission at all.
The less ambiguous way—which would have avoided any ambiguity due to the general's understatement—would have been for him to state the facts: his troops were substantially outnumbered, and therefore they could only realistically last a short amount of time without support or withdrawal. However, perhaps, it is possible that he could not send a message of that length in the circumstances of the time.
---
I took a brief look at your profile to try and guess your native language to make a comparison, and it appears you may be a francophone.
A perhaps similar example would be if you ask someone « Ça va ? » ("How goes it?") and the other person responds by saying: « Ça va... » ("It goes..."). For some people, « Ça va » is their default response, so it means that their situation is no different than usual. For others, who you might know to usually say the chipper response « Bien ! Et toi ? », a sudden change to « Ça va... » may be a hint that things aren't going so well, and a way to avoid directly saying « Non, rien ne va et je suis déprimé » (as taken from [1]).
The British general's phrase therefore had a distinct literal meaning, but he meant for the phrase to carry a different message that he expected the US general to pick up on (which did not happen, as the US general interpreted the phrase by its literal meaning instead).
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/French/comments/po2cdm/what_is_the_...
Good guess, I am French.
As for "ça va": if I had a tumor dangling from my leg and went to the doctor, I could answer when asked "comment ça va?"
- "ça vaaaaaaa...." because I am a Real Man (TM) who does not show weakness, but I should suck it up and cut the tumor myself instead of coming and whining. And only hope that the MD would probe me until I talked about the "sticky thing" that weights 15 kg and makes me turn right when I walk. I should not have come to the MD at all
- or say what I have because I came for that.
By their logic, I do not understand why the British admitted to any problems, putting their honor in jeopardy for the small reward of maybe having their lives saved (and the lives of the people under the general who maybe had a different view on their future).
You can’t call yourself Alberta unless your a registered Alberta.
Engyneer, an-gineer, did-everything-except-pay-the-engineering-cartel, guy-that-does-engineering-work, (not)engineer... I think I can do this all day.
These are for better or worse, guilds. Guilds give a certain air of quality and come at the cost of peers restricting markets thus raising prices, raising their income and lowering that of all that are obliged to purchase their services. I do like my investments in firms to come with an audited yearly report with some kind of guarantee against malfeasance. I like my notary to know the tax and heritage laws. But I still let my plumber, electrician, car mechanic and gardener do their work without guilds. (Although my car mechanic is part of a chain which offers some semblance of a guild.)
When I was younger Milton Freeman was my hero. He was very vocally against these guilds. The market would solve it all. I think it would, but it’s quite probable that the cost for guarantees and insurance would make the average consumer worse off than this strange remainder of the Middle Ages. This is institutional economics and sociology in action right in front of you.
But to your broader point, there's various licensing/guilds--some of which is stricter than others. For the most part, engineering is pretty loose which the exception of branches that deal a lot with regulators in particular, like civil engineering.
I don't think "engineer" has a broad general meaning any more than "veterinarian" in the context of professions. I do think that "software engineer" does have broad general meaning, however.
So it would seem this ruling goes against historical usage.
Umm, no. It is true that train drivers were called "engineers" because they operated an engine.
But the title "engineer" goes back much further than that. It comes from "military engineer", where "engine"/"engineer" meant "machine" or "ingenious".
Military engineers have been around for a very long time. Around the time when the industrial revolution started, people who worked with non-military engineering started to be called "civil engineers".
They mostly worked on building roads and bridges, which is where today's "civil engineer" comes from. But in countries like Sweden, "civil engineer" (civilingenjör) has remained a title for all engineers, not just road/bridge-builders.
> having a certificate for engineering at all is a recent invention
Not that recent, higher engineering education started in the 1700s in Europe.