Hijacking the Engineering Profession

Appears in Print As: Vantage Point: Hijacking the Engineering Profession

September 3, 2009

Burt Siegal
President
Budd Engineering
Skokie, Ill.

A degree from an accredited engineering school and a job in your company’s engineering department lets you call yourself an engineer, right? Think again. Professional engineers, a small fraction of the engineering community, are attempting to own the word “engineer” and are taking legal steps to have their way.

Illinois, like other states, has a Professional Engineering Act that licenses engineers who design roads, sewers, airports, power plants, and other large, public works. The Act specifically exempts engineers who design products or conduct research for manufacturers or industry.

Nonetheless, PEs are highly organized and have spent millions lobbying to become the gateway to determining who is an engineer. It is the relentless objective of the National Society of Professional Engineers that all engineers (other than Licensed Structural Engineers) become licensed PEs and pay annual licensing fees. In the mid-80s, they succeeded in amending the Illinois and many other states’ P.E. Acts so that using the title “engineer” or any of its derivations implies you are a licensed professional engineer. They have tried, thus far without success, to have the manufacturing exemption deleted from the Act.

The Act also lets any third party with a real or imagined grievance drag an engineer or company into court claiming fraud if they are not licensed. I’m living that nightmare. I have a BSME from the Univ. of Illinois and founded Budd Engineering in 1959. I’ve designed hundreds of products for manufacturers and have never practiced professional engineering. Yet the Illinois Dept. of Professional Regulation, which has not questioned my competence, is prosecuting me and my firm. Their entire case rests on the fact that my firm is Budd Engineering and I call myself an engineer.

The complaint was instigated by a former client. If they don’t allow the manufacturing exemption, I’ll be liable for two civil penalties of up to $5,000 each. A Class A misdemeanor and a Class 4 felony can also be imposed.

If the Department can establish a precedent against someone with my credentials, who is safe? Many engineers and companies may be forced to defend themselves or change their names. The Act leaves every engineering company vulnerable to being sued by lawyers on contingency. Unfortunately for MACHINE DESIGN’s engineering readership, similar P.E. Acts exist in most states.

The Illinois Manufacturers Assn., The Institute for Justice, and many others recognize the absurdity of graduate engineers not being able to legally identify themselves as engineers, and support my case.

I have better things to do than waste my time on this fight and spend my retirement fund on legal fees. I have promoted engineering all my life, so the last thing I would advocate is engineering fratricide. But MACHINE DESIGN’s readers and members of engineering organizations must coalesce to prevent a determined and organized minority with a large lobbying budget from imposing their will on the vast majority of engineers — threatening our livelihood and even identity.

Learn more about Mr. Siegal’s battle, including his countersuit in Illinois Circuit Court, at www.IAmAnEngineer.org.

Edited by Kenneth J. Korane

Comments

PE protectionist laws = legalized racketeering

On January 25th, 2010 Jaded Professional Engineer (not verified) says:

I thought getting my PE was a good thing to do... that it would help promote good engineering and show employers that I had the skills and commitment they desired. After becoming a PE and learning about the extensive lobbying for protectionist legislation and the never ending regulations (with corresponding fees) I have come to realize that the PE pushers simply want total control over who can compete for business. The more restrictions and obstacle placed in the way, the fewer people will compete for the work. Plus, most state laws have been crafted such that anyone (regardless of how well qualified they are) who doesn't "join the club" - (there is a separate club for EACH and EVERY state), will be facing civil fines ($1000 and up), and possible criminal charges. EACH STATE requires $200-$300 in application and registration fees, often due every 2 years. Double the fees if you own an engineering firm. The PE designation/legislation is simply a very expensive and time consuming protectionist club. If I didn't have a family to feed, I would be taking up the legal fight too.

PE licensing

On January 20th, 2010 Stephen Mraz says:

After following the many insightful MD letters on the continuing PE controversy, it’s time I put in my own two cents:

In over 40 years, I’ve worked in dozens of engineering disciplines designing mechanical, electrical, electronic & fluidic components, systems & subsystems including agricultural, automotive, aeronautical, medical, microwave, military, material-handling, industrial & commercial. But, always too busy working and/or raising a family, I’ve never had (or made?) the time to finish my degree, although I have over 125 engineering-related units at 4 colleges/universities.

I did get my EIT license in 1988 & had intended to work on getting my PE, but still haven’t. The requirements really are geared toward civil engineering, which is not my bailiwick -- although I once aced the CAL-Trans engineering exam when applying for a position there, ca. 1982. And the requirement that the applicant work under a PE for a number of years is almost impossible to attain for most mechanical-electronic-fluidic engineers.

I’ve managed people & projects, authored papers & taught others to excel on various CAD platforms, invented & implemented a plethora of parts, assemblies & systems. I’m proud of my professionalism, inventiveness, efficiency & resulting work product. I’ve never had any of “my” components or systems fail, break, hurt anybody, or do anything other than their design intent.

I have been successfully operating independently now for 7 years, but I can’t use the word “engineer” in my business name. There’s definitely something wrong with that.

Brian A Lentz

There are greater problems

On October 28th, 2009 Stephen J. Mraz says:

I've read many of the articles about PE licensing and I had to finally chime in. I've dealt with many incompetent people in quite a few professions who were all licensed. I've also worked with people who have very impressive resumes with multiple engineering degrees who could not back them up. We all take tests to get our Engineering degrees which shows competence in understanding the material that was taught. The PE test is another level of the same principle. I have no problem calling myself an Engineer as I design small automation equipment and I apply the engineering principles that I have been taught while obtaining my BSME. There's also a lot more to my job than crunching numbers. I feel if you have any kind of engineering degree and are working in a field where you applying what you have learned, than you are an engineer.

Like every profession, there are shining stars as well as incompetent morons (including licensed Mechanical Engineers). I have interviewed many people for my company and I don't care if you have a PE or a 4 yr degree. You must have formal training and above all, be able to show me that you can do the job. I am constantly bombarded with questions from family & friends when something breaks & it usually comes down to poor design, either from incompetence or short cuts for cost savings. There is a much greater problem in Engineering than licensing.

Thank you

Andrew Farkas

Burton Siegal has a lot of

On January 19th, 2010 Anonymous (not verified) says:

Burton Siegal has a lot of facts plain wrong.

The NSPE is not attempting to own the word engineer. Here is their official stance on the subject, which Burton conveniently failed to quote:

It is the policy of the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) that engineering titles should only be conferred upon those individuals who have earned them by virtue of:
1. Licensure under a jurisdiction engineering licensure law; or
2. Graduation from an ABET/EAC program or an equivalent program; or
3. An official ruling under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, which defines engineers as learned professionals (29CFR541, Subpart D, Paragraph 541.301).

Burton, from all of the inaccuracies in the article, seems to be poorly informed, or just flat out lying to gain support for his "sour grapes" situation.

I can't see taking pity on a man and his wife that founded an engineering corporation that offered its services to the public via the yellow pages, currently bills $150-$175 per hour, has made millions over the decades and now is crying poor and solicting funds to help pay legal bills via his "iamanengineer.org website. Maybe he should consider selling his Lexus automobile before asking his engineering brothers for money to help in a situation that has been brewing for a long time!!

Okay, heres the low down on

On January 11th, 2010 Anonymous (not verified) says:

Okay, heres the low down on Siegal and IDFPR's prosecution of him and his firm.

Burton has practiced engineering for over 5 decades. He has never held a P.E. license in Illinois or any other state. His Firm, Budd Engineering has advertised in the business to business yellow pages for at LEAST two decades.

In Illinois, for an individual or company to offer ANY (except structural) kind of engineering services to the general public or other companies, there has to be a P.E. license held by the individual or someone in the company.

IF YOU WORK DIRECTLY FOR A CORPORATION AND PRACTICE ENGINEERING FOR THAT CORPORATION, YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO HOLD A P.E.'s LICENSE!!!! There is an exemption in the professional engineering act for EMPLOYEES of corporations. My opinion as to why employees are exempt is because the corporation is liable for their engineering work product!!

YOU ARE AN ENGINEER IF YOU WENT TO SCHOOL FOR ENGINEERING AND YOU PRACTICE AN ENGINEERING DISCIPLINE. YOU DO NOT NEED A P.E.'S LICENSE TO REFER TO YOURSELF AS AN "ENGINEER".

There is in all practicality no such thing as "professional engineering" work product and "non-professional engineering" work product. The classes that engineering students take are not qualified or labeled "NON-P.E." or "P.E.". Sitting to take the test is something that engineering students elect to do or not do, but they ALL come from the SAME DAMN CLASSES, assuming they studied the same discipline. Phew!

Now that that is clear (I really hope) on to Mr. Burton Siegal of Skokie, Illinois and his drama of being "hijacked" ... OY, the drama is so thick, i could just- anyway. Burton and his wife Rita founded Budd Engineering in 1959. Circa 1960, AFTER founding an ENGINEERING CORPORATION, he contacted the State of Illinois' regulatory body as to if he was doing anything illegal. He showed them some work product and purported that it was in no way a potential harm to the public and he should be exempt from the laws and be able to call himself an engineer. The department told him that as long as his work could not endanger the public he could use the term engineer.

He subsequently has participated in MANY disciplines on engineering and most likely practiced outside of his "mechanical engineering" discipline. He also told the Department that he would sit for the P.E.'s test as soon as he could... once his work load slowed. This sitting for the test NEVER happened. Go figure.

In 1989 the State of Illinois passed a new engineering act and this (I think again) banned the use of the term "engineer" or any of its derivatives when offering engineering services to the public unless there is an individual with a P.E.'s license involved in the offering-end of the deal.

Burton is saying if he is not allowed to continue practicing engineering in Illinois because of a cease and desist from the IDFPR then there will be "hundreds of thousands" of engineers out of work. This is NOT the case. IDFPR is prosecuting Burton because he owns a corporation and offers engineering services to OTHER corporations!! He is not an employee of any corp except Budd Engineering, which has no P.E. employed at it. Rita and Burton also have made it a practice of NOT carrying liability insurance to cover their engineering work product?! Why?? This effectively means that their engineerng work product must be covered by the unknowing corporation that recieves it.

Burton is not an employee of these corps he delivers engineering services to. They sign an "Engineering Services Agreement" usually, write checks to "Budd Engineering" and he refers to them as "clients". They also do not pay FICA or any other taxes on him or Rita. Illinois says he is NOT an employee of these corps. Rita, Burton and Budd Engineering DO NOT QUALIFY for the "employee" exemption in the engineering act. They also do not qualify for the "laboratory" exemption. There are other exemptions... of which they qualify for none as the Illinois Dept of Financial and Professional Regulation sees it. Most likely- game over! IDFPR is hopefuly gonna get it right (as I see it) this time and shut them down. Who would go to the yellow pages and look under P.E.'s and want an unlicensed person that charges $150 and more per hour. It's worked so far for Rita, Burton and Budd though.

Several comments say "just

On October 16th, 2009 Stephen J. Mraz says:

Several comments say "just go take the test and stop whining." Ah, if only it were that easy.

I've worked as an electrical engineering design consultant for about 20 years. I've designed hundreds of circuit boards and have worked with many clients. I have a degree from a top-notch engineering school. Late last year, I decided it would be cool to be able to put the title "Engineer" on my business card after all these years. I found it was impossible for me to even take the test.

To get a professional engineering license, an applicant needs to take two tests. The first test is the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE). It is a pretty difficult test for anyone who has been out of school for a while, because it covers a broad variety of material, certain sections of which are not even covered at many institutions. Although I can't say that I agree with the scope of test, I did not find it too difficult to study the material and it was kind of neat to learn some structural engineering.

I would have taken the FE. However, I started to fill out the Professional Engineering Test application and hit a brick wall. The application had two requirements that were difficult or impossible for me to meet: (1) it required "4 recommendations from people you have worked for who have PE licenses in your field." After contacting almost everybody I could think of, I came up with 3 EE PE's (all at a single

client) and 1 Civil PE. Close, but no cigar. (2) It also required that I had worked for four years under supervision of EE PE's, and I hadn't.

When I discussed these requirements with the State licensing office and with someone at the National Society of Professional Engineers, they both agreed with me that, because there are few (if any) EE PE's working in the design world, it would be pretty much impossible for me to even qualify to take the test.

Requiring recommendations from PE's and PE supervised experience only makes sense if there are, in fact, PE's working in your chosen field or industry. For many who work in the engineering profession, there aren't.

These requirements stink of exclusivity and protectionism rather than an earnest interest in ensuring engineering excellence. If certification or proving competence is really the goal, bring it on. I'm up for it.

PS: So, uh, does this letter qualify as whining?

(please, please label this as from anonymous -- I don't trust regulatory boards)

Consultant

As a civil engineer

On October 16th, 2009 Jeff boy (not verified) says:

As a civil engineer (outsider maybe to this site?), I can tell you the majority of equations and methods of solving problems were developed by several governmental organization in varying fields: NASA, army corps, FAA, NRCS, ACI, etc.. The funny thing is that none of the people, even the highest regarded engineers in these organization, have PEs.

I think the PE isn't catered towards engineering advancement, it's catered more towards keeping the capitalism industry competitive.

Just get the license

On October 11th, 2009 Daniel N. Donahoe (not verified) says:

I also have degrees from the University of Illinois, my friend. You should pass the exam easily. This is a long standing requirement in the states and territories. The exam review itself is worthwhile. Go get the license. I feel that your energies are better spent complying with the law than in fighting it.

why take the test if you can

On January 11th, 2010 Anonymous (not verified) says:

why take the test if you can practice without it for 50 years?

Hogging the Engineer Title

On October 7th, 2009 Ralph (not verified) says:

This is as absurd as McDonald's trying to get exclusive rights on the letter "M". Questions is, who can stop these self-serving idiots? Answer is probably no one because most judges lack common sense and follow what is politically correct nowadays, in an effort not to offend anyone. Unless...we band together and fight for what is right and logical. Where do I sign up?