PE Licensing

My observation from almost 30 year of practice as a professional engineer is that it is time to revisit this issue - exactly for the reasons stated above. Please note that the issue of ethics is also critical to this discussion. As a professional engineer I am bound to perform my duties per a strict code of ethics. Given the number issues that have recently arisn regarding product safety, workplace safety, environmental impact, and damage that may last for centuries the public has a need for those making enginering decisions to be professional engineers.

I agree...phase out the existing industrial exemptions in state licensing laws. It will be a FIGHT!

The proposed policy is long overdue! As a practicing consulting engineer, I've learned to appreciate the dual allegiance licensure creates... Zealous commitment to one's employeer and/or client must be tempered by a legal license to practice.

Most decisions we make are not black and white; they may be considered to reside within a wide pallete of grays. A license reduces the potential number of shades / the available choices / we must often work within.

I SUPPORT A CHANGE IN NSPE'S POSITION ON THIS POLICY

Perhaps it might be an easier battle to press both politicians and the garner the public support if you start with some industry that most could get behind.  Specifically, nuclear power plants.  It seems unreasonalble that degreed, licensed professional engineers in the nuclear industry have to report to, both directly and in the higher reporting chain, to non-engineers and un-licensed individuals due to "industry exemption".  No law firm, or private or public hospital has their licensed professionals reporting to non-licensed professionals.  

The model law includes "teaching of advanced engineering subjects" in its definition.  The first sentance of the policy stated above does not include any qualifications/limitations to the model law.  Shouldn't the NSPE Policy also indicate that all higher education academic instructors be licensed?

Has anyone studied what the financial impact would be if all "industrial or consumer products" (TVs, DVDs, PCs, game consoles, refrigerators, washers, dryers, etc) designs were required to be signed by a PE to be sold in a state that eliminates the exemption?  A signficant numbers of these products are not even designed in this country.

Your "whistling Dixie"!  "Rots of Ruck".

Craig, you don't have a "snow balls chance in hell" of succeeding without grandfathering these folks. Otherwise, spend the time and money on something else!

Jack

I agree with this proposal.

This is a long overdue policy....there are many many reasons why this is needed. Excellent policy change.  We next need to push to implement...

I agree the industrial exemption should be repealed. Not only would product quality be improved but facility management and safety would be as well.

The industrial exemption used to be at least partialy offset by the "strict liability" theory in product liablity cases after failure has occurred and caused large losses.  However, nowadays judicial decisions in a few Daubert Challenged cases have let guilty parties off the hook in summary judgment motions.

If licensure becomes required for all engineering practices, then we may revert to ordinary negligence theory, a tougher standard for plaintiff's than strict liability.

It also does not bode well for public safety if government engineers are not required to be licensed.  Particularly since many juridictions limit the amount for any financial awards regardless of the professional negligence that may be involved.

Finally, our profession would be upgraded if we required professors in engineering, particulary at the under graduate level to be licensed.

This effort is overdue.  It will still be difficult to implement despite the recent spectacular examples.

NSPE will have to partner with sister organizations, and be prepared to overcome significant opposition from within the profession from those associations that have enjoyed, for whatever reason, the exemption.

We will have to *prove*, that professional engineers' work is, and has been, superior with respect to protecting the public's health, safety and welfare.  This will have to take two lines:

1) Demonstrating that industries that lack PEs have signifcantly higher damages associated with their operations, and

2) Demonstrating that PEs have effective self-policing systems operational that prevent incompetent, nut just unlicensed, practice.

These arguments will have to be clear and demonstrable and not reliant upon inuition or argument from authority.  Collecting this data will take time, and require some honesty on our part: (Are we *really* disciplining incompetence, plan stamping, etc.?)

I support this proposed policy.  It is clearly worded and limits itself to specific statements concerning the public health, safety and welfare and a recommendation that the industrial exemption be phased out.

Well done!

This exemption change needs to be applied to the Federal Government as well.  Currently some federal engineering positions are presently filled by unlicensed individuals who do not even have an engineering degree.  This situation needs to be changed ASAP.

I agree, Long over due.

I agree that the industrial exemption needs to be phased out.  The industrial exemption is not clear cut and some companies and employees mis-interpret the exemption rule to not require an engineering design and seal.  I work in the energy sector and notice this happening on projects outside of my companies work.

Being agressive on this policy is a good way to protect the requirements for registered P.E.s that we already have.

Craig,

Thanks for taking the initiative. Addressing the challenge of removing the industrial exemption from state licensing laws is long overdue.

Past President NAFE, Retired Engineering Faculty at Univ. of Nevada.  Past member of the NSPE BER.

This is the worst Public Relations thing NSPE could do.  It will also get all the lawyers for industry united against licensure and thus weaken engineering performance, not improve it.  Not only that, but there are not and never will be enough licensed engineers to fill all the need, not even a small fraction of it.  There are not even enough Engineering graduates to do the industrial work,so much of it is now done by technicians, many of them extremely competent, but in narrow fields.  If enacted by legislatures it would be terribly inflationary if it actually were enforced and industry would be forced to grind to a near halt amid an economic upheaval.  Enforcement seems impossible, people would not self report and it would result in much repeal litigation that would undoubtedly succeed after much expense to NSPE, State Boards and the nation.  Legislatures will rebel and if I gave this more thought I could no doubt come up with more negatives.  

Get some, or more, industrial engineers involved.  This is not like the construction and public works business.  This cannot be implemented and should not be.  Vastly more Engineering work is done in industry than in construction.

Please let Art Schwartz know my beliefs on this and have him forward this to Marvin Specter.  It is a disaster for NSPE, all engineers and the country to proceed this way.  

I support the policy statement. It is simply the right thing to do.  The only debate should be about what we do next.  

The proposed law does nothing to improve product safety; it only gives "ambulance chasing" lawyers another tool to line their pockets.  The problem is with the company's policies.  I believe the solution is to teach engineering ethics to all people involved in engineering, including support staff.  This could be mandatory C.E. that will catch about 75% of people practicing engineering. Then you need to give the individual the ability to choose not to do something unethical and still keep his job when threatened otherwise.

It's a hard sell to include all engineers but it would be appropriate to require a PE in charge. Obtaining one's PE is the first logical step up in engineering management, not an MBA.

To try to remove the industry exemption will do more harm than good.  NSPE does not have sufficient influence to accomplish the removal.  Few, if any, other engineering societies share the desire to eliminate the exemption.  Very likely NSPE will be alone in this effort.  I would encourage NSPE to spend considerable effort in building strong relationships with industry.  Years ago NSPE had an industry advisory council composed of high ranking engineers from major industries such as GM, IBM, GE and others.  A lot of progress was being made.  But for some reason, NSPE dropped the program, but of course, NSPE has dropped many worthwhile programs – maybe that is one of the reasons why NSPE has lost members.  To spend time, money and effort to try to eliminate the industry exemption is a bad idea.  A better use of NSPE’s efforts would be to develop programs of interest to engineers and rebuild its membership.  

Bob Nichols, P.E., NSPEF

NSPE President, 1978-79

Your committee happens to neglect the vast majority of excellent engineering and product development that has occurred in the last 50 years under the industrial exemption.  Without any significant industrial input on the front end, NSPE will come across as immature and self serving.  Policies like this will ultimately reduce NSPE's organizational effectiveness.  There is no study nor any direct correlation between the serious incidents and the presence of, or lack of a PE license.  If NSPE continues with this small minded policy making, WITHOUT engaging the major industrialists first, you will render yourselves obsolete through YOUR inability to understand the true issues, which, by the way, are NOT related to the presence of a PE, but to the lack of good risk management processes and understanding in the workplaces and work cultures in question.  

I support this proposed policy change.

I think the proposal impractical.  However, perhaps some effort could be made to (1)require industry and government to apply the title Engineer only to employees with an engineering degree who actually practice engineering, and (2) encourage all engineers, licensed or exempt, to paricipate in periodic continuing-education ethics courses.

The proposed policy is long overdue.  I've witnessed growing abuse to the use of titles using the term engineer within the large manufacturing community of which I have been a part for the past several decades.  Slowing the train and reversing direction is almost certain to be a long term arduous task; but, restoration of public respect for and confidence in engineering has to start somewhere. Let the discussion begin.

I applaud the proposed change in policy - at a moderated pace.  There are some wonderful suggestions in the forum comments.  My addition would be to go to the Universities first.  Most engineering professors (especially in non-civil engineering departments) are not licensed.  However, my experience (as a professor) is that this group strongly supports licensure in principle.  Many state licensing boards have made it difficult for professors' experience to count towards licensure.  If you had this group in your corner - a much greater percentage of graduating engineers would have the FE exam under their belt and would follow on to become PE's.  

Of course there will be resistance - and frankly the biggest source of resistance will be those practicing engineers who have been out of school long enough that taking the PE exam intimidates them.  Something must be done to address their concerns.  However, doing the right thing trumps doing the popular thing.

How can we call ourselves a profession if we have no disciplinary control over a substantial portion of those who practice it?  Lawyers, Doctors, Accountants, Dietitians, etc. all have set the bar higher.  Just let me know what I can do to help.  

As most others have said, this is a long overdue change. But the fact that NSPE has allowed the industrial exemption for 40 years is going to make this change extremely difficult. Countless unregistered, and in many cases non-degreed, engineers have been and are practicing under the industrial exemption.

To make such a major change after all of these years will be difficult to say the least. It will take a well conceived plan that deals with all of the numerous associated issues. And it will require the active backing of many people.

Do we have enough supporters with the energy and determination for this challenge?