I can't think of another profession where the national organization would reduce the potential earning power of the rank-and-file and people would still pay dues.
Yes, emphatically agree.
We're also not carpenters. If you want to be a tradesman,
I would argue that unlicensed, not-on-the-licensure-path field personnel, are tradesmen.
I'm also not in favor of elimination of the professional surveyor license.
optimizing and standardizing the pathway(s) to licensure while ensuring that prospective licensees have the necessary fundamental knowledge at the time they begin the mentorship process
I'm very much in favor of this.
@rover83?ÿ
Someone else mentioned specifics, I replied with my own observations to that.
I've no problem being called a trade.?ÿ I'd love for us to lose some of our liability.?ÿ
My overall (repetitive) point is that you're trying to fix and change things that aren't broken.?ÿ I've been qualifying that to my general area because I'm familiar with that, not where you work.?ÿ And my observations, along with what I hear from fellow surveyors, and also from looking at the Board websites throughout New England at the disciplinary actions, lead me to conclude that there isn't wide-spread malpractice in our line of work.
Go ahead and strive to improve, but in doing so, I take offense at a useless requirement that may potentially shut out otherwise qualified members of our "profession".
Change isn't always a bad, I agree.?ÿ But only if there's a real reason, not just a new requirement put in place to make us feel better about ourselves and our standing amongst other professionals.
I have a degree, and I'm already in the club, having all the licenses I care to have, and also about 10 years from retirement, , so none of this affects me much.?ÿ
Do you think the licensed surveyors in your state are going out in the field less, or are they spending the same amount of time as they always did with their technicians??ÿ Or are you saying that there isn't a problem caused by the new technology (such as robotics, RTK, etc. that requires less people to operate, and is much simpler to operate.)
I still go in the field for some projects.?ÿ But I don't have anyone to mentor at the moment.?ÿ The field personnel are content staying in the field, and don't want to progress into anything else.
When I worked at other companies, with people who wanted to someday obtain their license, I'd work along with them as needed.?ÿ?ÿ Overall, I don't think that there's any less supervision and mentoring now compared to when I was coming into the profession.
I've tried to be clear on this in other threads, that I'm in no way against formal education, surveying degrees, etc.?ÿ I just am against any requirement for it, and don't think that it's been established that there's a need, and that on the whole, those who obtained their license without a degree are any less competent than those who do have a degree.
We're not talking about specific instances of crappy surveyors. We're talking about optimizing and standardizing the pathway(s) to licensure while ensuring that prospective licensees have the necessary fundamental knowledge at the time they begin the mentorship process.
I'm not sure how the degree requirement is "...optimizing and standardizing the patheway(s)..." when there are existing standards and requirements in place to obtaining a license.?ÿ Also, I don't think that it's been established that having the "..fundamental knowledge at the time they begin the mentorship process" goes toward making someone a more competent surveyor either.?ÿ
I'm asking for a cause and effect, and I haven't read anything yet.?ÿ The reasons for requiring a degree that I've read so far just don't back it up.
I have no frame of reference for your experience. My time surveying in the northeast was 4 decades ago. I can say a few things with certainty.
The business model across the country has shifted from 4 man crews to one or two-man crews. Even two-man crews are usually split into two one-man crews on site. Two-thirds or more of the interaction is flat gone. By simple math it is not possible to have the same level of mentoring. This dynamic also reduces the diversity of opinions and knowledge employees are exposed to, reducing the value of what is learned.
The purpose of the Boards is to protect the public. If the profession wants a model that eliminates mentoring, the Boards have a duty to ensure the learning happens somewhere. Four years of pounding hubs on your own isn't it.?ÿ
@flga-2-2?ÿ
One thing has changed as of yesterday.?ÿ They have a new executive director, replacing Curt Sumner after 23 years at the helm.?ÿ His name is Timothy Burch from the Illinois/Wisconsin area.?ÿ?ÿ
I work for a small company where we do a wide variety of projects, including lots of boundary jobs.?ÿ There's plenty of supervision and opportunity to learn.?ÿ Yes, we also have our share of pounding stakes and setting rods and stone and concrete bounds.
I can remember 3 man crews.?ÿ I don't think there was any more mentoring then than now.
@flga-2-2?ÿ
I got finger printed for that (CAM LIC)in Colorado but the company I was working for was a real deeply troubled group of misfits so I backed away quietly.
I don't recognize or use them as a source of employment except for the taxes they withheld and surprisingly paid.
?ÿ
"They", whoever they are, and I don't care, have more fingerprints of me than a tomato at Piggly-Wiggly. ?????ÿ
?ÿ
@jph It is not possible to eliminate most daily interaction and maintain the same level of mentoring, unless there was a failure to start with.
On our three and four-man crews there was always something being taught. When you changed crews or filled in on another you got a new perspective (or several). That cannot happen with one person working alone, or two people operating different equipment on opposite ends of a site.
I'm not sure what you're looking for here.?ÿ I don't work for, and never have worked for a company where it was all or mostly solo work.?ÿ Sure, there've been times where it was done, but 90% or more of the time it's a 2-man crew.?ÿ
And I think that's typical for most of this region.
Maybe change that instead, and you won't have just a bunch of button-pushers doing your fieldwork.
@frozennorth That was not my experience with B/D wage determinations. Most of the projects I was interested in lacked a determination for surveyor wages so the process of determining them would be required. Of those that did have a determination such wages were well below that which I required and paid my employees. I never saw a determination that equaled our wage and benefit package.
I did know one surveyor that quit a B/D job, not because he didn't get paid enough, but because he felt the separation between his wage and his assistants was too slim for the disparity in responsibilities.?ÿ
I credit ACSM/NSPS for the opportunity to perform many surveys for federal agencies on qualification based contracts instead of cost based (Brooks Bill). I give them credit for taking the fight to LightSquare to protect our GPS frequencies. As normal with professional associations, a handful of dedicated persons carry the load for the vast majority of those who benefit from their endeavors.
@kscott Note the issues they handled were National. The State policies (such as licensure) need to be handled by the State societies.
B/D sets the minimum wage that can be paid, not the maximum.?ÿ They also do not cover professional services, only construction staking.?ÿ In NYS B/D wages were much higher than private work.?ÿ The same for Alaska.?ÿ In a firm with multiple crews that can cause problems.?ÿ NC and TN aren't union states and the prevailing wage rate doesn't come into play because the government isn't buying union votes with taxpayer money.?ÿ In Alaska I can easily make over six figures in six months with zero liability as an employee and no license needed.?ÿ I couldn't do that working on a non B/D job for a surveying firm without being a principle and that would be a big maybe.
?ÿ
I've no problem being called a trade.?ÿ I'd love for us to lose some of our liability.?ÿ
There is a lot more to being a professional than the liabilities that go with it.?ÿ I've worked trades, and most of my family and friends work trades for a living.?ÿ This is not a trade, not just because of the liability, but because of the amount of knowledge you need to have, the continuing education and learning, the many years of experience required, the complex problem-solving...?ÿ The liability is only one part.?ÿ If I'm going to do something like surveying, and commit to life-long learning, I don't want to be called a tradesman, and I don't want to get paid like a tradesman: I want to be paid like a professional.?ÿ So, yeah, I have a problem being called a trade.?ÿ Calling surveying a trade is like doing a complex boundary survey but getting recognition and pay for just doing some basic mathematics/coordinate geometry (instead of the complex analysis you did.)
I don't think the degree is keeping people away from surveying as much as the pay is.?ÿ The pay isn't going to go up through the deregulation of our profession, and I don't see it being in the public's best interest either.
I agree with @tim-v-pls that there is a trade aspect.?ÿ I think that someone can make a very good living if they pursue the trade aspect of surveying, and I've known people to make a good living without a license or degree doing it.
Professions are one of the things you might learn about in a degree program.?ÿ Professions are a liability protection. Without the protection of a professional license it would be extremely unwise to offer an opinion on the location of a land boundary.
Not sure if you're making a joke, but with or without a college degree, I think that most understand that you need to be licensed in order to practice as a land surveyor.?ÿ
I don't think the degree is keeping people away from surveying as much as the pay is.?ÿ The pay isn't going to go up through the deregulation of our profession, and I don't see it being in the public's best interest either.
I agree, and have been saying that for years, about the pay being a major factor about young people not choosing surveying as a career.?ÿ
But there are a number of people who are already working in surveying, who for whatever reason, will never get the formal education that some states require, and thus, prevented from obtaining their license.
Not sure who, if anyone here has been promoting deregulation, but it wasn't me.?ÿ