This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Time for licenced Engineers?

Former Community Member
Former Community Member
As a result of a discussion within a Linkedin group. I had originally raised the issue of the EC UK or IET legally licencing Engineers and had agreed to bring this discussion from Linkedin to the IET members in an appropriate community for a frank and open debate.

​The circumstances surrounding this discussion was the tragedy of Grenfell Towers and my personal observation that some of the alleged decision makers, had no technical qualifications to make decisions on public safety. I am wondering how far the inquiry will go to reveal that issue. 



As I currently work in Canada we do have an act of law governing the conduct of its licenced Engineers and this makes the Engineer have some higher degree of responsibility for public safety.


​Questions

1)    Given the impact of Grenfell, does EC(UK) have to now start considering licencing? What are the perceived hurdles to achieve this?

​2)    If not. What can we do within our profession to improve pubic safety with an objective to prevent another 'Grenfell' ?


I am ​Interested to get IET members responses.

Parents
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Licensing Engineers in the UK is internal to the UK. 

    What I can add to the discussion is what I see and my opinion from the USA.

    I think If such licensing will be mandated and regulated I'm sure that the industry leaders may demand, oppose, lobby and act to balance such requirements

    with what in the US is called Industrial Exemption. Businesses see restrictions in hiring and economic cost to the industry so

    a balance is needed in order to ensure public safety without hurting the local economy.


    One example: licensing can be motivated by the self-interest.

    There can be significant economic and social benefits to the licensee that result from attaching a mandatory license to an occupation.


    In the US Kleiner of the University of Minnesota, in a study conducted with Alan B. Krueger, concluded that requiring a licensing for an occupation can increase salaries by as much as fifteen percent. 

    Not long ago in the US a Governor of a Midwestern state was approached by representatives of a particular trade anxious to enlist the Governor’s support in securing passage of legislation to license their trade. “Governor,” the representative said, “passage of this licensing act will ensure that only qualified people will practice this occupation; it will eliminate charlatans, incompetents or frauds; and it will thereby protect the safety and welfare of the people of this state.” The Governor, from long experience, was somewhat skeptical. “Gentlemen,” he asked, “are you concerned with advancing the health, safety, and welfare of the people under the police powers of this state, or are you primarily interested in creating a monopoly situation to eliminate competition and raise prices?” The spokesman for the occupational group smiled and said, “Governor, we’re interested in a little of each.”


    Even with monetary benefits to be reaped from licensing, US engineers have been surprisingly ambivalent toward licensing, if not outright rejecting of it. In a striking enigma, an overwhelming majority of engineers— one study shows somewhere around eighty percent —do not pursue licensing.


    MW
Reply
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Licensing Engineers in the UK is internal to the UK. 

    What I can add to the discussion is what I see and my opinion from the USA.

    I think If such licensing will be mandated and regulated I'm sure that the industry leaders may demand, oppose, lobby and act to balance such requirements

    with what in the US is called Industrial Exemption. Businesses see restrictions in hiring and economic cost to the industry so

    a balance is needed in order to ensure public safety without hurting the local economy.


    One example: licensing can be motivated by the self-interest.

    There can be significant economic and social benefits to the licensee that result from attaching a mandatory license to an occupation.


    In the US Kleiner of the University of Minnesota, in a study conducted with Alan B. Krueger, concluded that requiring a licensing for an occupation can increase salaries by as much as fifteen percent. 

    Not long ago in the US a Governor of a Midwestern state was approached by representatives of a particular trade anxious to enlist the Governor’s support in securing passage of legislation to license their trade. “Governor,” the representative said, “passage of this licensing act will ensure that only qualified people will practice this occupation; it will eliminate charlatans, incompetents or frauds; and it will thereby protect the safety and welfare of the people of this state.” The Governor, from long experience, was somewhat skeptical. “Gentlemen,” he asked, “are you concerned with advancing the health, safety, and welfare of the people under the police powers of this state, or are you primarily interested in creating a monopoly situation to eliminate competition and raise prices?” The spokesman for the occupational group smiled and said, “Governor, we’re interested in a little of each.”


    Even with monetary benefits to be reaped from licensing, US engineers have been surprisingly ambivalent toward licensing, if not outright rejecting of it. In a striking enigma, an overwhelming majority of engineers— one study shows somewhere around eighty percent —do not pursue licensing.


    MW
Children
No Data