Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: Survey, final result (Corrected)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Dear Bill and Dennis,

It looks like I will be in the States in July next year at a Conference.  Do
you two live close enough togehtor to have lunch.  Kate to as well.  It
would be interesting to have you both at the same table.

John Nichols



At 18:21 30/04/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Bill Allen responded:
>BTW, your inferences of "you suggest.." is offensive.
>I say exactly what I mean. If you want to read something else into it,
>that's your problem.
>
>
>Dennis> Your right, I apologize. I should have said that I interpreted your
>comment... You do state clearly what is on your mind (and maybe that's what
>gets me riled).
>
>[Bill Allen]
>
>My goal of the E&O requirement is to eliminate "part timers" since
>"Structural Engineering" is a costly line item of practice. No hidden agenda
>here.
>
>
>
>Dennis> What you stated was "Another element I would propose is mandatory
>E&O insurance (just like the requirements to register a car here). "  It
>does not matter what you believe your goal is, this approach directly
>affects any engineer in private practice who does not have or is not able to
>obtain E&O coverage.
>
>Moonlighters are not necessarily the problem to our competition. After
>twelve years in private practice I loose very few jobs to moonlighters. In
>fact, if a client wants to use someone who moonlights it's usually because
>they don't want to spend the money to be represented during conventional
>business hours. In this case, I would tend to turn down their business
>because we can't educate them on the pitfalls of dealing with part time
>help. They generally end up coming back for help to clean up the mess they
>got themselves into.
>
>Mandatory insurance coverage never works. For a staunch conservative I am
>surprised that you would want more controls of our state licensing agency
>(the Dept of Consumer Affairs) by allowing them to mandate E&O coverage.
>
>I suggest you, too, stick to what you know. Your first suggestion for a
>mandatory one question test was damn good. Work with that and get off the
>E&O bandwagon. The mandatory problem will be a great way to weed out the
>incompetents. Let the clients looking for a bargain deal with moonlighters.
>
>Dennis
>
>
>
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
><HTML>
><HEAD>
>
><META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
><META content='"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=GENERATOR>
></HEAD>
><BODY>
><P><FONT size=3>Bill Allen responded:<BR>BTW, your inferences of &quot;you 
>suggest..&quot; is offensive.<BR>I say exactly what I mean. If you want to
read 
>something else into it,<BR>that's your problem.<BR></FONT></P>
><P><FONT size=3>Dennis&gt; Your right, I apologize. I should have said that I 
>interpreted your comment... You do state clearly what is on your mind (and
maybe 
>that's what gets me riled).</FONT></P><FONT size=2><FONT size=2>
><P><FONT size=3>[Bill Allen]</FONT></P>
><P><FONT size=3>My goal of the E&amp;O requirement is to eliminate &quot;part 
>timers&quot; since &quot;Structural Engineering&quot; is a costly line item of 
>practice. No hidden agenda here.</FONT></P>
><P><FONT size=3></FONT>&nbsp;</P>
><P><FONT size=3>Dennis&gt; What you stated was &quot;<FONT
color=#000000>Another 
>element I would propose is mandatory E&amp;O insurance (just like the 
>requirements to register a car here). &quot;&nbsp; It does not matter what you 
>believe your goal is, this approach directly affects any engineer in private 
>practice who does not have or is not able to obtain E&amp;O coverage. 
></FONT></FONT></P>
><P><FONT size=3><FONT color=#000000></FONT>Moonlighters are not necessarily
the 
>problem to our competition. After twelve years in private practice I loose
very 
>few jobs to moonlighters. In fact, if a client wants to use someone who 
>moonlights it's usually because they don't want to spend the money to be 
>represented during conventional business hours. In this case, I would tend to 
>turn down their business because we can't educate them on the pitfalls of 
>dealing with part time help. They generally end up coming back for help to
clean 
>up the mess they got themselves into.</FONT></P>
><P><FONT size=3>Mandatory insurance coverage never works. For a staunch 
>conservative I am surprised that you would want more controls of our state 
>licensing agency (the Dept of Consumer Affairs) by allowing them to mandate 
>E&amp;O coverage.</FONT></P>
><P><FONT size=3>I suggest you, too, stick to what you know. Your first 
>suggestion for a mandatory one question test was damn good. Work with that and 
>get off the E&amp;O bandwagon. The mandatory problem will be a great way to
weed 
>out the incompetents. Let the clients looking for a bargain deal with 
>moonlighters.</FONT></P>
><P><FONT size=3>Dennis</FONT></P></FONT>
><P>&nbsp;</P></FONT></BODY></HTML>
>