The engineers behind these things need to be heavily blacklisted. “Oh yeah, Justin. He was one of the software engineers behind the garbage truck cameras. Toss his resume in the trash. Erica worked for Flock, toss hers too.”
Employers are already doing this, but I’d love to see it become more prevalent.
You’d have to make engineer a protected title for that and enforce membership and chartership with your locally recognised engineering institutions to allow working under the title. They do that in Queensland Australia. It’s not enforced in our other states, which is odd given Queensland is Australia’s Florida …
Getting a job as an engineer in the UK was hard work because every ridiculous job and it’s dog was claiming to be an engineering role. The guy terminating a wall socket for your internet connection: telecoms engineer apparently. Rough gig for having burnt 5 years at university …
We have this in the states but the title is Professional Engineer. Which is the best way of going about it because making “Engineer” a protected title on its own makes no sense.
A professional engineer would be someone who’s chartered with a recognised engineering institution (Engineers Europe and it’s related Orgs in Europe, Engineering Council and related orgs in the UK, Engineers Australia in Australia etc) and the title would depend on the what the institution want to call them. The professional instution outlines ethical and behavioural requirements to maintain membership.
An Engineer usually refers to someone who does a job related to design and planning for a technical discipline (civil, mechanical, structural, electrical, software etc). The job role usually requires a degree in he engineering disciple, but if you were a particularly fantastic and experienced technical person you might be able to fill the role without one. There will likely be areas of knowledge where you’d be lacking in that case though.
I’m saying the job role could be made to require the chartership to help enforce adherence to the ethical requirements of those governing institutions.
The engineers behind these things need to be heavily blacklisted. “Oh yeah, Justin. He was one of the software engineers behind the garbage truck cameras. Toss his resume in the trash. Erica worked for Flock, toss hers too.”
Employers are already doing this, but I’d love to see it become more prevalent.
You’d have to make engineer a protected title for that and enforce membership and chartership with your locally recognised engineering institutions to allow working under the title. They do that in Queensland Australia. It’s not enforced in our other states, which is odd given Queensland is Australia’s Florida …
Getting a job as an engineer in the UK was hard work because every ridiculous job and it’s dog was claiming to be an engineering role. The guy terminating a wall socket for your internet connection: telecoms engineer apparently. Rough gig for having burnt 5 years at university …
We have this in the states but the title is Professional Engineer. Which is the best way of going about it because making “Engineer” a protected title on its own makes no sense.
A professional engineer would be someone who’s chartered with a recognised engineering institution (Engineers Europe and it’s related Orgs in Europe, Engineering Council and related orgs in the UK, Engineers Australia in Australia etc) and the title would depend on the what the institution want to call them. The professional instution outlines ethical and behavioural requirements to maintain membership.
An Engineer usually refers to someone who does a job related to design and planning for a technical discipline (civil, mechanical, structural, electrical, software etc). The job role usually requires a degree in he engineering disciple, but if you were a particularly fantastic and experienced technical person you might be able to fill the role without one. There will likely be areas of knowledge where you’d be lacking in that case though.
I’m saying the job role could be made to require the chartership to help enforce adherence to the ethical requirements of those governing institutions.
The problem with that is that “Engineer” is too broad a term to require chartership in every single unrelated discipline.