Oregon Man Fined For Writing 'I Am An Engineer' Temporarily Wins Right To Call Himself An 'Engineer' (vice.com) 369
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."
A Triumph For Sure.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:A Triumph For Sure.... (Score:5, Funny)
This is surely a triumph for sanitation engineers everywhere!
They are actually programmers.
Re:A Triumph For Sure.... (Score:5, Funny)
sanitation engineers
programmers
That's not what we mean when we talk about "garbage collection."
Software engineer. (Score:2)
The first time I saw that was probably more than a decade ago. Right after I was kicked out of an electrical engineering degree.
It's "Jarlström" (Score:2, Insightful)
you ignorant cunts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Never saw that one during my engineering degree.
But I do remember "Economics degree. Please take one." written above the toilet paper dispenser in one toilet.
The only bit of specific engineering mockery I recall (it was a long time ago) is it being said that the Yellow Pages entry for boring said "See civil engineers".
Not a physicist. (Score:5, Funny)
Reminds me of a Jewish clerk in a Swiss patent office who dabbled in physics and thought he was a Physicist.
Re: (Score:3)
*physician
Re:Wll that's not Einstein you're thinking of (Score:4, Insightful)
"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.
Re: (Score:3)
In other words, the government's power to control speech, censor in First Amendment terms, is only permissible here in the context of commercial speech (some think even that is an overreach, but that's an argument for a different day.)
So if you are advertising for clients, or dealing with a client, the government can make sure you are a Professional Engineer, or whatever they define there. He isn't, so they tried to punish him for claiming so.
The difference here, though, was that the government isn't one o
Re: (Score:2)
"As to the case of this oregon man, there was fuck all need for him to claim himself a professional engineer"
I haven't read anything that says that he used the "professional engineer" term, or claimed to be practicing in Oregon. And, that's where these officials fucked up.
Good, but confusion remains. (Score:2)
There should be a distinction between an engineer (as in any person performing engineering actions or with such knowledge) and a diplomed 'Engineer' (a formal title received upon graduation from specific studies). Similar distinction already exists in Germany and other countries with "Dipl.Ing." or Poland with "mgr inz." - these are formal titles.
Some jobs would require "Dipl.Ing.", you could be still sued for naming yourself "Dipl.Ing." without completing specific education, but you may freely call yoursel
Re:Good, but confusion remains. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You mention Part P so clearly are in the UK where the term "Architect" has lots of legal protection, yet the fuck wits that are "Architects" who will all be first against the wall when my revolution comes get away with manslaughter.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-e... [bbc.co.uk]
Let me incompetently design a building that if there is some wind blowing will generate gusts at street level that blow vehicles over crushing pedestrians to death.
Personally I would put the Architect responsible for that building behind bars for
Worst Example (Score:2)
Stop.
"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.
Doctor comes from the latin "I teach", and the association of physicians with the term is both a modern trend and mostly limited to the US. A doctorate is not supposed to be a professional distinction but an academic one. The idea is that you have added to the sum total of human knowledge in some way, which take note is not what medical students actually do. In the UK and related countries the initial degree would be a Bachelor of Surgery and an M.D. would be a research degree.
Your overall point may be
Re: (Score:2)
And hence bridge-builders, movie-theater architects, and airplane designers SHOULD BE QUALIFIED.
Rather than go on the fact that they call themselves an engineer, why not CHECK THEIR QUALIFICATIONS / LICENSES? That they exist, are what you require, are still valid, were not revoked?
And at that point, it matter not whether they refer to themselves as "architectural grand wizard" or "high lord of the fucking-bridge-making-stuff", but that they have the appropriate licence, insurance, etc. that you require.
The
The title 'Engineer' is really meaningless (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just the degree, it's passing your professional engineer exams & getting certified that allows you to take a protected title. Just like you can go to law school but you're not shit until you pass the bar & med school grads aren't shit until they've done a residency and passed their boards.
Re: (Score:2)
med school grads aren't shit until they've done a residency and passed their boards.
That's not entirely true. I dated a doctor and she said that they could easily enter into the pharmaceutical industry as a research doctor without any residency. They can also work under the supervision of any licensed doctor (like a glorified PA) without residency. They just can't get their own license to practice on the general public without a residency. She also suggested (though I cannot verify the veracity of this statement) that most medical directors at research clinics were doctors who had lost
Re: (Score:2)
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.
We're talking here about a state-issued engineering license for the title of Professional Engineer, not simply a degree. In the US, this involves taking a grueling 8-hour test with a pass rate of ~70% for first-time takers and ~40% for repeat takers [ppi2pass.com]. Most states require a degree to take the test, plus experience, or non-degreed applicants can take the test with longer experience. It is generally open-book, but the problems are numerous and complex enough that there is no time to learn how to do them duri
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
The title is 'licensed Professional Engineer', as I understand it.
I don't expect the guy who drives a train to build an artificial heart, and nobody else does either.
The State was just punishing this guy to shut him down - they were doing no protection of the public (in fact, that's what *he* was trying to do).
'Engineer'? (Score:3)
When was he banned from talking about traffic? (Score:2)
I don't remember anywhere that Jarlstrom was banned from talking about traffic lights. What he was fined for doing was using the term "engineer" to describe himself while doing it. In this particular case, the State Board told Jarlstrom very early in his complaint that the traffic lights in question were under the control of the city (I think it was Beaverton) and that he needed to bring the issue up with them.
Something less reported was that Jarlstrom was interested in an upcoming seat on the State Board;
Re:When was he banned from talking about traffic? (Score:5, Interesting)
What he was fined for doing was using the term "engineer" to describe himself while doing it.
No, it is much more sinister, the board wouldn't tolerate that he was using methods used by engineers.
You don't believe that, did you? I didn't.
But there was a thread about this on a Danish engineering forum some time ago, and someone dug up this:
"By reviewing, critiquing, and altering an engineered ITE formula, and submitting the critique and calculations for his modified version of the ITE formula to members of the public for consideration and modification of Beaverton, Oregon 's and worldwide traffic signals, which signals are public equipment, processes and works, Jarlstrom applied special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such creative work as investigation, evaluation, and design in connection with public equipment, processes, and works. Jarlstrom thereby engaged in the practice of engineering under ORS 672.005(1)(b).
By doing so through the use of algorithms for the operation of traffic control systems, and through the use of the science of analysis, review, and application of traffic data systems to advise members of the public on the treatment of the functional characteristics of traffic signal timing, Jarlstrom engaged, specifically, in traffic engineering under OAR 820-040-0030(1)(b) and (2)(a).
By engaging the practice of engineering (specifically, traffic engineering) without registration, Jarlstrom violated ORS 672.020(1), 672.045(1) and OAR 820-010-0730(3)(c)"
From the correspondance: https://motherboard.vice.com/e... [vice.com]
I'll be more careful in future (Score:2)
Back when I was a kid my parents had a player piano and one of the rolls was "Ramblin' Wreck From Georgia Tech" which was probably the one we used the most.
Despite not having attended Georgia Tech my father taught my siblings and me the words....
"I'm a ramblin' wreck from Georgia Tech and a hell of an engineer"
He did have an engineering degree but never worked as an engineer. I did eventually earn an engineering degree not from GA Tech too, but also never worked as an engineer.
We totally got away with it
I'm an Engineer (Score:2)
I'm an Engineer who specializes in Traffic lights.
They go Green, Amber, Red. Then in America they turn Green again. (other more sophisticated countries they go red and amber together before turning green).
Suck it Oregon!
Using "engineer" is only half of it. (Score:3)
The letter Mr. Jarlstrom received stated he violated two laws. The first was claiming to be an engineer without being registered as an engineer in Oregon or any other jurisdiction in the USA. The second was "practicing engineering" without a license. By writing his letter stating he did a study on traffic patterns and the layout of the roadway he "testified" or "investigated" on matters concerning "public utilities, processes, works, or projects" as defined in 2007 ORS 672.005.
What is worse is that the law defines such acts on private property as "practicing engineering". Practicing engineering without a license is a violation of the law. So, you measure a room and compute the wall area so that you can make sure you buy enough paint to cover the walls you are "practicing engineering" under the law. If you take those calculations to the hardware store to buy paint, and you are not a licensed engineer in Oregon, then you have violated the law.
If you measure out your yard so that you can buy enough fertilizer for your grass then you have done "surveying to determine area or topography" or "surveying to establish lines, grades or elevations, or to determine or estimate quantities of materials required, removed or in place" as defined by the law. Even on private property this applies. Since Mr. Jarlstrom did some surveying on public property, the intersection in question, and stated so in his letters to the various government agencies then he's been "practicing engineering" without a license.
The $500 fine he paid was for claiming to be an engineer when he was not, under the law. What got him in trouble in the first place was showing expertise in engineering and using that knowledge to complain, or "testify"", to the government. It seems they thought they could not get him on that law, or they didn't want to bother arguing that to a judge. I lost where I saw it but it seems there is a statute of limitations of two years on this violation. Since he keeps talking about the problems with the traffic lights to anyone that asks him about it the clock keeps getting reset on this violation and/or he is committing multiple violations of this law. Each violation carries a possible fine of up to $1000.
After receiving these letters the Oregon state government could have done one of two things, fine him for violating the law, or shut up and listen to what he was telling them. If they didn't fine him then others would have got the crazy idea in their head that they could use devices that measure time and distance, and "apply special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences" to check the work of government "engineers". I suspect the government wants him to shut up so that they can keep collecting fines on people running red lights.
He's paid his fine, can the government come back and fine him again if he doesn't stop talking? I guess that's why the federal courts are now involved.
Re:Just call me doctor (Score:5, Informative)
Except the dude is an engineer. He's an electrical engineer
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However as an electrical engineer, what expertise would that give him when it comes to traffic patterns and traffic light timing? I don't see anything that would qualify him to provide any expertise in these matters.
Well, unless you are both an engineer, a lawyer and a medical doctor, each properly licensed in both your and my locations, you have no right to comment on this matter.
Re: Just call me doctor (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How does being a doctor provide any expertise in traffic engineering?
You mentioned three different fields. Unless you are properly educated, and licensed in both our jurisdictions, you have no right to an opinion.
Look, obviously I'm engaging in reductio ad absurdum. Because this entire case is just that. This was not a court case, where a person who is being called as an expert witness needs to present some evidence of that expertise. It isn't a case of an engineer practicing their profession without a license. It is just a person offering their opinion, and perhaps their
Re: (Score:3)
There is an examination process to get a license to practice engineering in all states and many countries.
No, you need a license to practice under the title "Professional Engineer", and to perform certain duties such as signing off on certain things. You do not need a license to actually practice engineering. As such its reasonable to call oneself an engineer, but not Professional Engineer. If not you end up with absurdities like not refusing to call Isenbard Kingdom Brunel an engineer.
I call myself an eng
Re: Just call me doctor (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am very familiar with how the PE system works. I hold an engineering degree. If someone with a PE in aerospace wants to sign blueprints, it's his neck. And his company's too. If something went wrong, one of the first questions asked would be why they would have an aerospace engineer sign off on those blue prints.
As for working in any area of engineering, that's bullshit. As a EE you know jack shit about how a distillation column works or what the stresses on a bridge are. You can work for a chemical compa
Re: Just call me doctor (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except the dude is an engineer. He's an electrical engineer
I think the reason this causes so much gnashing and wailing of teeth on slashdot is that there are a lot of people here who are successful coders/programmers/software architects or whatever with no actual written qualifications as such.
So, on the normal slashdot basis that if it doesn't apply to me it's not true, there is nothing wrong with calling yourself an engineer as long as you've done some engineering.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> under Oregon law you must be licensed to be an engineer
To work as an engineer, you mean.
Re: (Score:2)
okay so everybody just switch to "I am engineering".
thats great. by the way, I want to know if slashdot servers are hosted in oregon so I can know what to call myself.
Re: (Score:2)
okay so everybody just switch to "I am engineering".
thats great. by the way, I want to know if slashdot servers are hosted in oregon so I can know what to call myself.
Call me Leyte Fordinna.
Re: (Score:2)
At the same time, I wonder what is bothering these guys more? Is it because he said he was an engineer, but not licensed in the state, or that he found a fault in the system and they are trying to hide this, but ended up with the Streissand effect?
At the same time there probably should be a distinction between licensed engineer vs engineer? Just because he isn't licensed, does this negate his engineering degree, even if he can't perform in said jurisdiction. Some place the distinction appears to come down t
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like a very heavy handed and transparent tactic to drive off someone who dared to complain. I don't think they actually cared about his qualifications and title, it was just the method used that time in using the legal system as a blunt instrument against a citizen who was "stirring up trouble". This time it just didn't manage to scare him off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Just call me doctor (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm a engineer from Virginia. If I go to Oregon, and tell someone I'm an engineer, I'd apparently be breaking Oregon law because I'm not licensed in Oregon. That doesn't make me any less of an engineer, it only makes me ineligible to practice engineering when I cross the Oregon state line. These officials are clearly stepping all over this engineer's constitutional right to call himself an engineer, and if you don't believe me, you can simply google some case law at the SCOTUS level.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
this man has never been licensed, he has no credentials as an engineer other then having a degree in electrical engineering, but as I am sure you know a degree alone does not make you an engineer.
In Sweden, that degree is the license. He is licensed in Sweden if he does, in fact, hold that degree, and that is his engineering credential.
Where he earned his degree, the degree alone does make him an engineer. He was also clear about where he earned his degree and which specific field his degree covered; he also never claimed to be licensed by the state of Oregon, nor did he use either of the specific terms covered by Oregon's laws, nor did he attempt to practice as an engineer in Oregon without being
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Just call me doctor (Score:5, Insightful)
He shouldn't be allowed to call himself an engineer
The guy is an engineer. Why should he have to lie about that fact?
Re: (Score:2)
He shouldn't be allowed to call himself an engineer
The guy is an engineer. Why should he have to lie about that fact?
Yup, the term "licensed engineer" just springs to mind.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: Just call me doctor (Score:4, Interesting)
Under Oregon law, you have to be a licensed engineer to call yourself one publicly. For other states, they add clarifications like "professional engineer" or "licensed engineer"
No, Oregon Revised Statutes 672.020, 672.045 do not allow someone to practice engineering in Oregon without a license. Oregon Administrative Rule 820-010-0730 states that no unregistered persons may hold themselves out as an engineer in Oregon by use of the title “professional engineer,” “registered professional engineer,” or any of their abbreviations or derivatives. Mats Jarlstrom did no such thing. He was very specific about what his credentials were and in no way misrepresented himself as holding a valid certificate in Oregon or any other US state or territory. His exact words are displayed below, and they are both very specific about his credentials and completely void of any mention of being a professional or registered professional engineer.
My Swedish engineering degree is in electronics and I’m an expert in motional feedback (displacement, velocity and acceleration feedback) of powered speakers which includes the full understanding of motion of an object such as a loudspeaker cone (or a vehicle stopping or traveling through an intersection as in ORS811.260(4)).
Re: (Score:2)
I did not say anything to counter your arguments. I merely said that other states restrict the term "professional engineer" or" licensed engineer" to distinguish those who have a license as opposed to simply "engineer" to those that do not.
Sorry, I thought your statement was trying to refute the one you were replying to. If it was meant to back up his statement then I read it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting. Now I believe lawyers are also effectively registered in one state. So has a lawyer ever been fined for referring to themselves as a lawyer in a state other than that in which they are registered?
Just wondering if this has only been applied to engineers or has it also been applied to other professions.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. Now I believe lawyers are also effectively registered in one state. So has a lawyer ever been fined for referring to themselves as a lawyer in a state other than that in which they are registered?
No. A lawyer is licensed to practice in a state. Other states recognize that lawyer's license in his/her state; however, to practice in another state, a lawyer has to get licensed if they intend to practice law. All states will grant exceptions if the lawyer is only trying one case and will grant temporary status. I believe the term is hac pro vice.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He is an engineer just not registered in their state from the previous Slashdot post. Think it's more a registration body cracking it over title usage rather than the problems he's addressing.
I think it's more the state of Oregon cracking it over a citizen getting uppity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am the Master of my Domain
Re: (Score:2)
Re: musings on PE, EIT, and unlicensed designation (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
When someone is titled as an engineer in one location, and they cross the Oregon border, they don't suddenly become a non-engineer. They simply are not allowed to practice, or be called a PE. This is a clear case of officials who fucked up, but don't like being called out for it, so let's screw with the guy who did.
Re: (Score:2)
And telling you you can't call yourself an engineer is a violation of the First Amendment. In order to get away with this, the government relies on some kind of truth in advertising/snake oil concept. As such, the government's authority to override the First Amendment only swells in the context of advertising for or satisfying a client.
There was no client in this case, just a citizen talking about the government's behavior (the most highly protected of all speech) and as such, the government has no power
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Or the headline might have read, "unlicensed designer charged for breaking Oregon law about use of title, identified the flaws of a professional engineer's design in traffic light system". Let's face it, when something is crap and it is proven to be crap who cares what title they use.
Re: (Score:3)
In this case, the law says he can't call himself that.
Bzzzzt. WRONG! Obviously YOU don't understand the difference between an engineer and a professional engineer. Oregon Administrative Rule 820-010-0730 states that no unregistered persons may hold themselves out as an engineer in Oregon by use of the title “professional engineer,” “registered professional engineer,” or any of their abbreviations or derivatives. You see that? They specifically say "professional engineer" and "registered professional engineer", neither of which he c
Re: Now That's Progress! (Score:5, Informative)
He didn't lie about his qualifications. He is fully qualified as an engineer - with a degree from a top-notch university.
He just isn't certified as one in Oregon because he has never worked as one there.
He did not present himself as one in any scenario where government has reasonable justification to restrict the usage of the title. He wasn't trying to sell a bridge design or anything. He was just publicly commenting on public infrastructure and stated the qualifications he has to form those opinions - he didn't try to get employment.
It is a much more complicated case than you let on.
Keep Oregon Weird? (Score:2)
Is it possible for any government in the U.S. to make any law, no matter how confusing, and not care about whether someone may make a mistake, or whether they may not know the law?
To me, anyone who has a Tektronix oscilloscope on a shelf above his desk [vice.com] is likely to call himself an "engineer".
Re: (Score:2)
He is fully qualified as an engineer - with a degree from a top-notch university.
No, that does not make him a fully qualified engineer. If I have a law degree that does not mean I am a fully qualified lawyer, and if I have a medical degree that does not mean I am a fully qualified doctor.
Re: (Score:3)
So you choose two fields where graduation does not usually come with automatic professional accreditation and claim this means the same is true of a field where, in almost the entire world in fact, graduation DOES come with automatic accreditation ?
He didn't claim to be an engineer in Oregon, just to be an engineer. Since he graduated in Sweden where all engineering graduates get automatic accreditation he IS an engineer, and indeed an accredited engineer- he just isn't accredited as an engineer in Oregon -
Re: (Score:2)
"He just isn't certified as one in Oregon because he has never paid the RICO-RATTLING pay-to-play-fee despite having the inherent jurisprudence to call himself an engineer (and by Federal Law, if you have the right to it, the gov't can't require you to have a license for it.)"
FTFY.
"It is a much more complicated case than you let on"
Not even close. This is a licensing board trying to usurp jurisprudence/jurisdictional authority from the people in an attempt to make money they're not entitled to. It's pretty
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt it's complicated at all, he is a pain in their ass, they brought suit to attempt to stifle him, and they stretched the law past the breaking point in said attempt.
Our legal system being what it is, I can't say whether he will win or lose - I do hope for his sake that his trial is heard by the same judge who "granted his temporary right to speak."
Re: (Score:3)
A judge is rather a different thing- seeing as you can't get a degree in "judging", the vast majority of people with law degrees do not become judges and there is thus no correlation whatsoever between "judges" and "law graduates". Most of what you learn to become a judge rather than a lawyer you learn AFTER you finish university - by working in the field.
This is now how engineering works - you get a degree in engineering you can do an engineer's job. You may not be as good as the guy who has been doing it
Something important is lost in this discussion. (Score:3)
There are thousands of working engineers in Oregon who do not have any "Professional Engineer" licensure but yet have engineering degrees, refer to themselves as engineers, practice engineering, and get paid for it. For example, think of the thousands upon thousands of engineers that work at Intel in Oregon. Is there a PE exam for semiconductor engineering? Hardware design verification?
You DO NOT need a state license [even in Oregon] to get hired as an engineer by a private company. If you are an engineer w
Re: (Score:2)
Look at me I'm claiming I'm a judge so now the public must treat me as a fully qualified judge even though I have not government accreditation as a judge.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say with this analogy. Are you claiming that if a Swedish judge writes to the Oregon State Bar and says "I am a Swedish judge" he would be breaking the law? Because that is how your analogy would apply to this case.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at me I'm claiming I'm a judge so now the public must treat me as a fully qualified judge even though I have not government accreditation as a judge.
I'm a sex instructor for Swimsuit models.
Re: Now That's Progress! (Score:5, Informative)
So much wrong here. No, you don't have to add PE to the title engineer for it to be the illegal use of the term. Using the title engineer where professional engineering can reasonably be assumed is the test. He crossed the line on this by using "engineer" to reinforce his opinions on a technical subject. I hope it costs him a small fortune in court.
But it could not be reasonably assumed that he was a PE based on his words, which were as follows:
My Swedish engineering degree is in electronics and I’m an expert in motional feedback (displacement, velocity and acceleration feedback) of powered speakers which includes the full understanding of motion of an object such as a loudspeaker cone (or a vehicle stopping or traveling through an intersection as in ORS811.260(4)).
He doesn't even call himself an engineer. He just says he has an engineering degree from Sweden.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not how he phrased it in his innitial communication with the egg heads at the Engineering Board.
But they are still being a bunch of Pedantic fools.
Perhaps I am misreading the court documents, but this is the document presented by the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying investigator when informing Mats Jarlstrom he was in violation of their laws. It appears to be the first communication, and it would be odd for them to only attach this communication if there were other communications where he actually did potentially violate their laws.
From:
Mats Jarlstrom [mailto:mats@jarlstrom.com
Sent:
Wednesday, September 03, 2014 9:24 AM
To:
OSBEELS
Subject:
Help and support "to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public"
To whom it may concern,I would like to have your support and help to investigate and present the laws of physics related to transportation engineering in the State of Oregon. I am already working to “protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public” especially in the City of Beaverton where the two transportation engineers are misreading Oregon Vehicle code, how the law applies to the laws of physics for a vehicle in motion traveling through an intersection and the well-known engineering practices. By misapplying engineering practices and Oregon law they are putting the public at risk.
I have spent a year investigating and I have a clear understanding how the law should be applied and why it is written the way it is. I have source documents for the wording of ORS811.260(4) which is the main misunderstanding by the City of Beaverton but also by the Oregon Department of Transportation. I would like to present these facts for your review and comments.If you are looking for a Board member I might be interested since I’m already doing this kind of work and it would be nice to get paid.
My Swedish engineering degree is in electronics and I’m an expert in motional feedback (displacement, velocity and acceleration feedback) of powered speakers which includes the full understanding of motion of an object such as a loudspeaker cone (or a vehicle stopping or traveling through an intersection as in ORS811.260(4)).
Thank you.
Best regards,
Mats Järlström
13520 SW Hart Road
Beaverton OR 97008 USA
503-671-0312 Phone
503-671-0454 Fax
mats@jarlstrom.com
www.jarlstrom.comwww.jarlstrom.com/redflex
Complaint Ex. 1 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:17-cv-00652-SB Document 1-1 Filed 04/25/17 Page 2 of 2
Re: Now That's Progress! (Score:5, Informative)
He is not a licensed engineer in the state of Oregon. Claiming to be an engineer is lying about his qualifications, because to claim to be an engineer you must be licensed.
His exact words were:
My Swedish engineering degree is in electronics and I’m an expert in motional feedback (displacement, velocity and acceleration feedback) of powered speakers which includes the full understanding of motion of an object such as a loudspeaker cone (or a vehicle stopping or traveling through an intersection as in ORS811.260(4)).
No reasonable person could believe he is implying he is a registered professional engineer in the state of Oregon from this statement.
Re: (Score:3)
That is not what he stated in his complaint. He said he was an engineer.
In a later document he did use the words: "And yes, I'm an excellent engineer." This was after he had specifically established his credentials as an engineer, which was very specific. Once again, no reasonable person could look at his discussions with the Oregon Board and believe he was presenting himself as a licensed professional engineer in the state of Oregon.
Re: (Score:3)
Dropping the title "engineer" to reinforce your point when discussing a technical subject, meets the test of implying professional engineering.
It isn't clear that the case law actually says this, and even if it does it isn't clear that this would pass a first amendment test. If you have links to actual case law backing up your point that is one thing, but your baseless statements are meaningless. The Oregon statutes mentioned in the complaint only claim he cannot practice engineering, so any case law which defines practicing engineering as merely mentioning your prior education in engineering in a public discussion would suffice to back up your cl
Re: (Score:2)
So he is not a state licensed engineer. Okay, got it.
Re: (Score:3)
He didn't lie about his qualifications. He is fully qualified as an engineer - with a degree from a top-notch university.
He just isn't certified as one in Oregon because he has never worked as one there.
He did not present himself as one in any scenario where government has reasonable justification to restrict the usage of the title. He wasn't trying to sell a bridge design or anything. He was just publicly commenting on public infrastructure and stated the qualifications he has to form those opinions - he didn't try to get employment.
It is a much more complicated case than you let on.
He did not take the PE exam, passing that exam is a qualification he does not possess. It is no easy task to pass that test. He is also not an engineer in the technical field he is making an argument in.
Anyhow, the case has not been decided yet, this is just temporary until the case is tried.
The Professional Engineer (PE) certifications only apply to review and submission of official documents as required by the specific regulating agency (and there is a lot of variability), otherwise "engineer" is just a word that holds no special legal meaning. The PE test and certification is very generic too... all engineers get the same PE certification regardless of their specific field expertise, so having a PE license grants no de-facto credentials in other engineering fields and if anyone thinks it doe
Re:EE != CE (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, according to cases tried by SCOTUS, lying is protected by the Constitution, but it depends on the type of lie, if it was done with malice, and other factors.
Re:What constitutional right? (Score:5, Insightful)
The man is totally in his right to sue for his free speech and against a totally unfair an ridiculous fine.
Re: Common sense (Score:5, Informative)
I worked for a large, wealthy company, decades ago. Some of the best hotshots, including MIT, CalTech etc alums, never got registered, and worked with the most difficult, advanced stuff. Some registered discipline engineers were viewed as lesser lights that were less intellectually powerful and somewhat expendable, best given the more routine work, checking the others work and signing off...
Re: Common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
In my state (IL) even if you are not licensed you are allowed to call yourself an engineer (but not a PE) if you do engineering work for a legitimate engineering firm.
Re: Common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: Common sense (Score:4, Informative)
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.
The NY Times had an article about this case a month or two ago and in the article they listed multiple other cases in Oregon where this sort of thing had happened. That included a person who had been licensed in Oregon for decades and then retired, but then testified in court on behalf of his daughter in a land dispute.
So it's not a one-off problem. It's standard operating procedure there.
Re: Common sense (Score:5, Informative)
Common sense would be not to write to the engineering licensing body while illegally and falsely claiming to be an engineer.
Common sense would dictate it, which is why Mats Jarlstrom never did that. Oregon Revised Statutes 672.020, 672.045 do not allow someone to practice engineering in Oregon without a license. Oregon Administrative Rule 820-010-0730 states that no unregistered persons may hold themselves out as an engineer in Oregon by use of the title “professional engineer,” “registered professional engineer,” or any of their abbreviations or derivatives. Mats Jarlstrom did no such thing. He was very specific about what his credentials were and in no way misrepresented himself as holding a valid certificate in Oregon or any other US state or territory. His exact words are displayed below, and they are both very specific about his credentials and completely void of any mention of being a professional or registered professional engineer.
My Swedish engineering degree is in electronics and I’m an expert in motional feedback (displacement, velocity and acceleration feedback) of powered speakers which includes the full understanding of motion of an object such as a loudspeaker cone (or a vehicle stopping or traveling through an intersection as in ORS811.260(4)).