3938 APEG Mar.Apr Edit.indd - APEGBC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

letters 6 MARCH/APRIL 2008 INNOVATION Letters to the editor containing your views on topics of interest or concern to members are encouraged. While we welcome your input, due to space limitations we may be unable to publish all letters received. Opinions expressed in letters to the editor are not necessarily endorsed by APEGBC. Letters can be e-mailed to mlau@apeg.bc.ca. Shallow Surveys Are Not Professional Opinion polls must be properly designed to produce valid results. Too oft en authors presume certain conditions, omit some possible actions, and accept self-selection instead of seeking a representative range of respondents. If one only asks “Who likes pistachio ice cream?” they won’t get answers of “Why not chocolate?” For example, the lay poll on the “environment” described in the November/December 2007 issue of Innovation presumes that “industry” is the only source of pollution—ignoring that people and animals can easily contaminate water supplies on their own—and doesn’t even allow insertion of alternative actions. It and APEGBC’s member survey on “sustainability” ignore the respect for individual freedom supported by a rational justice system that we enjoy in Canada, which has enabled professionals and entrepreneurs to produce clean water, solid shelter, medical care, and devices to maximize the scarce resource of individual human time. Terminology must be precise to obtain meaningful results. But popular uses of the fl oating abstraction “sustainable” range from the basic engineering practice of ensuring the design is usable, to income redistribution based on marxist fi xed-pie presumptions which deny the effi cacy of that essential of professional work—the mind. Professionals use sound epistemology. They look at all factors, check source, applicability and sufficiency of data for the purpose of the work, and test instead of relying on unproven theories or extrapolating beyond known applicability of a calculation method. Today in our society many people use only data supporting what they wish, make inaccurate measurements, or assume a cause-effect relationship from a single data point. Engineering and geoscience professionals should decide on facts used logically, not on lay opinions. Keith Sketchley PEng, Saanich, BC No Need to Force the Issue When I tell new acquaintances that I am an engineer, I expect a surprised reaction and the inevitable questions regarding the number of women in my graduating class and women in our profession. I do not expect the same antiquated views from my professional association. It is only when we stop singling ourselves out as female engineers and start viewing ourselves simply as engineers that we will be equals and truly achieve parity with our male peers. Publications such as the January/February issue of Innovation and groups such as the Division for the Advancement of Women in Engineering and Geoscience (DAWEG) only serve to continue to segregate women by advancing a special status within the workforce. Th is segregation neither helps women nor does it help our profession. Given that it is only in the last few decades that engineering became a widely acceptable career for women, it is not surprising that only 6.6% of professional engineers in British Columbia are women. As a recent graduate, I can attest that the social barriers to women entering engineering are now gone, and it is only a matter of time until the gender distribution becomes more representative of the general population. We do not need to force the issue; engineering is a great profession and gender equality can be reached without the aid of gendertargeted publications or special interest groups. If we wish to maintain a profession that we can be proud of, we must stop asking how we can attract more women to engineering and start asking how we can attract well-qualified individuals of all genders and backgrounds. It is crucial that we discontinue the sexist practice of isolating women as having separate needs; equality is protected by law. Lara Taylor EIT, North Vancouver, BC Addressing the Concerns of All Members I read, with some interest, the “viewpoint” expressed in the January/February issue of Innovation by our recently installed president, Janet Benjamin PEng. In her address to us she expresses her concern for the relatively few women in our profession. She states her own view is that women are too smart to go into engineering and geoscience. Rather, women are shrewd enough to go into professions such as accountancy, medicine and law where the return for their efforts is much better and where their numbers are equal to, or exceed, those of men. She further states she believes women will be more attracted to our profession as the need for public communication increases and where she has noticed women tend to get more involved than do men. Of course, the unspoken corollary to her view is that men, being less smart than women, do go into engineering and geoscience and in so doing provide the infrastructure, production plants, resource development and engineering services to our modern society. It is unfortunate that the president of all our members, both male and female, has adopted
this view. Let us all hope that our new president will address the concerns of our entire membership and not the 8% who happen to be female. Donald C Codville PEng, North Vancouver, BC v Clarifi cation re: Engineers and the Employment Standards Act In the January/February 2008 issue of Innovation, the article “Th e Business Edge of Maternity and Parental Leave” stated that British Columbia’s Employment Standards Act (ESA) entitles a professional engineer to certain leaves (eg, maternity leave, parental leave, unpaid leave to care for a child, and unpaid leave for family responsibilities), to certain benefi ts (eg, statutory holiday pay, vacation pay, and continued company benefi ts, pay raises, and company-wide bonuses while on leave), and to job protection when the leave ends. APEGBC would like to clarify that the regulations made under the ESA exempts professional engineers registered or licensed under the Engineers and Geoscientists Act and engineers-in-training from the various provisions in the ESA as long as they are carrying on their profession. As a result, a professional engineer’s or EIT’s rights to various leaves, benefi ts, and job protection are governed by the terms of the person’s contract or collective agreement and any obligations under British Columbia’s Human Rights Code, or the Canadian Human Rights Act for federally regulated activities. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused. Futher information on the Employment Standards Act and the Regulation can be found at www. qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg. Correction In the January/February 2008 issue of Innovation, a photo caption on page 25 identifi ed the scientist pictured as Piotr Kura. In fact, this should be Piotr Kuraś EIT. Reminder - President’s Awards Nominations The deadline to nominate someone for the 2008 President’s Awards is April 18, 2008. If you know of or work with an outstanding professional engineer or professional geoscientist who should be recognized for their contributions to their profession, the community or to APEGBC, let us know. For information on how to nominate a candidate, as well as the awards terms of reference and nomination form, visit www.apeg.bc.ca/services/awards/awards.html. INNOVATION MARCH/APRIL 2008 7
Page 1 and 2: PM40065271 Government Relations Upd
Page 3 and 4: MARCH/APRIL 2008 [VOL.12, NO.2 ] fe
Page 8 and 9: newsmakers 8 MARCH/APRIL 2008 INNOV
Page 10 and 11: association notes 10 MARCH/APRIL 20
Page 12 and 13: association notes Nominations Invit
Page 14 and 15: council repor t FEBRUARY 1, 2008 20
Page 16 and 17: “The workshop was very relevant.
Page 18 and 19: profile Above: Stella Chiu PEng, re
Page 20 and 21: f eatures Growing The NEXT GENERATI
Page 22 and 23: f eatures 22 MARCH/APRIL 2008 INNOV
Page 26 and 27: f eatures Local Source of Waste Hyd
Page 28 and 29: f eatures 28 MARCH/APRIL 2008 INNOV
Page 30 and 31: f eatures Teams Build an End to Hun
Page 32 and 33: f eatures Participation and profess
Page 34 and 35: practice matters Practice Matters A
Page 36 and 37: emovals Removals for Non- Payment o
Page 38 and 39: membership We shape our buildings,
Page 40 and 41: Over 50 years of award winning serv
Page 42 and 43: p rofessional services www.keystone
Page 44 and 45: p rofessional services A SCHLUMBERG
Page 46 and 47: Quesnel, BC Cariboo Pulp & Paper Co
Page 48: A truly effective retirement or sav

3938 APEG Mar.Apr Edit.indd - APEGBC

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?