Federal judge finds state law governing who is an engineer violates free speech • Hacker News Board

Re: Federal judge finds state law governing who is an engineer violates free speech

#131

Post by imgabe » Tue, Jan 01, 2019, 2:19 AM UTC

Gibbon1 wrote: post #103

eigenvector wrote: post #32

As a licensed professional engineer, I find the effort exerted by various state and provincial licensing bodies to regulate the use of the term 'engineer' a bit tiresome. Yes, it's important to regulate the practice of engineering, but unlike some other types of professionals engineers rarely if ever offer their services to Joe Public. It's not like we have guys putting up billboards on the side of the highway advert…

Last time I had a discussion about this my put was that licensing is an archaic way of doing things. In short the idea is we trust the PE's signature that everything is copacetic. In more modern fields like automotive, aerospace and software engineering that idea is laughable. Everything is about process, audit and testing.

It all comes down to insurance. If your building collapses, the insurance company will want to know if you did every reasonable thing possible to prevent it before they pay out on your policy. One of those things is making sure that the person who designed the building knew what they were doing, i.e. were they a licensed engineer.

I think most product companies are essentially self-insured. If Ford releases the Pinto and they get sued, they're paying the settlements themselves, not filing an insurance claim. So they are free to use whatever method they like to verify the competence of their employees.

Re: Federal judge finds state law governing who is an engineer violates free speech

#132

Post by Taniwha » Tue, Jan 01, 2019, 2:21 AM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #106

eigenvector wrote: post #32

As a licensed professional engineer, I find the effort exerted by various state and provincial licensing bodies to regulate the use of the term 'engineer' a bit tiresome. Yes, it's important to regulate the practice of engineering, but unlike some other types of professionals engineers rarely if ever offer their services to Joe Public. It's not like we have guys putting up billboards on the side of the highway advert…

I once worked in the live entertainment industry. We often had engineers sign off on stage/tower structures. When they got the math wrong things fell on heads. Our insurance demanded licensed engineers. Anyone using that term, professing, to be an engineer better be one. This case essentially removes engineer from the list of recognized professions. That club now only belongs to the doctors and lawyers. Even hairdres…

No - the judge affirmed that the state can still control who can call themselves a "professional engineer" or "licensed professional engineer" - but allowed anyone to claim to be an "engineer" ... it's a situation akin to being an "accredited teacher" with a teaching credential compared to all of us who teach at one time or another

Re: Federal judge finds state law governing who is an engineer violates free speech

#133

Post by EGreg » Tue, Jan 01, 2019, 2:25 AM UTC

sneak wrote: post #122

jchw wrote: post #50

I both love and hate this story. Unfairly handing out red light tickets is rotten, but fining the man who pointed it out is beyond rotten. It's corrupt. There's no question Oregon was defending its income with that move. Dirty money. I don't feel like reversing the fine is nearly enough of a response. There was effectively no punishment for issuing that fine. But, I'm still pleased with the outcomes Järlström keeps a…

The state has a monopoly on violence; they do not need to protect their reputation. They’re the only game in town.

Why would you want more people to use violence? Mob rule is better?

Re: Federal judge finds state law governing who is an engineer violates free speech

#134

Post by AmericanChopper » Tue, Jan 01, 2019, 2:28 AM UTC

hodgesrm wrote: post #128

loeg wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure — but I think the original argument — that the pilot's union has artificially kept pay relatively high — is valid. Truck drivers have a very similar job but worse compensation (especially comparing senior workers).

With all due respect to the folks who drive 18-wheelers, flying a passenger aircraft and operating a truck require very different levels of training. Relatively small mistakes in operating an aircraft can have very serious consequences for large numbers of passengers. Example: crew reacted incorrectly to autopilot problems following pitot tube obstruction by ice on AF 447 and stalled the aircraft, leading to death of…

I don’t think you’ll find a strict correlation between level of training required, and salaries. There’s plenty of highly trained people with low salaries. I’d also be willing to bet that trucking accidents kill more people than airline ones.

Re: Federal judge finds state law governing who is an engineer violates free speech

#135

Post by someguydave » Tue, Jan 01, 2019, 2:43 AM UTC

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #74

ken wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you think anyone should be able to call themselves "physicians" or "lawyers" or "police", as those are English words that predate their professional associations?

The problem is that there are a small, specialized clique of Engineers who have professional certification, and a huge population of engineers who don't have this certification and are not required to have it. The boundary between the two groups is fuzzy and a bit contentious, with each side seeking to expand their domain. There's no such confusion when it comes to the other professions listed, no huge gray area wher…

I have a BSEE (and masters) and I have passed the engineering intern test. I do use my engineering knowledge for my day job and my business card says “engineer”. I would consider getting a PE but I literally know nobody with a PE and I cannot find a good reason to get one other than maybe advertising.

Re: Federal judge finds state law governing who is an engineer violates free speech

#136

Post by robdachshund » Tue, Jan 01, 2019, 2:44 AM UTC

EGreg wrote: post #133

sneak wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The state has a monopoly on violence; they do not need to protect their reputation. They’re the only game in town.

Why would you want more people to use violence? Mob rule is better?

The user is saying as an authority the state has nothing to fear in terms of ruining its reputation.

There is no implicit argument that additional forms of authority are necessary.

In other words, never assume someone is implying something else when making an entirely different argument.

Re: Federal judge finds state law governing who is an engineer violates free speech

#137

Post by lstodd » Tue, Jan 01, 2019, 2:45 AM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #126

SamReidHughes wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It could help develop accountability and best engineering practices. Have you ever read books about that? There are multiple layers of awful ideas about software engineering, touted as best practice. It's a cesspit of idiocy. Too many morons are going around trying to say things about engineering practices for it to be possible to make a useful accreditation. It would also end up being a negative hiring signal, lik…

A master's degree is a negative hiring signal? When did that start?

Isn't it obvious? You study for masters, or, god forbid, work on a PhD - you're missing what's going on in the industry for years while demonstrating that you're not interested in building solutions.

I'm not sure I'm being sarcastic.

Re: Federal judge finds state law governing who is an engineer violates free speech

#138

Post by SamReidHughes » Tue, Jan 01, 2019, 2:48 AM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #126

SamReidHughes wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It could help develop accountability and best engineering practices. Have you ever read books about that? There are multiple layers of awful ideas about software engineering, touted as best practice. It's a cesspit of idiocy. Too many morons are going around trying to say things about engineering practices for it to be possible to make a useful accreditation. It would also end up being a negative hiring signal, lik…

A master's degree is a negative hiring signal? When did that start?

Getting an MS is completely unimpressive, isn't it? I've read other people such as Google recruiters mention it as a negative signal, in terms of likelihood to pass the interview process.

Re: Federal judge finds state law governing who is an engineer violates free speech

#139

Post by wallace_f » Tue, Jan 01, 2019, 2:50 AM UTC

darpa_escapee wrote: post #125

wallace_f wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People should be held liable for intentionally stating non-truths with respect to one's own, or another's character: ie falsely claiming to have a certain medical license. Howver, I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that ordinary people should not be able to tell their children, friends, parents, or anyone, medical advice. If so, where does it end? Can you tell your child to take medication? Which medicati…

> Howver, I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that ordinary people should not be able to tell their children, friends, parents, or anyone, medical advice. Please do not strawman my position. The discussion was about people purposely portraying themselves as doctors and then dispensing medical advice. I have no problem with someone giving medical advice. I do have a problem with someone pretending to be a d…

Ok sorry, I misunderstood what you said.

Re: Federal judge finds state law governing who is an engineer violates free speech

#140

Post by olefoo » Tue, Jan 01, 2019, 2:50 AM UTC

EGreg wrote: post #133

sneak wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The state has a monopoly on violence; they do not need to protect their reputation. They’re the only game in town.

Why would you want more people to use violence? Mob rule is better?

His premise is also wrong; in that the state does not have a monopoly on violence and indeed delegates it to private citizens specifically in several contexts. Consider any state with "stand your ground" or "castle doctrine" embedded in their statutes.

In most of the US this translates into you can use violence if you are white and fearful and plausibly justified.

Not so much if you are not.