Slashdot Mirror
Oregon Man Fined For Writing 'I Am An Engineer' Temporarily Wins Right To Call Himself An 'Engineer' (vice.com)
Mats Jarlstrom, an electrical engineer fined by the Oregon engineering board for calling himself an "engineer" and talking about traffic lights, has been granted the temporary right by a judge to both publicly call himself an "engineer" and talk about traffic lights. Jason Koebler reports via Motherboard: Last month, Jarlstrom sued the engineering board for violating his First Amendment rights, and Tuesday a federal judge gave Jarlstrom the temporary right to call himself an engineer, pending the results of his case. "Plaintiff Jarlstrom may study, communicate publicly about, and communicate privately his theories relating to traffic lights throughout the pendency of this litigation as long as [his] communications occur outside the context of a paid employment or contractual relationship," Anna Brown, a federal district court judge for the district of Oregon, ordered. He "may describe himself publicly and privately using the word 'engineer' throughout the pendency of this litigation." Jarlstrom's attorneys say this is a promising sign and a "critical first step in protecting Oregonians' First Amendment rights."
you ignorant cunts.
Having an engineering degree makes you an engineer, in the same way that having a PhD makes you a doctor, or having a masters in the universe makes you He-Man. If Oregon wants to legislate having a specific certification to call yourself a very specific title and practice a very specific profession, fine but they can't change the English language where the word engineer has already meant something for centuries, nor can the change the fact that he practices electrical engineering in a professional manner.
if he doesn't know the law about his own profession, what does he know about traffic lights?
I'd rather have the one with knowledge about traffic lights than legalese. There are too many around already who haven't got a clue about the real subject of their profession.
He shouldn't be allowed to call himself an engineer
The guy is an engineer. Why should he have to lie about that fact?
While generally true, in Oregon they are only given the power of regulating certain trades and types of engineering.
You can absolutely write words in a non-commercial setting and claim anything, their rules don't (can't) touch that.
All the industry boards like this are full of rednecks in Oregon. It is unlikely they consulted anybody with a clue before issuing the fine. These would be civic engineers with experience mostly in road building.
Why does there need to be a distinction in name?
What someone refers to themselves as "engineer", "technician", "manager", "consultant", etc. is arbitrary and liable to interpretation, misrepresentation (e.g. a "doctor" of mathematics), etc.
If you are AT ALL interested in hiring a qualified person, you go by qualifications. Being a member of a particular organisation, holding a certain certificate or licence, etc. Not by what they refer to themselves as.
Given that every electrician, gas-fitter, window-installer, etc. in my country has to be registered for their work to be building-reg compliant or legal, no matter what they call themselves or whether they were calling themselves an electrician for 30 years before "part P" certifications were a thing, I don't see that it's a burden.
And then you don't have to live in fear that, despite calling myself a mathematician because I have a mathematics degree, and calling myself a scientist because I have a scientific outlook on life and a computer science degree, someone might take me to court for saying that informally in a complaint letter.
Protecting a generalised word like "engineer" should be treated like trademarking it. You shouldn't be able to. But equally someone shouldn't be able to say they are a "Engineer Registered with the Institute of Engineering" unless they actually are.
"Doctor" is the precedent here. Doctor's of geography, mathematics, art, even are all over the world. But you wouldn't expect them to be able to work in a hospital performing surgery without being appropriately qualified. You wouldn't expect them to be able to misrepresent their doctorate (e.g. by saying "it's okay, just take your top off and show me, I'm a doctor"). You also wouldn't expect them to be fined to oblivion for booking a restaurant table in the name of Dr Smith, either. Because that's what they are and referring to that title isn't compulsory or indicative of a specific qualification at that point.
The judge has called this right.
And if you want to protect something, protect the qualification. Which you can certificate, number, provide a searchable list so anyone can verify that Fred Bloggs is actually the Dipl.Ing. that he claims to be and it hasn't been rescinded in the years since. And which anyone who relies on them actually BEING a qualified engineer (e.g. skyscraper building firms, aircraft manufacturers, etc.) is required to check before they rely on their work.
Not meaning to offend any 'official' engineers here - I understand the work that goes into an engineering degree, and I understand the legal and ethical need to protect the title from pretenders. What I really don't get is that people automatically place more trust in the opinions of an engineer, (or a doctor, etc), than people who don't hold the title, yet have similar or greater accomplishments in the field.
I've spent my life working in the electronics field. I once worked for a degreed electrical engineer whose idea of heatsinking a component on a PCB was blobbing some heatsink compound on it. (No, I'm not kidding). This same engineer casually implemented some resistor-diode logic between 74HC logic inputs and the outside world, without so much as a couple of protection diodes from the inputs to the supply rails. In this case the 'outside world' happened to be various points in the noisy, spikey electrical system of a large military vehicle. The design was being field-tested just prior to production. 'Nuff said. A bit later in my career, I worked for a guy who, (thankfully), actually merited his engineer's title. But he told me about an engineer who once worked for him, who couldn't understand why trying to start his car with a 12-volt lantern battery wasn't working.
There are smart, knowledgeable, competent people, and there are incompetent fools. In my experience, a degree, (or lack thereof), is no kind of an indication of which category a given person falls into.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Licensing is not a prerequisite to work as an engineer, but it is a prereq to sign official design documents that fall under various public safety regs as required by state law. Nearly all engineers working are not PEs. It is actually more unusual to have a PE as most states make this expensive to maintain.
The whole concept of not being allowed to say that you're an engineer when in fact you are one is preposterous.
The man is totally in his right to sue for his free speech and against a totally unfair an ridiculous fine.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
"there was fuck all need for him to claim himself a professional engineer"
He did not claim to be a "professional engineer", he claimed to be an engineer. He is an engineer, he has a degree in engineering and does engineering for his work. The powers that be in Oregon got upset about this guy pointing out that those so called "professional" engineers that work for the state did not do their job correctly. They thought they could shut him up with a fine. It blew up in their face and now the distinction between "engineer" and "professional engineer" will be set in law with this case.
I suspect they pulled this stunt before to make people keep quiet about where they screwed up but this guy fought back. If there is anyone making a mockery of being a "professional engineer" it is the people in the Oregon government.
Eh. I'm pretty sure the "public" in your "public opinion" above doesn't give a hell about this case because:
1) They don't know about this case, nor do they care, nor will they ever.
2) They think this is how things work anyway, because it is. Language is a shared construct and the consensus is "engineer" means you have an engineering degree, while more formal terms ("licensed" or "professional" etc.) signify greater formality when needed.
3) The plaintiff has a commonsense, grokable, gut-feeling-it's-right position. The OR board has a nitpicky, facially counterintuitive position that manages to come across as both unfair and "over-regulatory". Which one sounds like an argument that tends to go over well with "the public"?
4) The public is generally aware of the 1st Amendment and has a vague notion that it's good. To the extent they understand what it protects, I'd wager they believe it covers "stopping the government from fining you for truthfully describing yourself in a public consultation regarding government activity."
5) If you took a nationwide poll of the non-technical folks that make up "the public", asking them why they don't like—or don't trust, or have a low opinion of—engineers and other science-types, "'misrepresenting licensure status' by truthfully communication educational background" wouldn't make the Top 25. In fact, it may not be mentioned once by a single person.
So... no, I don't think this case lowers "public opinion for all engineers." On the other hand, the handwringing pedantry (in favor of the OR board) you see all over this thread probably only reinforces low public opinion of engineers as handwringing pedants.
Nothing posted to
Exactly, and he did not sign himself off as an Engineer, (with PE by his name). He only mentioned his expertise in order to strengthen his view- so that it would not come across merely a pissed off common citizen. He was hoping to taken respectably.
Oddly enough, the 'respectable professionals' he was hoping to speak on equal terms with revealed themselves to be whiney, pissed off, common citizens.