Ian, first of all, apologies for misreading/misquoting your post, as had been pointed out to me, the result of a too rapid scan whilst travelling. But much more importantly, I am desperately sorry that this is affecting you in this way. It's awful to be so undervalued and to be bullied by your employer. What I don't understand is that surely, unless it's in order to "sell" you to clients/customers, why they are placing more credence on registration status than on performance in the job. Registration is certainly massively helpful when appointing someone new to a role or company, but they surely have your track record and your team members available now from which to turn a judgement. Sounds like a simple excuse to hold down your pay and prospects. Maybe time to seek alternative employment? Ironically, one of the things I almost commented previously, but decided to keep it, is that your employer has mauve potential to influence these outcomes. When we get applications submitted, and in particular when candidates get to interview, there is always a danger of over claiming, and whilst we can usually ask questions that will reveal this for knowledge and understanding, plus most other aspects, if someone brazenly claims innovation by claiming that they were the ones who developed an innovative approach, when in fact they only took instruction to design in line with the approach given them by somebody else, the only defence we have against a brazen untruth is the testimony of referees, and the employer will usually be one of those, so if they endorse that claim, there's little we can do to disregard it unless it reveals itself in their demeanor. So you may be right that they have been "over-registered" and should be I.Eng if they don't innovate, but if your employer has supported that in their case, then they will probably, at the very least, have been given the benefit of the doubt, or it may not have been evident at all. Conversely, I'm trying to understand what the gap is preventing you attaining C.Eng, I presume you feel you can beat them on UK&U, or you wouldn't be telling us what you are, I presume, as I think you're telling me you are their manager/team leader, that you would meet the technical management criteria more than they could, that you feel you have the people and communication skills required, and the "soft" skills of ethics, inclusivity, etc, then the only aspect I can see holding you back is demonstrating innovation in the application of your skills, and if you are giving the instructions that they follow as to what solutions to implement, then that should also be greater than for them, so the only thing I can see that's left is of your employer is not confirming this to be the case, and is giving a biased reference, negative in your case, positive in theirs. Which brings me back to where I started. Have you discussed this with a PRA? If not, I suggest you do so urgently. I feel sure that, if what you describe is accurate, you really should be able to attain this wth the right PRA support.
Ian, first of all, apologies for misreading/misquoting your post, as had been pointed out to me, the result of a too rapid scan whilst travelling. But much more importantly, I am desperately sorry that this is affecting you in this way. It's awful to be so undervalued and to be bullied by your employer. What I don't understand is that surely, unless it's in order to "sell" you to clients/customers, why they are placing more credence on registration status than on performance in the job. Registration is certainly massively helpful when appointing someone new to a role or company, but they surely have your track record and your team members available now from which to turn a judgement. Sounds like a simple excuse to hold down your pay and prospects. Maybe time to seek alternative employment? Ironically, one of the things I almost commented previously, but decided to keep it, is that your employer has mauve potential to influence these outcomes. When we get applications submitted, and in particular when candidates get to interview, there is always a danger of over claiming, and whilst we can usually ask questions that will reveal this for knowledge and understanding, plus most other aspects, if someone brazenly claims innovation by claiming that they were the ones who developed an innovative approach, when in fact they only took instruction to design in line with the approach given them by somebody else, the only defence we have against a brazen untruth is the testimony of referees, and the employer will usually be one of those, so if they endorse that claim, there's little we can do to disregard it unless it reveals itself in their demeanor. So you may be right that they have been "over-registered" and should be I.Eng if they don't innovate, but if your employer has supported that in their case, then they will probably, at the very least, have been given the benefit of the doubt, or it may not have been evident at all. Conversely, I'm trying to understand what the gap is preventing you attaining C.Eng, I presume you feel you can beat them on UK&U, or you wouldn't be telling us what you are, I presume, as I think you're telling me you are their manager/team leader, that you would meet the technical management criteria more than they could, that you feel you have the people and communication skills required, and the "soft" skills of ethics, inclusivity, etc, then the only aspect I can see holding you back is demonstrating innovation in the application of your skills, and if you are giving the instructions that they follow as to what solutions to implement, then that should also be greater than for them, so the only thing I can see that's left is of your employer is not confirming this to be the case, and is giving a biased reference, negative in your case, positive in theirs. Which brings me back to where I started. Have you discussed this with a PRA? If not, I suggest you do so urgently. I feel sure that, if what you describe is accurate, you really should be able to attain this wth the right PRA support.
