US state trying to control who can call themselves an engineer. Again..

[mikeselectricstuff]

[IanB]

The crazy thing is that PE is not even a nationally recognized qualification in the USA, it is held at the state level, and every state is different. So if you get the PE in one state and move to another, you have to go through a bunch of administrative hoopla to reapply for it in the new state.

But lawmakers and legislators in the USA are always representing lobbyists and special interest groups, rarely the people they are elected to represent. So you get situations like this one, where someone somewhere wants "engineer" to be a protected title, for the benefit of a minority.

Sensibly, PE should be required in areas where the safety or wellbeing of the public is at stake, for example civil engineering projects. For commercial projects, there is no special reason for needing that rubber stamp.

[jpanhalt]

The crazy thing is that PE is not even a nationally recognized qualification in the USA, it is held at the state level, and every state is different. So if you get the PE in one state and move to another, you have to go through a bunch of administrative hoopla to reapply for it in the new state.

That's not at all unusual.  It applies as well to almost every profession.  ("States regulate the professions.")

[HuronKing]

The crazy thing is that PE is not even a nationally recognized qualification in the USA, it is held at the state level, and every state is different. So if you get the PE in one state and move to another, you have to go through a bunch of administrative hoopla to reapply for it in the new state.

How is that crazy? Lawyers, doctors, pharmacists, cosmetologists and barbers... pretty much EVERY profession that requires licensure is done on a state-by-state basis. [Addendum: while writing this I see someone else made the point].

Anyways, is the guy talking in this video going on with out of date information? It seems he is reading this legal brief from 3 years ago:
https://ij.org/case/arizona-engineering-licensing/

But am I reading this right? That the Arizona Supreme Court already ruled on this in 2024? And they found for the Board in dismissing his appeal. [Edit] - I guess this was another appeals court and it hasn't gone to the Arizona Supreme Court just yet. Though I fully expect they'll agree with the lower courts here.
https://law.justia.com/cases/arizona/court-of-appeals-division-two-unpublished/2024/2-ca-cv-2023-0240.html

I'm a licensed PE BTW.

Sensibly, PE should be required in areas where the safety or wellbeing of the public is at stake, for example civil engineering projects. For commercial projects, there is no special reason for needing that rubber stamp.

Those are not the whole facts of the case. The Board didn't go after him only because he designed and sold products. They went after him because he offered ENGINEERING SERVICES to the general public. You cannot do that without a license. And he knew it. The Board went after him because someone filed a complaint - likely someone was disturbed that he was offering general engineering services for sale to the public and did not have a license.

Just like a lawyer cannot offer legal services to the general public without that license.

Relevant sections of the Appeals Court ruling from 2024:

It concluded that Appellants had violated the state’s engineering practice statutes by offering and advertising engineering services while unregistered.

As stated above, the  registration  statute’s definition  for “[e]ngineering practice” includes “professional services,” “consultation,” and “design” in connection with any “machine, equipment, process, work or project.”2016  Ariz.  Sess.  Laws,  ch.  371, §8. Appellants  admit  to, among other things, “designing” and “building” electronic circuits and helping a client develop a misting umbrella.  While an electronic circuit or misting umbrella may be considered a “product” as Appellants claim, a person of ordinary intelligence may also reasonably consider circuits to be “equipment,” a misting umbrella to  be a “machine,” and any “design” thereof to be a “process, work, or project.”Cf.SAL Leasing, 198 Ariz. 434, ¶34(statute   is   vague   when it   does   not   give persons   of   ordinary intelligence notice of what is prohibited). Additionally, Appellants admit to  offering  services  to  the  public  as  experienced  engineers  in  various industries, implying that they were qualified to perform such work.  See§32-145(1) (unregistered professional may not “by  any  implication hold[] himself  out  as  qualified  to  practice  any  board  regulated  profession  or occupation”)(emphasis added).

[m98]

Those are not the facts of the case. The Board didn't go after him because he designed and sold products. They went after him because he offered ENGINEERING SERVICES to the general public. You cannot do that without a license. And he knew it. The Board went after him because someone filed a complain - likely someone was disturbed that he was offering general engineering services for sale to the public and did not have a license.

Needing a professional engineering licence to provide electrical engineering services is mental. There is nothing about the development process of even safety critical products that require an individual engineer to wield magical powers ordained upon him by some licensing board.
One compromise I do support is the title of engineer itself being linked to some form of academic qualification, which doesn't seem to be the case in the US.

[IanB]

The crazy thing is that PE is not even a nationally recognized qualification in the USA, it is held at the state level, and every state is different. So if you get the PE in one state and move to another, you have to go through a bunch of administrative hoopla to reapply for it in the new state.

That's not at all unusual.  It applies as well to almost every profession.  ("States regulate the professions.")

It may not be unusual, but it is still crazy from the perspective of anyone outside the USA. In a normal world, the states would have a mutual recognition agreement based on common standards.

[IanB]

Those are not the whole facts of the case. The Board didn't go after him only because he designed and sold products. They went after him because he offered ENGINEERING SERVICES to the general public. You cannot do that without a license. And he knew it. The Board went after him because someone filed a complaint - likely someone was disturbed that he was offering general engineering services for sale to the public and did not have a license.

But there is no sensible reason for that law. It does not exist for the benefit of the public, it exists for the benefit of groups with a financial interest in limiting access and reducing free market competition.

[IanB]

How is that crazy? Lawyers, doctors, pharmacists, cosmetologists and barbers... pretty much EVERY profession that requires licensure is done on a state-by-state basis. [Addendum: while writing this I see someone else made the point].

You don't see that it is crazy for barbers to require licensing? I was gobsmacked when I learned about that.

Those are not the whole facts of the case. The Board didn't go after him only because he designed and sold products. They went after him because he offered ENGINEERING SERVICES to the general public. You cannot do that without a license. And he knew it. The Board went after him because someone filed a complaint - likely someone was disturbed that he was offering general engineering services for sale to the public and did not have a license.

If I engage an engineer to provide design services for a home alteration, that design literally needs to be rubber stamped, and that requires a license.

If as a company, I want to purchase electronic design services as a B2B transaction, that should not require any kind of license. (British law, for example, makes it clear that businesses do not have the same consumer protections as members of the public. Businesses have a requirement and expectation to practice due diligence in their dealings.) If, even as an individual, I want a consultant to help me design a widget, I care about competence, experience, references and track record. I care not a jot about a PE license. It means nothing.

Just like a lawyer cannot offer legal services to the general public without that license.

In this case, there is clear public harm that could result from bad legal advice being offered, so there is a justification.

[HuronKing]

All states require individual engineers to be licensed, and most states require engineering firms to obtain an engineering firm license or a Certificate of Authorization..most states require engineering firms to obtain an engineering firm license or a Certificate of Authorization.

https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/engineering-firm-business-licensing-and-other-legal-requirements

In 34 states, firms must also apply for a COA through the state engineering licensing board. In 8 additional states, firms must complete requirements other than licensing before offering services. (Some of these requirements can be every bit as time-consuming as a full-blown license application, so don’t assume lack of a license equates to easy entry).

https://www.harborcompliance.com/engineering-firm-license-certificate-of-authorization

And here is the advertisements on their actual website,
https://www.soenco.com/about.html

Southwest Engineering Concepts (SOENCO) is a full-service product design and engineering firm based in Chandler, Arizona, serving clients across North America. Founded by Greg Mills, an industry veteran with over 30 years of experience in product development, SOENCO specializes in taking ideas from concept to market — whether for early-stage startups or Fortune 500 companies.

Based on the claims of their own website, it looks pretty cut and dry to me, at least based on what I know. Greg Mills is representing his company as a full service engineering firm. He has no PEs on staff or CoA. You cannot run or present a full service engineering firm to the general public without a CoA or licensed engineer involved. I agree that the process to get that license is challenging and hard because it varies by state.

But neither can a lawyer do something as simple as represent you in court for a speeding ticket without a license.

Quibbling about the exact details of what the engineering service entails is irrelevant - because the law was written broadly on purpose. We cannot know in what specific ways this engineering decision or that might affect the welfare of the general public.

[HuronKing]

How is that crazy? Lawyers, doctors, pharmacists, cosmetologists and barbers... pretty much EVERY profession that requires licensure is done on a state-by-state basis. [Addendum: while writing this I see someone else made the point].

You don't see that it is crazy for barbers to require licensing? I was gobsmacked when I learned about that.

Barbers have sanitation requirements. They can easily become a major vector for the spread of infectious skin and bloodborne diseases (razors can come in to contact with blood).

I'm gobsmacked you can't see obvious reasons why barbers need a license.   

Edit*
I looked up the licensing and educational requirements for barbers. This is quite a lot of safety training!
https://www.barbercosmo.ca.gov/applicants/license_requirements.shtml

The curriculum for a barbering course shall, at a minimum, include technical and practical instruction in the following areas:

One hundred hours in health and safety, which includes hazardous substances, chemical safety, safety data sheets, protection from hazardous chemicals, preventing chemical injuries, health and safety laws and regulations, and preventing communicable diseases.

One hundred hours in disinfection and sanitation, which includes disinfection procedures to protect the health and safety of consumers as well as the technician and proper disinfection procedures for equipment used in establishments.

Two hundred hours in chemical hair services, which includes coloring, straightening, waving, bleaching, hair analysis, predisposition and strand tests, safety precautions, formula mixing, and the use of dye removers.
Instruction in chemical hair services shall include instruction regarding the provision of services to individuals with all hair types and textures, including, but not limited to, various curl or wave patterns, hair strand thicknesses, and volumes of hair.

Two hundred hours in hairstyling services, which includes arranging, blow drying, cleansing, curling, dressing, hair analysis, shampooing, waving, and nonchemical straightening, and hair cutting, including the use of shears, razors, electrical clippers and trimmers, and thinning shears, for wet and dry cutting.

Instruction in hairstyling services shall include instruction regarding the provision of services to individuals with all hair types and textures, including, but not limited to, various curl or wave patterns, hair strand thicknesses, and volumes of hair.

Two hundred hours in shaving and trimming of the beard, which includes preparing the client’s hair for shaving, assessing the condition of the client’s skin, performing shaving techniques, applying aftershave antiseptic following facial services, and massaging the face and rolling cream massages.

[CatalinaWOW]

The crazy thing is that PE is not even a nationally recognized qualification in the USA, it is held at the state level, and every state is different. So if you get the PE in one state and move to another, you have to go through a bunch of administrative hoopla to reapply for it in the new state.

How is that crazy? Lawyers, doctors, pharmacists, cosmetologists and barbers... pretty much EVERY profession that requires licensure is done on a state-by-state basis. [Addendum: while writing this I see someone else made the point].

Anyways, is the guy talking in this video going on with out of date information? It seems he is reading this legal brief from 3 years ago:
https://ij.org/case/arizona-engineering-licensing/

But am I reading this right? That the Arizona Supreme Court already ruled on this in 2024? And they found for the Board in dismissing his appeal. [Edit] - I guess this was another appeals court and it hasn't gone to the Arizona Supreme Court just yet. Though I fully expect they'll agree with the lower courts here.
https://law.justia.com/cases/arizona/court-of-appeals-division-two-unpublished/2024/2-ca-cv-2023-0240.html

I'm a licensed PE BTW.

Sensibly, PE should be required in areas where the safety or wellbeing of the public is at stake, for example civil engineering projects. For commercial projects, there is no special reason for needing that rubber stamp.

Those are not the whole facts of the case. The Board didn't go after him only because he designed and sold products. They went after him because he offered ENGINEERING SERVICES to the general public. You cannot do that without a license. And he knew it. The Board went after him because someone filed a complaint - likely someone was disturbed that he was offering general engineering services for sale to the public and did not have a license.

Just like a lawyer cannot offer legal services to the general public without that license.

Relevant sections of the Appeals Court ruling from 2024:

It concluded that Appellants had violated the state’s engineering practice statutes by offering and advertising engineering services while unregistered.

As stated above, the  registration  statute’s definition  for “[e]ngineering practice” includes “professional services,” “consultation,” and “design” in connection with any “machine, equipment, process, work or project.”2016  Ariz.  Sess.  Laws,  ch.  371, §8. Appellants  admit  to, among other things, “designing” and “building” electronic circuits and helping a client develop a misting umbrella.  While an electronic circuit or misting umbrella may be considered a “product” as Appellants claim, a person of ordinary intelligence may also reasonably consider circuits to be “equipment,” a misting umbrella to  be a “machine,” and any “design” thereof to be a “process, work, or project.”Cf.SAL Leasing, 198 Ariz. 434, ¶34(statute   is   vague   when it   does   not   give persons   of   ordinary intelligence notice of what is prohibited). Additionally, Appellants admit to  offering  services  to  the  public  as  experienced  engineers  in  various industries, implying that they were qualified to perform such work.  See§32-145(1) (unregistered professional may not “by  any  implication hold[] himself  out  as  qualified  to  practice  any  board  regulated  profession  or occupation”)(emphasis added).

Clearly some gatekeeping going on here.  While a PE license is a definitive metric for determining if an individual at some point in time understood basic engineering principals, it does not define competence in a field.  And lack of such license does not prove inability to perform engineering duties.

I say this with some direct knowledge.   A PE license in most states requires a preliminary exam, some years of experience "practicing" engineering, and then passing a more rigorous exam.  The exams require some fairly broad engineering knowledge, but not any particular depth.   Anyone good at memorizing formulas and those who actually are good engineers will have little difficulty passing the exams.  I passed the preliminary exam with just a week or two of study of areas outside of electrical/electronic engineering.  Never took the final exam for two reasons.  First didn't need it for my job and second, my experience with a number of licensed and registered professional engineers soured me on the concept.  While some were very good, a significant proportion, perhaps a majority, combined marginal competence with arrogance.  I watched licensed individuals who specified designs that couldn't be fabricated and couldn't be bothered by those who reported the failed attempts.   PEs who had no creativity.  Who could indeed properly bias a transistor or work out stresses in a cantilever truss, but couldn't use either of those elements to solve a problem. 

HuronKing, I have no idea whether you are one of the very good PEs or one of the other kind.  But my experience has been that outside of the fields with direct impact on public safety, the PEs who defend registration most strongly are those who need some form of protection from those who are more competent.

For those with residual concerns, the issue for this lawyer could be reconciled for all practical reasons, through probably not legally defensible by advertising non-licensed engineering services.  He could add a note that review of his designs by registered engineers is recommended by the state board.   In this way the public would be protected from any theoretical harm.  It is also fundamentally the reason why engineers employed by large operations aren't required to register.  Their work is at least in theory, supervised by one or more registered engineers.

 

[SiliconWizard]

Those are not the facts of the case. The Board didn't go after him because he designed and sold products. They went after him because he offered ENGINEERING SERVICES to the general public. You cannot do that without a license. And he knew it. The Board went after him because someone filed a complain - likely someone was disturbed that he was offering general engineering services for sale to the public and did not have a license.

Needing a professional engineering licence to provide electrical engineering services is mental. There is nothing about the development process of even safety critical products that require an individual engineer to wield magical powers ordained upon him by some licensing board.
One compromise I do support is the title of engineer itself being linked to some form of academic qualification, which doesn't seem to be the case in the US.

Contrary to a PhD that gives you the title of "doctor" in most countries because it's an academic title, "engineer" is a different beast. It really depends on the country. In many countries, it's not actually an academic title. It really depends.

And whether a proven qualification is required also largely depends on the engineering field. In most cases, civil engineering requires an official qualification to be able to do it on a professional level. For electrical engineering, it's pretty rare.

Actually, you often need more like a certification for touching electrical installations but it doesn't require any specific degree, just a certification, that you may need to have even if you are a qualified engineer.

[HuronKing]

Clearly some gatekeeping going on here.

A license is a gate, yes.

While a PE license is a definitive metric for determining if an individual at some point in time understood basic engineering principals, it does not define competence in a field. And lack of such license does not prove inability to perform engineering duties.

Yes, and so is a 4-year ABET accredited engineering degree, even if there are people who cheat their way through the program. It is still *generally* better than no engineering degree at all, right?

By the same token, even once the degree or license is conferred, there are good lawyers and bad lawyers. It's not like the issuance of the license is some magic blanket against anyone ever screwing up either (when did I ever say it was?). But we (we as in society at large) decided that we only want licensed lawyers to practice law. And when lawyers screw up badly enough, we take away their licenses. It's rare - but it happens.

But my experience has been that outside of the fields with direct impact on public safety, the PEs who defend registration most strongly are those who need some form of protection from those who are more competent.

What exactly is a field that does not have a direct impact on public safety? Like, sure, people automatically think of the things that have obvious public safety impacts like designing a house (civil) - or even stamping the plans for the electrical outlets (facility electrical). But, is the design of a low voltage battery on a consumer electronic not within the purview of public safety?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_Note_7#Battery_explosions_and_recalls

And it is incidents like these that make me much more sympathetic to the view that licensed PEs should indeed take their roles impacting safety seriously and unlicensed engineers to also take their roles impacting safety seriously (even if their role never requires them to go through the licensing process) - everything engineers do could impact safety.

Many who work in the industry are exempt from explicit licensure but that is to HELP foster competition and economic growth. The law provides that the only people who *really* have to worry about licensing and legal compliance are the ones who are running the firm.

What I find unsympathetic about Greg Mills' case is that he IS the person running the firm and so it is his reasonable responsibility to ensure his company meets its obligations to protect public safety... if it chooses to present itself as a full-service engineering firm.

Like... I could play reducto ad absurdum here and say, "Pfft! I'm a good driver! Giving me a driver's license doesn't magically make me a perfect driver or protect you from being crashed into by a bad driver who cheated to get their license!"

But, as a society, we decided we want *some* kind of basic check that people getting behind the wheel at some point had basic competency, right?
And yet, we are saying we don't want the people who RUN ENGINEERING FIRMS to have ever proven basic competency or have someone on staff who ever did? Okay.

PS
BTW I am well aware my view on this is going to be unpopular here.

PPS
Additionally, I keep up with current licensing standards and requirements because I've mentored many engineers to help them get their license. The standards and curriculum have changed a lot as has the testing procedures. It is slow, but the licensing process and scope is finally starting to catch up to modern technology and its impacts on public safety (more software coverage, more battery coverage, more systems engineering and environmental impact coverage, etc).

[jpanhalt]

It may not be unusual, but it is still crazy from the perspective of anyone outside the USA. In a normal world, the states would have a mutual recognition agreement based on common standards.

"Crazy" implies irrational to me.  But state licensing of professions is rational.  So long are there are not Federal "codes" for electrical safety, building, law, medicine, teaching, etc., states have a responsibility to ensure that professionals who are serving the public (i.e., mostly residents of that state) meet "code."  I use "code" to mean all of the standards prescribed by states including but not limited to the laws, reporting, record keeping, taxes, license fees,  insurance, etc. regarding professions.

Albeit, sometimes such application may seem silly, e.g., a computer engineer (I am not sure they need a license), but for anything that needs a license, it's by state.

There are clear situations where the state requirement is self-serving and even political.  Consider just one example:  medical licenses.  There is a huge overlap (almost 100%) between states in terms of basic knowledge required to practice.  But showing evidence of that is different.  Then, self-serving enters the picture.  Florida used to have a law (maybe still does) regarding reciprocity.  It used to accept reciprocity only within a certain number of year of when a physician became licensed.  Say, 5 to 10 years.  Why? The Sunshine State is an attractive place to retire.  It didn't want a bunch of old codgers coming there to tinker in medicine and compete with its full-time physicians.  And of course, those resident physicians didn't want the competition.

How does that differ from drivers' licenses?  There are no interstate highway equivalents in medicine. In the 70's when some big clinics (e.g., Mayo and Cleveland) wanted to expand out of state, those rules presented a challenge.  In Florida, the legislature so wanted a Mayo practice in Jacksonville that it passed an exemption written in such a way that Mayo physicians who had been in practice longer than the limit could get reciprocity.  Local medical societies in Florida were outraged.  That was purely a political act.  Florida wanted the additional revenue that patients from Georgia and other nearby states would bring.

Commercial drivers' licenses are a carve out to state control.  A CDL from any state is valid in any other.  That issue is currently being debated, and the resolution may be Federalization of CDLs, just as pilots' licenses are Federal.   

[tggzzz]

It may not be unusual, but it is still crazy from the perspective of anyone outside the USA. In a normal world, the states would have a mutual recognition agreement based on common standards.

Consider civil engineering. There is a significant difference between
Florida: hot, humid, insulation to keep cold in, ground is limestone with sinkholes where it is being dissolved.
Alaska: cold, dry, insulation is to keep cold out, ground is permafrost.
Oregon: cool, wet, ground is volcanic basalt.
Yes, that's grossly simplified, but it is a basis for reasonable and sensible differentiation.

[langwadt]

Those are not the facts of the case. The Board didn't go after him because he designed and sold products. They went after him because he offered ENGINEERING SERVICES to the general public. You cannot do that without a license. And he knew it. The Board went after him because someone filed a complain - likely someone was disturbed that he was offering general engineering services for sale to the public and did not have a license.

Needing a professional engineering licence to provide electrical engineering services is mental. There is nothing about the development process of even safety critical products that require an individual engineer to wield magical powers ordained upon him by some licensing board.
One compromise I do support is the title of engineer itself being linked to some form of academic qualification, which doesn't seem to be the case in the US.

Contrary to a PhD that gives you the title of "doctor" in most countries because it's an academic title, "engineer" is a different beast. It really depends on the country. In many countries, it's not actually an academic title. It really depends.

And whether a proven qualification is required also largely depends on the engineering field. In most cases, civil engineering requires an official qualification to be able to do it on a professional level. For electrical engineering, it's pretty rare.

here anyone can call themselves engineer, but the title "civil engineer" is protected, you need a master of science in engineering (in any field of engineering) to call yourself that

Actually, you often need more like a certification for touching electrical installations but it doesn't require any specific degree, just a certification, that you may need to have even if you are a qualified engineer.

here you need to be an electrician to do electrical installations, but at least one person in the company needs to be an "electric installer" a two year education on top of electrician, responsible for complying with regulations

[CatalinaWOW]

What exactly is a field that does not have a direct impact on public safety? Like, sure, people automatically think of the things that have obvious public safety impacts like designing a house (civil) - or even stamping the plans for the electrical outlets (facility electrical). But, is the design of a low voltage battery on a consumer electronic not within the purview of public safety?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_Note_7#Battery_explosions_and_recalls

You are right.  Everything involves safety.  But some more than others and some with greater impact than others.  Applying the same brush to design of a AA powered mouse and to design of a dam retaining hundreds of cubic kilometers of water does verge on the the ridiculous.

Many consumer electric and electronic devices pose significant risks.  Anything connected to the mains does.  But there are layers of protection here.  If the licensed PE was the only and sufficient gate then there would be no need for UL listing, Consumer Reports testing or the Consumer Products Safety commission.  And while my experience with the PE exams is dated, I recall very little safety material related to EE fields.  Safe spacing on PWBs, use of line rated capacitors, the list of things safety related goes on and on.

I am suggesting an engineering standard for PE registration.  Is it effective to purpose?  Is it necessary?  Where is the data to support assertions of these claims.  To be perfectly honest, I don't have data.  I have anecdotes from my experience.  But all I have heard from either side of the argument is anecdotes.

In the civil and structural engineering fields there is data collected from the late 19th and early 20th centuries that shows issues from people with inadequate backgrounds causing very real problems.  I am not aware of more recent data comparing safety, economic or other metrics between licensed and unlicensed practitioners of engineering.  There have been a number of failures of structures and devices.  Often they have been traced back to errors or oversights in the design.  But rarely is the issue of licensing brought up in the publicly distributed accident analysis.   Were the O-rings in the Space Shuttle boosters done under the oversight of a PE?  Were the various dam failures that have occurred?   How about the design of the Lithium chemistry batteries in the Boeing 787?  Those are the kind of data that should be involved in deciding when and where registration is required.   

[jpanhalt]

Needing a professional engineering licence to provide electrical engineering services is mental. There is nothing about the development process of even safety critical products that require an individual engineer to wield magical powers ordained upon him by some licensing board.
One compromise I do support is the title of engineer itself being linked to some form of academic qualification, which doesn't seem to be the case in the US.

That's pretty much the same in Ohio and Minnesota.  A "PE" is distinct from just an engineer.  In those states, if it is a building for which which you need a PE (professional engineer) to have approved the plans, it must be a PE licensed by the state to get a building permit.  Otherwise, you can't get a building permit.

In Minnesota, a seller can say "engineered" and not really have a licensed or graduate engineer sign off on it.  In Minnesota, saying something was engineered was acceptable and considered acceptable puffery in a state court.

[tszaboo]

In case you are wondering I'm pro regulations in the engineering field.
Because I've seen too much substandard work from not educated or poorly educated people. Half of the people should be called technicians, and they would require a serios amount of supervision to make their work proper and safe.
And it should be a field that's significantly more prestigious and higher paying than it is now.

[fzabkar]

In the US, an engineer is someone who drives a train. Surely it's about time that the status of a real engineer was reflected in the statutes.

[soldar]

The law provides that the only people who *really* have to worry about licensing and legal compliance are the ones who are running the firm.

What I find unsympathetic about Greg Mills' case is that he IS the person running the firm and so it is his reasonable responsibility to ensure his company meets its obligations to protect public safety... if it chooses to present itself as a full-service engineering firm.

I have a different way of looking at it. Suppose he works as an employee in a firm with a licensed engineer. Everything is fine because the person signing and approving the final project or product is a licensed engineer.  But now they don't have enough work for him full time and he sets himself up independently and sells his work to several firms. To me nothing has changed from the safety point of view.

The way I see it I do not care who or how designed or participated in the process and I only care about the product itself. If a product is going to be offered to the public then I has to obtain UL and/or similar certifications and that ensures safety and compliance with norms and regulations. And I do not care if it was designed by someone with any kind of certification.

If this guy Greg is selling his services to firms who have their own engineers than they are the ones exercising judgment about what they are buying.

A company can decide to get help from someone without a certification in their state, even from someone in another country, and I find it absurd to require that person to get a license in an American state.

Electronic designs are not something commonly sold to the public at large  and this is a crucial difference. It is up to the companies who sell the products to ensure those products comply with rules and safety. How those products were designed and made is irrelevant.

I agree the final stamp of approval, UL or other needs to be done by some with official capacity but other than that I do not care how the product was designed or built.

[tggzzz]

In case you are wondering I'm pro regulations in the engineering field.
Because I've seen too much substandard work from not educated or poorly educated people. Half of the people should be called technicians, and they would require a serios amount of supervision to make their work proper and safe.
And it should be a field that's significantly more prestigious and higher paying than it is now.

Yes.

Unfortunately such competent individuals often have too much work on their hands to be able to adequately ensure the work is competent. As we all know, fools can be ingenious, damn fools can be remarkably ingenious. In such cases the competent individuals become the "designated scapegoat".

[soldar]

Most people here are focusing on the issue of whether a person should need a license to "practice engineering" and that is an important aspect of the suit but it is not the essence of the suit which is more about a legal issue, about the powers of professional boards and associations such as the Lawyers Bar Associations, etc. Even HOAs.

The central issue here is that these are entities which have almost the capacity to make laws and enforce them without state oversight and can become abusive. They can issue regulations and they are the only recourse.

This guy Greg has appealed to the courts but the courts said NO, you cannot appeal to us until you have exhausted all the process with the engineers association. And, of course, the association is going to make it as long and drawn out and expensive as they can.

In my opinion the IJ is right and a person should have access to the protection of the courts and justice system all the time. An association Should not issue regulations and be the judge.

These types of legal associations tend to become protective of their rights at the expense of the general public. They should respond to the courts like anyone else.

Suppose the board decides that sewing on a sewing machine is "practicing engineering" and they forbid me from doing that. It is ridiculous that I would have to go through a lengthy and expensive process with them before I can take them to court and then start all over again.

This is the main and central issue of the lawsuit. Whether a person is entitled to the protection of the courts.

https://ij.org/case/arizona-engineering-licensing/

The Board’s actions against Greg violate his rights under the Arizona Constitution. The Board’s actions also demonstrate the heightened danger that administrative agencies—which combine the power to make laws, enforce its laws, and adjudicate alleged violations of those same laws—pose to individual rights. Greg is partnering with the Institute for Justice to stand up for his constitutional rights to call himself what he is—an engineer—and practice an occupation he’s safely done for more than thirty years, without being threatened by the Board’s unchecked power.

In May 2020, however, the Maricopa County Superior Court ruled that Greg was not allowed to sue to protect his constitutional rights until the Board finished prosecuting him. By requiring people like Greg to endure lengthy and expensive administrative proceedings before they can assert their constitutional rights in court, the decision effectively removes the courts as a check on government power. Greg and IJ are appealing that ruling.

[Psi]

Certification/registration associations or organizations with government support trying to make "Engineer" a protected word really gets under my skin.

It makes sense to have a special group for "Certified Engineer' or Registered Engineer". For jobs requiring high safety and which need full accountably if something fails causing mass injuries.  Civil Engineering etc..

I get angry as soon as they try to redefine who can call themselves an "Engineer". If you completed any engineering qualification you should be able to call yourself an Engineer. Some engineer jobs only need an Engineer, while other jobs might need a Registered Engineer and that is fine.

The only reason they keep trying to redefine who can call themselves an Engineer is to force more people into the association and into paying yearly fees.
It's always a money grab by a greedy association under the guise of more safety.
 
There's lots of engineering jobs were a self-taught engineer doing engineering is fine.

[mikeselectricstuff]

If you completed any engineering qualification you should be able to call yourself an Engineer.

I'd argue not even that. You just need to be able to do the job that a client asks for - it is up to them to assess if it fulfils their requirements.
As regards safety etc., that is what product standards are for. It is up to the manufacturer to check compliance, regardless of who did the design.
I have no formal engineering qualifications - entirely self-taught, and have dozens of happy customers over several decades, in many cases through doing stuff their in-house "qualified" engineers couldn't.