this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2023
570 points (97.8% liked)

Not The Onion

11846 readers
464 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

When it comes to titles like this that are considered protected, it is actually how they work.

In your example, he isn't allowed to use that title in the new state until he's joined their organization (or they have an agreement with his original state)

As an extreme example for why the timing does matter, If he was licensed properly for 1 year, then let it lapse but continued to do design work as an engineer for 25 years, and then relicensed himself for one last year before retiring, the work he did during that period of being unlicensed isn't covered, and the board of engineers would go after him for that.

For what it's worth, there are specific provisions in the laws to allow retired people to continue using the title P.Eng with a "Retired" tag added onto it.

[–] bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Just read the opinion. He was allowed to practice engineering under an exception and never joined the org.

Then he started critiquing work, and opposing council tried to negate his analysis by saying, hey you can't practice engineering.

So the title isn't that protected, but various people tried to make it seem like it would be, and a greater court decided that infringes his rights.

[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You're looking at the original article. This whole series of comments has been spawned off a discussion about a different case, in which the person did join the organization, then let his license lapse.

In the original, I agree. He never required a license because of their own regs( though it appears that also means he couldn't call himself a professional engineer, so the title itself is protected, he was just exempt from needing the license to do the industrial work he was doing). He is then totally within his rights to use that knowledge and pass himself off as a subject matter expert in the same field he worked for X years, and the board just got pissy. Glad it was overturned for him.

[–] bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 months ago

My mistake, I was checking if he actually used it in the context of practicing engineering, and he didn't there was a biography on his blog and some other slide.