BETTERSSLAMMING APATHY AND IGNORANCESir - I received recently, as did allother members of the Institution,notification of 19 meetings to be heldin the various Regions in the country.The subject of the meetings was 'TheFuture of your Institution1 and thePrincipal Officers were to put forwardthe rationale for the proposals. One: tochange the name of the Institutionand, two: to consider a merger withthe Institution of Electrical Engineers;both proposals of vital concern to theInstitution membership. These meet-ings were an opportunity for membersto hear the case for and against andfor the Principal Officers to hear theviews of the membership.

On 19 February, I attended themeeting for the Midland Region. Thetotal membership of the MidlandRegion is 2585, deduct the 590members of the Coventry Section whowere invited to a separate meeting

and we are left with 1995 memberswho were asked to "please play yourpart in the development of yourInstitution by attending one of thesemeetings".

In the event the attendance at themeeting was in the region of 30,including quite a few committeemembers. That leaves 1965, someadmittedly unable to attend, but a verylarge proportion apparently uninteres-ted in the Institution's future.

Of those in this figure who arecorporate members and entitled tovote, how many will have a fullappreciation of the pros and cons ofthe two proposals? When the timecomes will they either not bother tovote, or be unable to do so on abalanced judgement arising from afull appreciation of the ramifications ofthe proposals? One memberattending the meeting said at the end

that he had come totally opposed toboth proposals but, having listened tothe arguments, was going away withhis views completely reversed.

We constantly hear of the dissatis-faction of the professional engineerwith his lack of recognition in oursociety and yet, when the opportunityoccurs to do something about it, thereis insufficient interest to act.

Yes, I believe the decisions on ourfuture could fundamentally alter ourlong term status. The ultimate mustsurely be one Society of Engineers,possibly prefixed by the word Royal,embracing the diverse disciplines inengineering but capable of speakingwith one voice. A body similar inauthority to those enjoyed by themedical and law professions. Thenperhaps we may realise the statusabout which we are all so concerned.

The considered merger with the

IEE could form the first step in thisdirection, with the possibility of theMechanicals following suit to form acombined engineering institution ofsomething in the region of 200 000members, surely a body to bereckoned with and worth fighting for.

On the poor showing and with theapparent lack of interest of our ownmembers it makes me wonder if wedeserve to be a part of the potentiallydynamic future of our great profes-sion; so vital to the survival of ourcountry if it is to play a full part inEurope and the World in the yearsahead.

Joe ReevePast President

87 Silhill Hall RoadSolihull

West MidlandsB911JT

MERGERFACESDOUBTS

Sir - The Irish Section Committee ofProduction Engineers does not fullyunderstand the reasons for theInstitution to merge with the Institu-tion of Electrical Engineers.

The rationale for the merger is notclear from all the documentationissued to date. We therefore assumethat it is for economical and growthreasons.

The other major concern is howcan production trained and qualifiedengineers call themselves electricalengineers. We have listened to thediscussions concerning the intentionsof the manufacturing section of theelectrical engineers and the argu-ments that more and more productionengineers are becoming involved inthe electro-mechanical and electro-nics process.

Our experience in Ireland is thatwhen you evaluate the work per-formed by the production engineer inthe electronics industry it is in theproduction, mechanical, industrialand manufacturing engineering func-tions.

Therefore, we would appreciateother members' comments and views.

Brian H SouthamHon Secretary of Irish Section

THE HOARY CHESTNUT OF STATUSSir - It is ironic that the UnitedKingdom, cradle of the IndustrialRevolution, is perhaps the onlycountry in the world where engineersenjoy a relatively low professionalstatus. In both Latin America - whereI was born and brought up - andContinental Europe - where I haveworked for the last three years - theengineer ranks alongside medicaldoctors and lawyers as the mostrespected professional, and oftenends his career not as a shopfloorsupervisor but sitting on a Board ofDirectors. A few years ago, the Frenchmagazine L'Express dedicated anarticle to the engineering profession,whose title read, if memory doesn'tfail me, something like 'That privi-leged profession'.

The high esteem enjoyed byengineers in foreign countries is evenmore ironic if one considers that, inmany of these nations, it is enough tohold a university accredited degree tobe accepted as a professional engi-neer. Thus, foreign engineers areoften what we would call engineeringgraduates in the UK and notInstitution-affiliated members. Fewnations have institutions such as theIProdE (let alone single, powerful,amalgamated Engineering Institu-tions), and foreigners are oftenbemused to hear that, after obtaininga BEng or a BSc, a Briton must also beawarded the equivalent of an MIProdEto be recognised as a professionalengineer. Beyond the channel, formal

accreditation often ends with thedegree, ie one step before whathappens in the UK. Yet, engineers (or,rather, engineering graduates), arebetter regarded than in this country.

Why is this so? The reason, to myview, lies largely in a problem ofsemantics and cultural background.To a German, a Frenchman, aSpaniard or an American, the wordengineer is associated with large andprestigious projects. To a foreigner,an engineer is by definition somebodywho has followed at least anengineering education of degreestandard or equivalent, in the samesense in which a Briton understands alawyer or a doctor. The differencebetween graduates and diplomats isperceived in a way similar to thatwhich exists between officers andNCOs.

To a Briton, the word engineermeans everything and nothing. In thiscountry, the common use of the wordcovers professors, graduates, per-sons having followed technical trades,or even simply anybody who repairsanything. Thus, Frenchmen areimpressed to hear that the Britishdon't have their cars serviced bymechanics but by motor engineers,and that household goods are main-tained by legions of TV engineers,radio engineers, etc.

Of course, technicians and quali-fied tradesmen deserve recognition,but the indiscriminate use of the wordengineer makes it difficult to distin-

guish between different (not neces-sarily inferior) levels of skill.

In the foreign countries where Ihave lived, the term engineer is a titleoften protected by law and, in anycase, used to describe a very specifictype of professional. In the UK, thepermissiveness of the language helpsto perpetuate the image of theengineer as somebody associatedwith nuts, bolts and spanners.

The IProdE and its sister institu-tions could do a great service to theprofession and to the English lan-guage. They should produce a clearand unambiguous definition of thetitle engineer and strive to get thegeneral public familiar with it. Afterall, not only foreign-speakers butAmericans (who use more or less thesame language) consider the word aprotected term.

M E RodriguezGMIProdE

Fritz Courvoisier 42300 La Chaux-de-Fonds

Switzerland

The Editor reserves theright to shorten letters.Send to:The EditorManufacturing EngineerRochester House66 Little Ealing LaneLondon W54XXor Fax to 01-579 2244

MANUFACTURING ENGINEER APRIL 1990