Timeline for How can I deal with troublesome Professional Engineer?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 14 at 16:45 | comment | added | Questor | @J The new PE wasn't a professional engineer. He was the nephew of a board member with 10 years less experience then P.Eng. He wasn't able to sign off on tests etc... because he wasn't a professional engineer and so didn't have the certification that allowed him to sign off on questions. He was also later fired because he couldn't do the job. Do to a lack of experience. | |
| Jul 6, 2020 at 13:07 | comment | added | J... | @SteveJessop I meant appropriate as in "100% by the book" - congruent with the hierarchy of responsibilities in the engineering profession. I agree it's not "appropriate" in the sense that there is no technical stimulus that can be seen to justify the change in risk appetite (ie: it's a political stance change), but at the same time it's a stance that is perfectly defensible in the paradigm of professional engineering (again, being clear that I'm not including his misbehaviour regarding mentoring juniors in this - that's 100% unacceptable). | |
| Jul 5, 2020 at 14:32 | comment | added | Steve Jessop | Ah, yes, I interpreted "right on the mark" to mean "appropriate" and hence asked what it means for the new caution to be appropriate. But you're saying that the employee is right on the mark to choose to act inappropriately ;-) What I was concerned about was, if the fact that that employee isn't in charge implies all this caution now, why didn't the same fact imply the same caution before the employee got screwed? But the answer is, it's irrelevant, because it doesn't matter what the appropriate caution is for the situation, it matters how to highlight the unacceptable situation. | |
| Jul 5, 2020 at 10:38 | comment | added | J... | @SteveJessop You misunderstand - there hasn't been a sudden shift in the engineer's competence, this is a form of protest falling under the general umbrella of either work to rule or possibly even malicious compliance. The new caution is obviously not appropriate - its only purpose is to highlight the incompetence of the new PE. | |
| Jul 2, 2020 at 3:35 | comment | added | Steve Jessop | If he was approving tests etc. before he got screwed, and now he's not signing off on it any more, and this new caution is appropriate, then what was he doing before? Inappropriately approving stuff that was insecure and/or unsafe? Not that the company can possibly know, since nobody else is qualified to judge. I'm sort of curious to know whether, 4 years later, the company still exists, or whether this perfect storm of wrong has finally hit... | |
| Aug 22, 2018 at 20:28 | comment | added | fectin | @MackM If that wasn't part of his job, and he was previously doing it voluntarily as a pro-bono thing, he's probably right to refocus on his core responsibilities after being told he's not good enough to advance. (yeah, I see the date...) | |
| Mar 10, 2016 at 21:20 | comment | added | J... | @MackM. I'll agree, however, that he should not be unduly obstructing the progression of his intern engineers - supervising his juniors is a professional responsibility that extends beyond the politics of the workplace and he should be absolutely chastised for using their careers as leverage to his own advantage. | |
| Mar 10, 2016 at 21:14 | comment | added | MackM | My first instinct was also that this was unprofessional (if understandable) behavior, but you've swayed me. | |
| Mar 10, 2016 at 8:31 | comment | added | user207421 | I think this a good point. Regardless of other motivations, if he thinks the guy over him isn't competent he is more or less professionally obliged to err on the side of caution. | |
| Mar 9, 2016 at 19:38 | comment | added | neocpp | This was what I thought was happening too; I figured if something went wrong, the P. Eng knows he would basically be on the hook as a Principal, but he isn't getting compensated appropriately to bear that risk. The only way for him to be happy is to really minimize the chance of anything going wrong, whatever standard that means for him. If the previous Principal was competent he may have deferred to their judgement, which is why the situation has now changed. | |
| Mar 9, 2016 at 12:07 | history | edited | J... | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 458 characters in body
|
| Mar 9, 2016 at 12:02 | history | answered | J... | CC BY-SA 3.0 |