Oregon man fined $500 for criticizing red-light camera system

[Steeleshocker]

My business card says Sr. Engineer, and the company even made it for me.

And I don't have a PE.

And I'm still an engineer.

As someone else stated, "he who does, is."

[SHOCKvalue]

Technically, they aren't accountants or engineers. They have accounting and engineering degrees, work in their field of study, but they are working in an accounting department, and are working in an engineering department, under someone that is licensed. Any of their public work is signed off by a boss, who is a licensed CPA or PE. Try to hang a shingle out, selling your wares as an accountant, without a license and see how long you last.

I'm not knocking any engineering grad, working in their field without a PE. Most don't have a license and most are very good at what they do. They earn a great living and do great things. I would heed their advice and suggestions. I'd listen to them and they do have a right to speak their opinion. But none of them lists "engineer" on their business card, because technically, they aren't until they pass the test.

I read the decision posted by jd. The guy crossed the line more than once. The guy is entitled to his opinion. The guy is entitled to free speech and to express his opinion. Where he crossed the line was.in misrepresenting himself as an engineer- more than once. In fact, the noard warned him once, the guy agreed to quit representing himself as an engineer, but then continued. The board was forced to do something.

The biggest problem with the article is that it ignores why the guy was actually fined, which was practicing as an engineer without a license, and focuses on free speech, which wasn't the issue. If you read the decision, free speech wasn't mentioned, just his continued misrepresentation of himself as an engineer.

We're starting to get a little ridiculous here.

Stick to what you know MVJ, which obviously isn't this topic.

[jdshock]

We're starting to get a little ridiculous here.

Stick to what you know MVJ, which obviously isn't this topic.

Seriously? Have you taken a chance to read the board's decision yet?

Here's the Oregon law: https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.007 A person is "practicing" engineering if they call themselves an "engineer." The guy did that to the board of engineers. The board was just enforcing that law.

If there is a free speech issue with the law, a reviewing court will make that determination, but it's really not anything the board did wrong. What should they have done differently?

[atlwsu]

My business card says Sr. Engineer, and the company even made it for me.

And I don't have a PE.

And I'm still an engineer.

As someone else stated, "he who does, is."

Flight of the Phoenix

[jdshock]

Actually, if jd was correct regarding the man passing himself off as an engineer, he can be fined. As far as the unlicensed engineering grads working in-house, they cannot sign off on plans, or present themselves as an engineer. There is someone in the shop that is licensed, and for lack of better explanation, those without licensed are working under someone with a license. This monster article will explain:

https://www.monster.com/career-advice/article/professional-engineer-license-pe

From the article: "You Can Officially Call Yourself an Engineer Only If You Have a PE License"

I just realized that monster article was written by the guy who wrote the Oregon board's decision.

[SB Shock]

For whatever reason unbeknownst to me, my social circle is disproportionately represented by engineers and accountants. The only one of the engineers I know who has his PE is the guy who's a civil engineer; the balance of the rest - all of whom work in Wichita aircraft - do not have their PE. Care to take a gander at which side earns more? The aircraft guys darn near earn twice what the civil guy with the PE brings home.

Also know a guy who is the left hand man for a CPA, who himself is not a CPA. Koch, Cessna, Beechcraft, Lear, Spirit, etc. are loaded with degreed accountants who aren't CPAs.

The field I work in you're free to call yourself an X. Even though you need to be a licensed or certified X to assumedly make much money in the field, you still can conceivably be an X, earning money legally and legitimately without the licensure or certification. You'd just have a non-traditional client list.

Aviation is different from Civil. PE in aviation industry is worthless. Licensing (if u want to call that) is for Aerospace come from delegation from the FAA through as DER (designated engineering Representative) or ODA (organization delegation authority) Engineer.

[Kung Wu]

I'm an engineer that offers public service, but they don't even offer a Professional Engineering option for the Sex Engineering graduates like me. For example, if you need to know the amount of required lubricant for optimal pleasure at a specific age, I'm your guy.

[jdshock]

I'm an engineer that offers public service, but they don't even offer a Professional Engineering option for the Sex Engineering graduates like me. For example, if you need to know the amount of required lubricant for optimal pleasure at a specific age, I'm your guy.

Is your training practical or purely theoretical?

[MoValley John]

Aviation is different from Civil. PE in aviation industry is worthless. Licensing (if u want to call that) is for Aerospace come from delegation from the FAA through as DER (designated engineering Representative) or ODA (organization delegation authority) Engineer.

Interesting. That is probably why there is the argument. I read up briefly on this, it seems to me that the company's DER would be the civil engineering equivelent to a PE. Is this sort of correct?

That said, in the World outside of aviation engineering, which is where this case lies, you need a PE to act as an engineer, stamp plans etc.

[Fairgame]

Liberal judges are more likely to find in favor of broad free speech rights than conservative judges. Unfortunately, both conservatives and liberals were more likely to uphold broad rights when the party seeking free speech aligned with them politically. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/0...gree-with.html

As of now, there's been a single fine by the engineering board for the state. Let's hold off on blaming any judges until one is presented with the opportunity to screw up.

And to be clear, I think he's probably got a great argument, but it's not as much of a slam dunk as articles would make it out to be. Self-regulating professions (in the sense that it's a semi government agency run by engineers) are given quite a bit of leeway usually. Saying "I'm an engineer and put my stamp of approval as an engineer" is different than saying "doesn't it make more sense to do it this other way?"

As a Political Science instructor for almost 30 years I can say unequivocally that you are wrong about your assessment of liberal judges vs conservative judges. If you believe for even 1 minute that Justice Sotomayor or retired Justice David Souter would see this as a 1st amendment issue I will respectfully disagree with you. For most Liberal Judges they view the power of the STATE (to conduct state business)to supersede the 1st amendment. For a classic example of Liberal overreach into a 1st amendment issue check out this story about Psychologist John Rosemond. It took a Conservative judge to clearly point out the governmental overreach by the state of Kentucky. http://www.kentucky.com/living/famil...e42629730.html

[jdshock]

As a Political Science instructor for almost 30 years I can say unequivocally that you are wrong about your assessment of liberal judges vs conservative judges. If you believe for even 1 minute that Justice Sotomayor or retired Justice David Souter would see this as a 1st amendment issue I will respectfully disagree with you. For most Liberal Judges they view the power of the STATE (to conduct state business)to supersede the 1st amendment. For a classic example of Liberal overreach into a 1st amendment issue check out this story about Psychologist John Rosemond. It took a Conservative judge to clearly point out the governmental overreach by the state of Kentucky. http://www.kentucky.com/living/famil...e42629730.html

The article I linked to cited a study of Supreme Court cases. You've given one example.

[Kung Wu]

Is your training practical or purely theoretical?

As practical as possible, but unfortunately mainly theoretical.

[Kung Wu]

Interesting. That is probably why there is the argument. I read up briefly on this, it seems to me that the company's DER would be the civil engineering equivelent to a PE. Is this sort of correct?

That said, in the World outside of aviation engineering, which is where this case lies, you need a PE to act as an engineer, stamp plans etc.

Software engineers didn't even have the option of a P.E. equivalent until recently.

Same for chemical engineers I believe.

Probably many more.

The guy in question is an "Electronics Engineer". Another field of engineering that requires no P.E. -- which is why he, correctly, claims to be an engineer. He is educated and employed as an engineer. To my knowledge he never once claimed to be a "Professional Engineer", which is a completely different and specific designation.

[jdshock]

Software engineers didn't even have the option of a P.E. equivalent until recently.

Same for chemical engineers I believe.

Probably many more.

The guy in question is an "Electronics Engineer". Another field of engineering that requires no P.E. -- which is why he, correctly, claims to be an engineer. He is educated and employed as an engineer. To my knowledge he never once claimed to be a "Professional Engineer", which is a completely different and specific designation.

But this is all nuance, right? Can we all now agree that this isn't a case where it's just 100% clear that the government is fining someone for speaking out against the government? My issue is with saying "absent corruption" there's no way this guy doesn't win.

I cited the Oregon law which says you can't call yourself an "engineer" unless you're licensed. Maybe that's a dumb law, and maybe that's not how it works in Kansas, but it's the law they were applying. Moreover, this guy was making recommendations that a civil engineer would make and calling himself an "engineer" in the process.

[Kung Wu]

But this is all nuance, right?

Not to engineers. My guess is he annoyed the hell out of them and they thought they would be "clever" in trying to make him go away. Instead they created a stink.

I do not have time to follow the context of the law you posted. Is that the specific law they cited? I will have to read the context once I get time.