• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Stupid Over-Regulation in Oregon

notquiteright said:
Ahhh so if a system isn't fool proof we don't need one??? But do point to where I said being certified is all I want in a doctor??? :peace
Click to expand...

The point was that certification doesn't guarantee any particular thing other than that one has a certificate. But if you can point out exactly where I mentioned that we don't need a certification process for physicians, please do so.
 
Unless I am missing something, this does seem like a ridiculous violation of First Amendment rights. Sometimes I think these licensing boards are more interested in keeping out competition than protecting consumers.
 
humbolt said:
The point was that certification doesn't guarantee any particular thing other than that one has a certificate. But if you can point out exactly where I mentioned that we don't need a certification process for physicians, please do so.
Click to expand...

Actually you have to do a lot more to get a certificate besides sent 14 Bazooka Joe bubble gum wrappers and 1 dollar. It is far more than a piece of paper and again no system is foolproof- you seem to see a few bad apples as some sort of proof a certificate means so little... :peace
 
Geoist said:
Unless I am missing something, this does seem like a ridiculous violation of First Amendment rights. Sometimes I think these licensing boards are more interested in keeping out competition than protecting consumers.
Click to expand...

Bingo!
 
notquiteright said:
Actually you have to do a lot more to get a certificate besides sent 14 Bazooka Joe bubble gum wrappers and 1 dollar. It is far more than a piece of paper and again no system is foolproof- you seem to see a few bad apples as some sort of proof a certificate means so little... :peace
Click to expand...

Well, no. Engineering, since it's the subject here, is far more than possession of a certificate - that which public engineers are required to obtain. The tests I've seen are rigorous with regard to subject matter. Beyond that, they offer nothing of practical value in that no intelligent and practical demonstration of applied engineering is required. Most public engineers have never worked for a private firm, and those who have are either coasting toward retirement or have had very little such experience. It's no accident that municipalities invariably contract serious engineering to serious private firms. Yes, there are liability concerns, and also the realization that municipal engineers do not have the requisite expertise to do the work.

The fellow mentioned in the OP has significant private engineering experience. As such an engineer, I'd be far more interested in his engineering opinion on a public matter than the public engineers who have attempted to shut him up. He has the better experience, and probably a wider knowledge base than they do.
 
humbolt said:
Well, no. Engineering, since it's the subject here, is far more than possession of a certificate - that which public engineers are required to obtain. The tests I've seen are rigorous with regard to subject matter. Beyond that, they offer nothing of practical value in that no intelligent and practical demonstration of applied engineering is required. Most public engineers have never worked for a private firm, and those who have are either coasting toward retirement or have had very little such experience. It's no accident that municipalities invariably contract serious engineering to serious private firms. Yes, there are liability concerns, and also the realization that municipal engineers do not have the requisite expertise to do the work. The fellow mentioned in the OP has significant private engineering experience. As such an engineer, I'd be far more interested in his engineering opinion on a public matter than the public engineers who have attempted to shut him up. He has the better experience, and probably a wider knowledge base than they do.
Click to expand...

So where did he work in public safety, traffic control, or traffic flow coordination? There is more than one breed of engineer just like there is more than one type of doctor. It would be like asking an OBGYN to operate on a brain tumor... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
So where did he work in public safety, traffic control, or traffic flow coordination? There is more than one breed of engineer just like there is more than one type of doctor. It would be like asking an OBGYN to operate on a brain tumor... :peace
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but one doesn't have to have a degree in traffic control in order to investigate the timing of yellow lights. In fact, a mechanical engineer well versed in fluid dynamics might have more relevant knowledge to bring to bear than some traffic control flunky, and I seriously doubt the traffic control flunky could do a thing with fluid dynamics. I'll take the guy with superior knowledge and experience any day. And your continued attempt to make parallels with the medical profession isn't pertinent to this situation. However no, I wouldn't expect a nuclear engineer to design a circuit board, even though he might be able to do it. That's not the case here. We're talking about the timing of yellow freaking lights.
 
humbolt said:
I'm sorry, but one doesn't have to have a degree in traffic control in order to investigate the timing of yellow lights. In fact, a mechanical engineer well versed in fluid dynamics might have more relevant knowledge to bring to bear than some traffic control flunky, and I seriously doubt the traffic control flunky could do a thing with fluid dynamics. I'll take the guy with superior knowledge and experience any day. And your continued attempt to make parallels with the medical profession isn't pertinent to this situation. However no, I wouldn't expect a nuclear engineer to design a circuit board, even though he might be able to do it. That's not the case here. We're talking about the timing of yellow freaking lights.
Click to expand...

Then pretty much anyone could be an engineer if all you are wanting the certification to cover is yellow light length... :roll:

The medical analogy is quite on target, you just don't like certification meaning something.

But while some whine about 'Gubmint' over regulation in professional certification please remember most state governments are part time and often defer to those professions to 'help' write the certification rules...

I do like how the knee jerk response is to blame the government when it is the profession dictating the regulations... Medicare Part B comes to mind... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
Then pretty much anyone could be an engineer if all you are wanting the certification to cover is yellow light length... :roll:
Click to expand...

Heh. I think nearly anyone who can count could time yellow lights, and the fact that someone far more qualified mentioned that perhaps their counting was in error was shut down over a certification speaks directly to the attempt to make traffic control an exclusive job - simply because they realize a hell of a lot of people potentially could do it.

The medical analogy is quite on target, you just don't like certification meaning something.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. Have you ever noticed that timing yellow lights doesn't have quite as much on the line as surgery? I have.

But while some whine about 'Gubmint' over regulation in professional certification please remember most state governments are part time and often defer to those professions to 'help' write the certification rules...
Click to expand...

State government in Virginia isn't part time. Private firms do indeed perform the tasks described in contracts for such services. They do not define the objectives.

I do like how the knee jerk response is to blame the government when it is the profession dictating the regulations... Medicare Part B comes to mind... :peace
Click to expand...

You are assuming you're correct. You aren't. There's a difference between certifying a radiologist and certifying an appliance repairman. Maybe you can figure it out. I have been certified as a boiler mechanic, a plumber to employ various materials, and a host of other trades related things. Those certifications didn't mean anything except that manufacturers wanted exclusivity, and offered it to the trades that employed their products as well. The same applies here with "traffic engineers". They want exclusivity.
 
Jack Hays said:
This would be funny if it were not so sadly reminiscent of 1984 and Brave New World. One can only hope the author is right and these over-zealous regulators will be publicly slapped down.

Oregon is suing engineers for . . . speaking up about engineering?


A man is fined $500 for sharing his opinion, or what the state calls practicing engineering without a license.






Beginning this week, Washington hopes that infrastructure, which is a product of civil engineering, will be much discussed. But if you find yourself in Oregon, keep your opinions to yourself, lest you get fined $500 for practicing engineering without a license. This happened to Mats Jarlstrom as a result of events that would be comic if they were not symptoms of something sinister.
Jarlstrom’s troubles began when his wife got a $150 red-light-camera ticket. He became interested in the timing of traffic lights and decided there was something wrong with the formula used in Oregon and elsewhere to time how long traffic lights stay yellow as they transition from green to red. He began thinking, Googling, corresponding and — here he made his big mistake — talking about this subject. He has ignored repeated demands by the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying that he pipe down. So the board considers him to be, like Jesse James, Al Capone and John Dillinger, a dangerous recidivist.
Not that it should matter, but Jarlstrom actually is an engineer. He has a degree in electrical engineering, served in a technical capacity in the Swedish air force and worked for Sweden’s Luxor Electronics before immigrating to the United States in 1992. He is, however, not licensed by Oregon to “practice engineering” — design skyscrapers, bridges, etc. — so, according to the board, he should not be allowed to talk about engineering or even call himself an engineer. Only those the board licenses are admitted to the clerisy uniquely entitled to publicly discuss engineering. . . .
Click to expand...


I was in Costco in Sacramento yesterday waiting for my wife. I counted 36 different licenses between the floor and automotive in various displays. There are certainly more around somewhere. This is exactly what is wrong with the country. Every license is a bureaucracy full of rent seekers who's job it is is to say "NO". Imagine trying to run a factory.

This is what a citizen politician hates, and a professional politician loves. Why? The citizens sees excessive regulation as a cost that makes everything more expensive and provides no other benefits, the professional politician sees it as part of his power to appoint, the power to deny, and the power to destroy.
 
The issue is that the guy misrepresented himself to public authorities. Sort of like impersonating a police officer I would say.

"Nonetheless, the Oregon board, after a nearly two-year investigation, assessed a $500 civil penalty because Mr. Jarlstrom called himself “an excellent engineer” in one of several emails to the board and informed the Washington County sheriff that he “invented and publicly released a new extended solution” to the problem of yellow lights in traffic flow.

The board explained it had “opened a law enforcement case” against Mr. Jarlstrom “for the unlicensed practice of engineering,” and cited his attempts to publicize his review, critique and recalculations of the current formulas in use."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/30/business/traffic-light-fine.html?_r=0
 
humbolt said:
Heh. I think nearly anyone who can count could time yellow lights, and the fact that someone far more qualified mentioned that perhaps their counting was in error was shut down over a certification speaks directly to the attempt to make traffic control an exclusive job - simply because they realize a hell of a lot of people potentially could do it. No it isn't. Have you ever noticed that timing yellow lights doesn't have quite as much on the line as surgery? I have. State government in Virginia isn't part time. Private firms do indeed perform the tasks described in contracts for such services. They do not define the objectives. You are assuming you're correct. You aren't. There's a difference between certifying a radiologist and certifying an appliance repairman. Maybe you can figure it out. I have been certified as a boiler mechanic, a plumber to employ various materials, and a host of other trades related things. Those certifications didn't mean anything except that manufacturers wanted exclusivity, and offered it to the trades that employed their products as well. The same applies here with "traffic engineers". They want exclusivity.
Click to expand...

Last part first- so you admit this isn't the 'gubmint' but rather those in the profession who want plumbers certified.... there of course is a difference between state certification and private sector businesses certifying their 'agents'. The private sector does it for customer peace of mind and for warranty- they don't want the homeowner's brother to tinker with their product, break it and then the company have to honor the warranty. Most governments use the very professionals you complain about to write the certification- complain to them. The 'gubmint' can't be all knowing on every aspect of life, they have to rely on 'experts' who hold the position, even if it doesn't pay well. It's the gubmint most who rail against it are willing to pay for, and not a penny more...

YOU brought the medical profession into this discussion, not me- don't be sad when it gets turned on you... :roll:

The requirements for who's opinion gets heard on traffic lights is more a case of thousands wanting to produce the 'rules' for how long a yellow light stays on. I can see where light runners would want to extend the time so they can scoot through. I can see where everyone who got ticketed for running a red would try and wiggle out. I can see where wonks from other fields want to have their credentials move them to the front.

If this is really a 1st A case then by all means push on. If this is just some guy who's spousal equiv got a ticket, I will just smile and say 'sucks to be you'.
 
Russell797 said:
The issue is that the guy misrepresented himself to public authorities. Sort of like impersonating a police officer I would say.

"Nonetheless, the Oregon board, after a nearly two-year investigation, assessed a $500 civil penalty because Mr. Jarlstrom called himself “an excellent engineer” in one of several emails to the board and informed the Washington County sheriff that he “invented and publicly released a new extended solution” to the problem of yellow lights in traffic flow.

The board explained it had “opened a law enforcement case” against Mr. Jarlstrom “for the unlicensed practice of engineering,” and cited his attempts to publicize his review, critique and recalculations of the current formulas in use."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/30/business/traffic-light-fine.html?_r=0
Click to expand...

Looking at his resume, he probably is an excellent engineer. Moreover, he's engaging in public comment, not practicing as an engineer in return for compensation. Oregon's board is at odds with the First Amendment, and will likely soon reap the consequences of that. This kind of regulatory zealotry is a curse.
 
notquiteright said:
Last part first- so you admit this isn't the 'gubmint' but rather those in the profession who want plumbers certified.... there of course is a difference between state certification and private sector businesses certifying their 'agents'. The private sector does it for customer peace of mind and for warranty- they don't want the homeowner's brother to tinker with their product, break it and then the company have to honor the warranty. Most governments use the very professionals you complain about to write the certification- complain to them. The 'gubmint' can't be all knowing on every aspect of life, they have to rely on 'experts' who hold the position, even if it doesn't pay well. It's the gubmint most who rail against it are willing to pay for, and not a penny more...
Click to expand...

I admit no such thing. It was an example of nearly meaningless certification. I've already mentioned liability and have no need to revisit it. Passing the Bar is a certification. I have no problem with certifications if they actually mean something significant. Here's a simple example: Forklift operators are generally certified these days. That fine. So a crane operator, who has infinitely more experience on far more difficult equipment is barred from operating a forklift because he lacks the specific certification to operate a forklift. Simple example, but appropriate to the situation in the OP.

YOU brought the medical profession into this discussion, not me- don't be sad when it gets turned on you... :roll:
Click to expand...

My offering wasn't inane. Mentioning Gosnell was an attempt to point out that certification doesn't guarantee morality, quality, safety, or even legality. I'd also like to point out that the same governing authority that granted Gosnell a license allowed his practice to continue for years. Why? Well, he was licensed...

The requirements for who's opinion gets heard on traffic lights is more a case of thousands wanting to produce the 'rules' for how long a yellow light stays on. I can see where light runners would want to extend the time so they can scoot through. I can see where everyone who got ticketed for running a red would try and wiggle out. I can see where wonks from other fields want to have their credentials move them to the front.
Click to expand...

I can too. However, that isn't the case here. The engineer in the OP is at the very least as qualified as the traffic engineers, if not more so. Hiding behind a certification as a basis for limiting his speech is complete BS. It surely doesn't sound as if the engineer in the OP is attempting to avoid a ticket. Sounds like he's offering his thoughts to potentially solve a problem.

If this is really a 1st A case then by all means push on. If this is just some guy who's spousal equiv got a ticket, I will just smile and say 'sucks to be you'.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that's the case, as I mentioned, but if it were to be, I would agree.
 
faithful_servant said:
When I graduated High School and was looking into a degree in Engineering, I learned a fun little fact about getting an Engineering cert. in Oregon. There's a college in Oregon call Oregon Institute of Technology. At the time, it was pretty much the "red-headed stepchild" of Oregon colleges, but it was cheap. You could go to OIT for four years and complete your education in a number of Engineering fields, but the State of Oregon would not recognize that education as being sufficient for certification in Oregon. However, California would and if you were certified in California, then Oregon would automatically certify you. So the recommendation was to go to OIT, get certified in California and then come back to Oregon and get certified here. The process for certification in Oregon has been screwed up for a long time....
Click to expand...
Sounds like that's not the only thing.
 
Jack Hays said:
He can certainly come here and discuss a public issue regarding medicine. The engineer in the OP article is doing nothing more than public discussion.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what people are not getting about this story.
Either that or they're willing to sound obtuse just to yank your chain.
 
bubbabgone said:
I don't understand what people are not getting about this story.
Either that or they're willing to sound obtuse just to yank your chain.
Click to expand...

I think those arguing are certifiable - er - certificate holders themselves, perhaps. Remarkably similar to the claim of exclusivity we hear all the time with regard to climate change, ain't it?
 
humbolt said:
I think those arguing are certifiable - er - certificate holders themselves, perhaps. Remarkably similar to the claim of exclusivity we hear all the time with regard to climate change, ain't it?
Click to expand...

oh yes.
 
Jack Hays said:
Looking at his resume, he probably is an excellent engineer. Moreover, he's engaging in public comment, not practicing as an engineer in return for compensation. Oregon's board is at odds with the First Amendment, and will likely soon reap the consequences of that. This kind of regulatory zealotry is a curse.
Click to expand...

The goal is to protect society from quackery. I'm not say this guy is a quack, but his masquerading as a vetted expert can not be permitted if the desired goal is to be met. It's like global warming deniers posturing as experts before Congress when they don't represent consensus science.

If a court vindicates the guy on 1st Amendment grounds then justice may be served through blind indifference to pragmatism.
 
Russell797 said:
The goal is to protect society from quackery. I'm not say this guy is a quack, but his masquerading as a vetted expert can not be permitted if the desired goal is to be met. It's like global warming deniers posturing as experts before Congress when they don't represent consensus science.

If a court vindicates the guy on 1st Amendment grounds then justice may be served through blind indifference to pragmatism.
Click to expand...

It's public comment on a public issue. He's not acting as an engineer on anyone's behalf. He merely cited his qualifications to explain why he took up the issue. The only issue here is the First Amendment, and the rent-seeking enemies of free speech will be slapped down, to the benefit of all of us.
 
Russell797 said:
The goal is to protect society from quackery. I'm not say this guy is a quack, but his masquerading as a vetted expert can not be permitted if the desired goal is to be met. It's like global warming deniers posturing as experts before Congress when they don't represent consensus science.

If a court vindicates the guy on 1st Amendment grounds then justice may be served through blind indifference to pragmatism.
Click to expand...

1) the story is about efforts to keep people quiet.
2) actually skeptics do represent consensus science ... while that's another story, the treatment of skeptics in your analogy inadvertently reinforces the actual point of the story.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
It's public comment on a public issue. He's not acting as an engineer on anyone's behalf. He merely cited his qualifications to explain why he took up the issue. The only issue here is the First Amendment, and the rent-seeking enemies of free speech will be slapped down, to the benefit of all of us.
Click to expand...

The issue is that the guy misrepresents himself as an engineer in a state where he is not recognized as one. In his own words to the board he claimed himself to be an excellent engineer.

This isn't about free speech, it's about the requirement of certification. He doesn't have it. Conservatives/Libertarians wish to do away with the "overreaching" burden of licensing. Just another attempt to rid the nation of what is viewed as unnecessary government regulation.
 
Russell797 said:
The issue is that the guy misrepresents himself as an engineer in a state where he is not recognized as one. In his own words to the board he claimed himself to be an excellent engineer.

This isn't about free speech, it's about the requirement of certification. He doesn't have it. Conservatives/Libertarians wish to do away with the "overreaching" burden of licensing. Just another attempt to rid the nation of what is viewed as unnecessary government regulation.
Click to expand...

He is perfectly within his rights to call himself an engineer because he is one. He did not claim to be licensed in Oregon. The First Amendment makes no mention of a certification requirement to engage in public discussion, or a requirement to disavow undisputed educational credentials.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom