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]
Sorry, John but you probably will never catch Dennis and I in the same room
:o).

Regards,
Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: John Nichols <cejn(--nospam--at)engmail.newcastle.edu.au>
To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org <seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org>
Date: Thursday, April 30, 1998 6:53 PM
Subject: RE: Survey, final result (Corrected)


>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>
>>
>
>
>
>