Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 84 replies
  • Subscribers 14 subscribers
  • Views 6144 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
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
  • 0

    David McQuiggan: See suit filed last week and linked to below for fascinating case of an individual’s rights and interests versus state’s rights and interests and the use/definition/vagueness  of “engineer” and “engineering.” https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2019-1205-Copy-of-filed-Complaint.pdf . This filed complaint digs in to issues related to who has rights to call oneself an “engineer” and describe one’s work as “engineering.”  This suit tackles the constitutional considerations of free speech, judicial impartiality, abuse of powers, and due process.  Who knew P.E. licensing could be so fascinating. Who can call themselves an engineer?  What do you think?




    An update to my 14-Dec-2019 post above:
    Seems in response to the Greg Mills case in Arizona, two bills are being introduced to the Arizona senate, (1) SB1298, awaiting a vote from the full Senate, would define what it means to be a “professional engineer.” and (2) SB1507, which has cleared the Senate and moved to the House, which would give people like Greg Mills additional protections when state licensing boards rule against them.  Does this mean Arizona will soon end its double standard that allows people to work as engineers for someone else, but not themselves, and remove seemingly unequal protections under the law, one for employees of manufacturers and one for sole proprietors, with essentially the same job functions, when they do not engage in the kind of engineering that requires a state license (not signing or providing stamped plans for bridges, buildings and public works, or designing anything that goes into such projects)? 

    Source Article: Chandler engineer fights rigged Arizona system > https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2020/03/06/chandler-engineer-fights-rigged-arizona-system/

Reply
  • 0

    David McQuiggan: See suit filed last week and linked to below for fascinating case of an individual’s rights and interests versus state’s rights and interests and the use/definition/vagueness  of “engineer” and “engineering.” https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2019-1205-Copy-of-filed-Complaint.pdf . This filed complaint digs in to issues related to who has rights to call oneself an “engineer” and describe one’s work as “engineering.”  This suit tackles the constitutional considerations of free speech, judicial impartiality, abuse of powers, and due process.  Who knew P.E. licensing could be so fascinating. Who can call themselves an engineer?  What do you think?




    An update to my 14-Dec-2019 post above:
    Seems in response to the Greg Mills case in Arizona, two bills are being introduced to the Arizona senate, (1) SB1298, awaiting a vote from the full Senate, would define what it means to be a “professional engineer.” and (2) SB1507, which has cleared the Senate and moved to the House, which would give people like Greg Mills additional protections when state licensing boards rule against them.  Does this mean Arizona will soon end its double standard that allows people to work as engineers for someone else, but not themselves, and remove seemingly unequal protections under the law, one for employees of manufacturers and one for sole proprietors, with essentially the same job functions, when they do not engage in the kind of engineering that requires a state license (not signing or providing stamped plans for bridges, buildings and public works, or designing anything that goes into such projects)? 

    Source Article: Chandler engineer fights rigged Arizona system > https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2020/03/06/chandler-engineer-fights-rigged-arizona-system/

Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines