Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Thursday April 27 2017, @09:29AM   Printer-friendly
from the illegal-to-doubt dept.

Running red lights can get you a ticket. But in Oregon, you can be fined just for talking about it.

Mats Järlström learned this first-hand last year when the state of Oregon fined him $500 for publicly suggesting that yellow lights should last for slightly longer to accommodate cars making right turns.

[...] He did a little Googling and found the formula used to set traffic-light times. The length of time a traffic light stays yellow is based on a relatively straightforward mathematical formula, originally drafted in 1959. Mats realized that the formula is incomplete, because it fails to capture the behavior of drivers making right turns.

[...] Mats's work was generally met with interest and praise, but when Mats e-mailed the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying, things took an abrupt illegal U-turn. The Board told Mats they had no interest in hearing about his ideas. Fair enough. But the Board didn't stop there. They launched a full-blown investigation, alleging that he'd engaged in the unlicensed "practice of engineering."

After a two-year-long investigation, the Board fined him $500. According to the Board, "critiquing" the length of yellow lights and talking about his ideas with "members of the public" made Mats a lawbreaker because he's not an Oregon-licensed professional engineer.

The Board also told Mats that he couldn't refer to himself using the word "engineer" either. Most people would probably agree that "engineer" is a sensible way to describe Mats, given his education, experience, and skills. (He has a degree in electrical engineering from Sweden, and he's worked in a range of technical fields for decades). But in Oregon, none of that matters; the word "engineer" is off-limits to everyone who is not a state-licensed professional engineer.

Source: Institute for Justice


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by aclarke on Thursday April 27 2017, @12:05PM (17 children)

    by aclarke (2049) on Thursday April 27 2017, @12:05PM (#500616) Homepage
    I've spent too long at 50 karma so I'll slightly disagree with the tone of the article and comments here. First of all, we have this:

    The government has also stopped people like Mats from truthfully calling themselves “engineers.” Just as the State of Oregon has no monopoly on engineering concepts, it has no monopoly on words. That is why Mats has teamed up with the Institute for Justice to ask the federal courts to protect the First Amendment rights of all Oregonians to speak freely about whatever they want. It’s time for Oregon to give free speech the green light.

    In many jurisdictions, "engineer" is a profession that can only be claimed by licensed engineers. It's certainly that way where I live in Ontario, Canada, and I believe Oregon is the same. Vice provides a very important detail that TFA misses: Man Fined $500 for Crime of Writing 'I Am An Engineer' in an Email to the Government [vice.com]. Mats claimed to be an engineer. He's not being fined because he had a good idea. He's being fined because he claimed to be an engineer, which is a licensed profession. It's no different really from claiming to be a medical doctor, or a lawyer.

    Perhaps it's all the programmers who call themselves engineers, or a general dumbification of words and concepts, but "free speech" doesn't mean one can call oneself whatever one wishes. Mats perhaps didn't understand this, but ignorance of the law and all that. It sucks for him and the fine does seem excessive (although small) but it seems entirely reasonable to me that he would have been told he can't call himself an engineer.

    Lest you think I'm coming down hard on this guy, I have a degree in Engineering, but I don't call myself an engineer as I'm not a licensed professional engineer. I'm very careful to make this distinction, perhaps because after having spent five years in engineering school to get my degree, I have a level of understanding and respect of the legal ramifications of calling myself a Professional Engineer when I'm not one.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Informative=3, Disagree=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by rondon on Thursday April 27 2017, @12:31PM (4 children)

    by rondon (5167) on Thursday April 27 2017, @12:31PM (#500628)

    There is a difference between Professional Engineer and engineer. Just like there is a difference between a CPA and an accountant. Lowercase engineers should be allowed to describe themselves as engineers, just like folks with a PHD should be allowed to describe themselves as doctors, just not medical doctors.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by aclarke on Thursday April 27 2017, @02:49PM (3 children)

      by aclarke (2049) on Thursday April 27 2017, @02:49PM (#500703) Homepage
      This may be true in your jurisdiction as I don't know where you live. It's not true where I live, in Canada. To be an "engineer" is the same as a "Professional Engineer". It's a legally defined title. In order to be an engineer, one has to graduate with a degree in engineering from an accredited university, and spend four years working under a Professional Engineer, then register, before one can call oneself an engineer. Note how I've switched back and forth between "engineer" and "Professional Engineer". That is because around here the terms are interchangeable.

      "Oh", you say. "That's in Canada but we're talking about Oregon!". I give you https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.007 [oregonlaws.org] 1b: A person is practicing or offering to practice engineering if the person [...] Through the use of some other title implies that the person is an engineer or a registered professional engineer

      Now, from https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.020 [oregonlaws.org]: In order to safeguard life, health and property, no person shall practice or offer to practice engineering in this state unless the person is registered and has a valid certificate to practice engineering issued under ORS 672.002 (Definitions for ORS 672.002 to 672.325) to 672.325 (Civil penalties).

      So, as you can see, Oregon law prohibits people from self-identifying as "engineers" unless they are a registered Professional Engineer. You can have an opinion about what you think people "should" be allowed to do, but this is the law in Oregon. The reason is right there in the law: "In order to safeguard life, health, and property."
      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @05:21PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @05:21PM (#500802)

        He didn't say anything like "I am licensed professional engineer, registered in the state of Oregon." while accepting payment for engineering.

        That ought to be covered, ideally as fraud and deceptive advertising. Anything less, NO. The term "engineer" is used for all sorts of stupid shit, like operating trains.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @10:30PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @10:30PM (#500906)

          ...like recording studio knob twister.

          (I was also going to mention railroad train driver before I got to your comment. To any of those traveling to Ontario: be careful what you call yourself while there.)

          No one yet has specifically mentioned that this is censorship against someone critical of the way a government is doing something.
          Now, had the guy made any mention of seeking employment using his technical skills, -that- would be different.
          This is simply a power play by thin-skinned bureaucrats.

          -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday April 27 2017, @08:01PM

        by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Thursday April 27 2017, @08:01PM (#500857) Journal

        Just because something is the law in wherever doesn't mean it's a good law.

        I completely agree with you that engineering is a profession and I have no problem with states or other municipalities regulating who practices engineering.

        I think there are two separate issues here, though. The law is trying to prohibit: (1) people from "practicing engineering" without a license, and (2) people from claiming a designation that implies they are a licensed "professional engineer." I read through the statute and the board ruling in your link from an earlier post, and there are a number of clauses that seem to muddy the second point -- a few clauses seem to be most worried about people using a specific title implying "licensed engineer" or "professional engineer" on business signs, business cards, etc. and the like (those are specific kinds of examples mentioned in the statute).

        And I completely understand why those would be concerning, because they are the hallmarks of someone who is operating an engineering practice, rather than causally using a term "engineer" the way just about everyone in the English language uses it, i.e., someone who likely has a degree in the field and has practiced in the field a bit. You hear this term on the news, in documentaries, etc. all the time -- I'm sure most of those broadcasts make it into the state of Oregon and a lot of those folks are not registered to practice engineering in Oregon.

        Heck, I'm sure a few universities in Oregon actually subscribe to journals which contain references to people who do research and claim to be "engineers" who are not licensed to practice in Oregon.

        If you start going after everyone who casually is referred to as an engineer, I think we need to open the floodgates for Oregon fines.

        And I don't think the statute is trying to do that. The reason I differentiated the two points above is because it seems most of the time the word "engineer" is used in the statute, it's concerned about practicing engineering. When it has clauses concerned about titles alone, it mostly seems to be worried about things like "professional engineer."

        Anyhow, it's clear that this guy did NOT claim to be a "professional engineer" or someone licensed to practice in Oregon. He certainly isn't operating any sort of engineering business. So the question to me becomes: did he engage in the "practice of engineering" in Oregon by submitting a report and offering an opinion that was not part of some sort of final design decision? Did he claim to be an "engineer" while offering this opinion to people who might actually be confused by that, or only to an engineering board (who, since they have records of such things, clearly would KNOW that he wasn't claiming to be a licensed engineer, since he wasn't one)?

        Again, I read through the whole ruling in your link, and the only thing that seems remotely concerning to me is a brief reference to this guy supposedly representing himself as an engineer to the "media" or in some sort of "media report." Again, this is a questionable issue, since I assume Oregon allows news stories to be published from outside their state where people are referred to as "engineers" who are not licensed to practice in Oregon. But if he either was directly quoted in a local media report as claiming to be an "engineer" while offering his expert opinion, or his misled reporters into believing that he might be licensed in Oregon -- that's potentially concerning, given the INTENT of the statute.

        But since the media report was not quoted in the board's opinion, I can't evaluate what happened there.

        Basically, if this guy was actually operating a business claiming to be a "professional engineer" or misrepresented himself while making actual design decisions, I'd personally say that qualifies as "practicing engineering." I know that may not be what the Oregon statute says, but that seems to be what such laws should actually be regulating. Saying "I'm an engineer" casually in an email when one has an engineering degree and has practiced engineering elsewhere is clearly much more vague, and in such a case, I'd say a fair law should be about informing the guy of the appropriate use of terms in the state and giving him a warning, rather than slapping a $500 fine on him.

        And I'd say unless there's more to this than a couple emails and casual references (in which the recipients were unlikely to be misled by his claims), a board fining a guy in this case rather than just warning him or something is a jerk move.

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @12:31PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @12:31PM (#500629)

    The source of confusion is likely that where Järlström got his degree. You have a "Master of Science degree in engineering" by taking your exam successfully, by law. No need to apply for any "Professional engineer". So when he interacts with authorities in Oregon, US confusion ensues.

    The authorities in Oregon could however tried to sort this out instead of going ballistic. But then there's a reason bureaucrats have a reputation ;)

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @12:32PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @12:32PM (#500630)

    My great-grandfather had an eighth grade education. He was an engineer. His employer paid him to be, and called him, an engineer He was therefore a professional engineer. I'm fairly certain he was licensed in the field as well.

    So, great granpapa was a "Licensed Professional Engineer".

    He drove a Choo-Choo train for Southern Pacific.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Thursday April 27 2017, @12:54PM (5 children)

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Thursday April 27 2017, @12:54PM (#500643) Journal

    > the fine does seem excessive

    Exactly. Why didn't they warn first? What are they trying to accomplish with this decision to impose a fine, what is their motivation? Are they owned by red light camera companies? What they did is needlessly punitive and extreme hair splitting. "I have a degree in engineering" and "I have an engineering job" = no penalty, while "I am an engineer" and "I am a professional engineer" = penalty. He didn't say he was licensed, did he? Since they started with the punishing, I have no sympathy for the board should whatever eventual punishment meted out to them be harsh.

    From what I've seen, professional boards are massively hypocritical organizations. Their mission is to maintain standards of professionalism, so they claim. But the methods they use seem more calculated to reduce competition by restricting the supply of licensed professionals, than assure competence. Board members absolutely do have a conflict of interest that way.

    > I have a degree in Engineering, but I don't call myself an engineer

    Would you like to be fined by the Board of Higher Education for suggesting that university engineering degrees aren't good enough to allow engineering graduates to call themselves engineers? If this Oregon board can do what they did, then I see no reason why this other board can't also fine you for saying what you just said. Where does that leave us?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @02:34PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @02:34PM (#500697)

      Are they owned by red light camera companies?

      Yes. Well, no. What I mean is that red light cameras are just so damned profitable, and if you're already making money off of screwing people over based on a machine that's legally infallible, why not extract some more cash by knee jerking just like one of those machines?

    • (Score: 2) by aclarke on Thursday April 27 2017, @02:59PM (3 children)

      by aclarke (2049) on Thursday April 27 2017, @02:59PM (#500709) Homepage
      Who knows whether they warned the guy first or not. The articles I've read don't say one way or the other. Maybe they did. Maybe they should have. Do you always get a warning if you're pulled over for speeding or breaking the law in some way?

      Some professional boards are hypocritical, myopic and adversarial. However, possibly you don't understand that Professional Engineers are legally liable for their engineering. If there's an environmental disaster, a mall collapse [www.cbc.ca], or some other engineering screwup, engineers can go to jail. This doesn't happen to code monkeys who decide to put "software engineer" in their email signature line. Although you could be fined for that if you live in Oregon and a number of other states.

      As for the second half of your comment, I'm having a hard time parsing useful meaning out of it. Why would "the Board of Higher Education" fine me for my comment? They know that an engineering degree isn't sufficient to become a Professional Engineer. The State Board in Oregon can fine this guy because they have the legal right, and more or less obligation, to do so.
      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @04:31PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @04:31PM (#500764)

        I hear P.E.s trotting out that line a lot, that a P.E. can go to jail if his authorized building design fails.

        Yet, I have never heard of such a thing happening despite structural failures. I call *effectively* bullshit.

        • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday April 28 2017, @12:01AM

          by kaszz (4211) on Friday April 28 2017, @12:01AM (#500958) Journal

          Almost like a "Professional Senator" ;-)

      • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday April 27 2017, @05:16PM

        by bzipitidoo (4388) on Thursday April 27 2017, @05:16PM (#500800) Journal

        > Why would "the Board of Higher Education" fine me

        Is it not obvious why they would be unhappy with your statement? If engineering grads can't call themselves engineers, aren't good enough for that, that lessens both the meaning and value of their degrees. It suggests the quality of the education they received is poor, and therefore the universities did a bad job. Probably they respect freedom of speech, and unlike this Oregon board, are just plain wise enough to understand it won't work, to want to seriously try to fine you. But why should they take that lying down, just accept your assertion that "an engineering degree isn't sufficient to become a Professional Engineer"? Is it not possible for them to provide the education necessary so their graduates are every bit as good as board licensed engineers?

        Accusations that universities fail their students are common, but seem to be more frequent in recent years. Also, they are less constructive. What do you suggest universities do? Die? Close their doors? Do we disband them, switch to some sort of craft model with ranks of apprentice, journeyman, and master?

        A big problem, especially in engineering, is a too narrow education. Business interests push for that, seem to prefer idiot savants who know their technical chops but can't in any way threaten their managerial positions. Some of these have a peculiar sort of religious view that it would be better if all of society was less educated and more docile and pliant, really do not believe in democracy and public education, prefer a plutocracy with themselves on top of course. Lot of the criticism of education I've heard is of the self-serving sort with that as the ulterior motive.

        It is a good education that shows people why such a plutocratic vision of society is a bad idea. Seems a lot of people just don't get that.

        > possibly you don't understand that Professional Engineers are legally liable for their engineering

        Oh, yes, I understand that. Maybe you don't appreciate that anyone can be sued for anything. When an engineering failure leads to a massive disaster, the public is not going to give a rat's patootie about licensing. We want to know what went wrong. Was it an honest mistake, or were people taking short cuts? We want whoever is responsible held accountable, whether or not they are licensed. If they were licensed, then the board is going to be very, very quiet, in hopes they won't have to answer any questions about why their licensing processes didn't prevent the grossly negligent engineers from getting licenses, and head off the disaster. They will wish for a story of management pressure and overruling of engineering decision to come out. If the engineers were not licensed, the board might well join in the chorus of accusations and recriminations, likely suggesting that more stringent enforcement of licensing requirements is needed.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by art guerrilla on Thursday April 27 2017, @01:06PM

    by art guerrilla (3082) on Thursday April 27 2017, @01:06PM (#500657)

    grrrrr
    1. poster below has it right, you refer to yourself generically as an engineer, who the fuck cares ? ? ? ONLY The State...
    2. there was another story about them coming down hard on a political candidate who had put he was an 'environmental engineer' in his resume; guy had a degree in, yes, 'environmental engineering'... now, whether he paid some extortion fee to The Precious Fucking State or not, the guy was entitled to call himself an 'environmental engineer', notwithstanding the pants-wetting of authoritarians such as yourself...
    3. NO ONE is dying because a run-of-the-mill self-named 'engineer' is not a PE or otherwise bribed The Precious Fucking State for a scarce piece of paper...
    NO ONE, this is NOT an issue in society; it IS simply dinosaurs gatekeeping/turf-guarding, and keeping the smaller, more clever mammals from eating their lunch...

    yeah, self-policing 'experts' is working out just great, ain't it ? ? ?
    ...oh, wait, no its not: it is the very heart of our corrupted institutions who are NOT transparent and amenable to outside oversight...
    ALL secret institutions (and policing, military, gummint, korporations, etc, are all effectively secret organizations) WILL become corrupted...
    WILL become corrupted; not maybe, not possibly, not theoretically, WILL BECOME CORRUPTED...
    ...as they are...

  • (Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday April 27 2017, @02:08PM (1 child)

    by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 27 2017, @02:08PM (#500685)

    They need a different name then. "Licensed Engineer" sounds appropriate. Nobody would get confused. My job title is Software Engineer. I don't think anyone is confused about what i do. If i were to quit my job then i would no longer be a Software Engineer. It's a job title. Not a title attached to me like Doctor or Professor. That's the additional complication these licensed Engineers have. They could have no job and still be an Engineer. Some guy with an engineering job where he fabricates air-compressors and no license isn't able to call himself an Engineer.

    --
    SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
    • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday April 28 2017, @12:03AM

      by kaszz (4211) on Friday April 28 2017, @12:03AM (#500959) Journal

      You would still be a software engineer regardless of jobs. It's about knowledge and skill formalized through education. It won't go away because the job market has low.

  • (Score: 2) by rob_on_earth on Thursday April 27 2017, @02:32PM

    by rob_on_earth (5485) on Thursday April 27 2017, @02:32PM (#500696) Homepage

    The BTEC HND course I took was for a Software Engineer, so I would expect to call myself an engineer.

    Except I did not pass, so I instead call myself, DevOps manager, but have been Senior Developer, Silverlight devleoper(really), Internet developer, Senior Analyst and tech support rep amongst other things.