IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Salaries for Incorporated Engineers
Topic Summary:
Created On: 21 January 2014 04:23 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
1 2 Next Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 22 January 2014 12:02 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbirdi

Posts: 1907
Joined: 13 June 2005

The full document looks impressive but the earnings figures for all category of registered engineers isn't I'm afraid.

The figure of £45k is what one would typically earn in a senior technical role; whilst £60K is a typical management (or senior management) salary. I know lots of people who earn these kind of salaries and more without any registration or membership to their names.

It just goes to prove that registration is a waste of time; though perhaps useful to those running the organisations that bring in millions for the up keep of the buildings, staff salaries and pensions for those employed to pull the wool over people's eyes.

Qualifications (page 16): Quite a lot of MEng and above have registered at EngTech, ICTTech and IEng.

Edited: 22 January 2014 at 12:18 AM by mbirdi
 24 January 2014 02:41 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: mbirdi
It just goes to prove that registration is a waste of time; though perhaps useful to those running the organisations that bring in millions for the up keep of the buildings, staff salaries and pensions for those employed to pull the wool over people's eyes.


It makes for a good CYA for companies who want to be able to say they recruited a competent person if something goes wrong. The real value of something is for the individual to decide I think, however the IET and IOSH and I suspect many other institutions are suffering from increasing the requirements for registration over and above what is really required to do the job. However registration is a choice and that is fair enough.

Regards.
 24 January 2014 08:31 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbirdi

Posts: 1907
Joined: 13 June 2005

Originally posted by: westonpa
It makes for a good CYA for companies who want to be able to say they recruited a competent person if something goes wrong.

Except they ruin the whole concept by rewarding them with the same levels of salary that "non-competent" engineers receive.

And why doesn't anybody question what happens if something goes wrong? Do registered engineers lose their jobs and get sued or does the company employing them take the wrap as usual.

Did any registered engineer get sued or lose their registration when following the BP oil disaster several years ago? What's the point of registration if they get to keep their job?

Edited: 24 January 2014 at 08:39 PM by mbirdi
 24 January 2014 08:53 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

mbirdi,

I 'doubt' any registered engineer gets struck off; because most employers have no clue how to report them. If we look at the whole system of registration then in reality it is a assessment/recognition of general competencies it is not so much about specific ones. Let's be honest about it the sanction for failure in society these days is not too severe and in some fields they just get their rewards reduced from a very lot to a lot and then all goes on as normal. I do not see why engineers should be treated any differently with regards to sanctions than the rest of society, especially those who run businesses, government, etc.

If an emploer thinks IEng etc., means something and they want it then it is their choice. My point was that most manager's nowadays are looking for 'systems/tests' etc., to say someone was worth employing so that if something goes wrong they can point to the test and avoid being pointed at themselves, it's the modern way I am afraid.

You and I can harp on about it until the cows come home; the tide either goes out or in and you, I and pmiller are just insignificant sandcastles who will neither stop the tide or else hold it back. Hope you liked than, I came up with it especially for you.

Regards.
 24 January 2014 10:19 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



roybowdler

Posts: 276
Joined: 25 July 2008

There is certainly plenty of material to explore in the report. The job role table on page 15 caught my eye. The percentages of IEng & CEng holding the three titles "Manager", "Director" and "Engineer", are quite similar. However the relative proportion of "Engineers" (more IEng) and "Directors"(more CEng), might have a bearing on the overall salary averages. Another key factor will also be the labour market conditions and employment practices in particular sectors, with very highly paid registrants in some places.



The overall spread of salaries (page 18) suggests a very large measure of overlap between the earnings of the different types of registrant. I would expect a person's earnings to reflect the value that they create through their employment. Whilst the averages might superficially suggest a hierarchy of economic value between the registration categories, in many thousands of individual situations, this would not be an accurate picture. It is unfortunate therefore, that Technicians and Incorporated Engineers have sometimes found themselves being positioned into a hierarchy, suggesting that they have a lower economic value than another category of registrant . This inaccurate suggestion of lesser value, deters many from engagement and may cause some measure of offence to those who do participate. Therefore, since the economic argument for a hierarchy of engineering practice across the wide range of working engineers and technicians isn't supported by the survey, those who seek to promote this concept, must seek other reasons to justify their argument. However, because on average becoming a CEng increases potential earning power, EC and professional institutions are right to encourage those with the talent , motivation and opportunity to develop CEng competence, through a strong undergraduate foundation and/or on-going career development. For many good engineers and technicians, their talent, motivation and opportunities will lead to a successful career as a Technician or IEng, which may also offer similar levels of personal satisfaction and earnings.


With the renewed emphasis on the benefits of a top-quality apprenticeship recently, we should perhaps consider career or lifetime earnings. I found the low numbers declaring an apprenticeship in the survey surprising and this may indicate a weakness in the survey methodology. On average there does appear to be a potential "premium" available, for those with the highest academic qualifications, but the payback period is significant. Even for those full-time undergraduates who take part-time jobs, the break-even point for many could be 5-10 years post-graduation, by which time someone who followed an apprenticeship, where the break-even risk is borne by the employer, could be hundreds of thousands to the good. The apprenticeship concept can be adapted to include different qualifications, including if appropriate to Masters level. Why if you want to be an engineer or technician should you be working in a bar or being largely "at leisure" when you could already be gaining relevant practical experience and learning at the same time? As was posted in another thread by someone recently, it was very pleasing to be able to recognise the collaboration between a top university and some leading employers , which is producing some badly needed new Incorporated Engineers in the power sector.


Only a small number of people working for Professional Institutions and Engineering Council are earning at the same level as typical registrants and many activities are largely voluntary.

Professional registration is not designed to be profitable and can be obtained for a relatively modest fee. Many of the impressive edifies occupied by the leading professional institutions were acquired in the 19th century and have to work very hard to earn their upkeep. Engineering Council occupies a modest suite of offices on one floor and buys in £20 sandwich platters for any meeting I've been to.

-------------------------
Roy Bowdler IEng FIET FCIPD
IET Registration & Standards

Edited: 10 February 2014 at 09:44 AM by roybowdler
 25 January 2014 12:14 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbirdi

Posts: 1907
Joined: 13 June 2005

Originally posted by: westonpa
I 'doubt' any registered engineer gets struck off; because most employers have no clue how to report them. If we look at the whole system of registration then in reality it is a assessment/recognition of general competencies it is not so much about specific ones.

Agreed.

I do not see why engineers should be treated any differently with regards to sanctions than the rest of society, especially those who run businesses, government, etc.

It could be argued that it would be unfair to report them anyway given registered engineers aren't being paid the wages in line with their professional registration.

Edited: 25 January 2014 at 09:05 AM by mbirdi
 25 January 2014 03:56 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: pmiller2006
With the latest version of UKSpec defining IEng clearly at a much lower level than CEng will there any value in attaining the award?

These would be my considerations if my primary considerations were about earning more:

Will I personally earn more or have a better chance to earn more with the status? Yes ok I think its worth going for, no ok I do not think it is worth going for. If thereafter something else seemed to offer more value then I would go for that instead. As I see it the financial value of the IEng status to you is not determined by the financial value of the different status someone else holds and for which the requirements to obtain it were/are different.

Regards.
 26 January 2014 05:10 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbirdi

Posts: 1907
Joined: 13 June 2005

In the real world, registration plays no part in terms of career development and pay awards. These things are determine by current form (as opposed to previous form which resulted in achieving CEng) and the willingness to take calculated risks in changing jobs with more responsibilities and pay.

This survey only suggests that CEngs are more ambitious than IEngs. There is further evidence taken from some years earlier, when IEngs were given the opportunity to re-grade to CCEng, almost half chose to stick with IEng for luddite reasons. With the old saying about lying in one's own bed, it couldn't be more truer.

There is a further argument to suggest that If IEngs weren't capable of making this important decision to whole-heartedly accept CCEng, then perhaps, as far as the EC and maybe IET are concerned, the IEngs might as well not share the limelight with the CEngs; but they only have themselves to blame for their own demise.

By the way, anyone notice the spell checker on the reply box, recognises CEng and MIET, but underlines against IEng and EngTech? An unfortunate error in the spellchecker or a hidden message?

Edited: 26 January 2014 at 05:25 AM by mbirdi
 27 January 2014 08:02 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



planetz31

Posts: 8
Joined: 25 July 2008

From my experience where I work, in order to lead any significant piece of work (work packages on research contracts/programmes of £0.25m up to dev programmes of £10's m) you need to be CEng/IEng. All the bids & proposals which go out the door have CEngs/IEngs as the key personnel (with a 1 paragraph description/CV next to their name). The non-key personnel register still has their institution membership next to their name and what they are working towards.

For me professional registration opens the door to lots of opportunities but I still have to be the one to step through and take advantage of that and promote the fact that I am professionally registered and the work I have done in the past and am doing right now.

Am I better off for being CEng... monetarily no (its only been 6 months I might change that answer after my pay review in a couple of weeks), but in terms of career progression/opportunities yes I am much better off and in time capitalising on that will translate to monetary returns.

This is just my personal experience.

As for those people who lambast/criticise the Engineering Council and the IET for not promoting CEng/IEng/EngTech etc I say what have you done to promote it? Many companies do not directly engage with these organisations so it's up to us. Sing the praises of registered personnel. When you are registered do a good job and ensure they understand that you are registered and they start to see the value of it. Professional registration is a shared identity and it is up to us to promote it as quite frankly we have the most to benefit from doing so.

Your employer is happy with the status quo, it is up to you to change it!

We only have to take a lesson in self promotion from the tax advisors and financial sector to learn how to push up our salaries/recognition but engineers are a somewhat more humble bunch. We should be singing our added value.

Regards

Amar
 31 January 2014 03:12 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

However pmiller, you neglected to inform us that you are doing quite well on that £150k per year salary since you gained your IEng.

Regards.
 06 February 2014 01:50 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Maybe therein lays the problem pmiller, your expectations are maybe a little too high, even though of course it is not a bad thing to aim high.

If professional status guaranteed a certain level of income etc., then I think millions of people would be signing up.

Regards.
 07 February 2014 12:25 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

I am also a member of IOSH and I noted there that one Chartered IOSH member said they were working for £7 an hour and so was asking is CMIOSH worth it?

If an person claims to be competent enough to hold these professional status's they should really be competent enough to know there will be no guaranteed minimum salary etc., and make their decisions accordingly. We operate in economies which are based upon 'let the market decide' and the only differences are things like minimum wage. Why exaclty would I as a business pay you, for example, £150k per year when I can get someone equally qualified to do the job for let's say £30k per year? Your professional status basically says that a few guys/gals have assessed you, by one means or another, and have indicated you were generally competent at the time of assessment. It does not however say that you can, for example, repair this particular fault on this CNC machine or else supervise the guy that can no more than a HNC or else BEng does. In addition to this my CNC machine maybe making parts which I sell for millions whereas that factory over there has a machine which produces parts which sells for hundreds and therefore they cannot pay their engineer the same rate.

If you do not believe IEng gives decent value then drop it and when the market has decided then the IET/EC will act. I would not take too much notice of what the government says either, they are the ones who allowed the banks and financial institutions to do the things they did etc. The initiative you point out will make little difference because professional registration is an assessment of general competence and not the thing which makes people competent. If you have a scheme whereby you take let's say people who are not engineers and were not going to be engineers and you put them through a training scheme which is intended to deliver the competencies required for professional registration then you have delived 100,000 new technicians which were not going to be in the market, well done congrats you did a good job. If however you just assess 100,000 technicians who were already working or else who are already doings their C&G, ONC, HNC, etc., as is relevant then the headline looks good but the reality is it made little difference.

If you want more money and better terms and conditions then change your job, let the market decide!

Regards.
 07 February 2014 05:14 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbirdi

Posts: 1907
Joined: 13 June 2005

Excellent comment westonpa.

Doctors and Teachers have to be qualified in the same way to their colleagues and have to work in the same arenas, such as schools or hospitals; this brings the benefit of minimum salaries as well as pay structure.

Engineers can work in organised places with minimum salaries and pay structure; but can also work almost anywhere in almost any environment; and so can receive salary and benefit according to what the market is willing to pay. In that case, it doesn't matter if the engineer is chartered, incorporated or not. The IET and EC are not responsible for influencing an engineer's worth nor their level of pay.

If I were pmiller2006, I would tell people that IEng stands for 'Incredibly rich and successful Engineer'.

Now what's the name of that company which produces machined engineered parts for millions? I might send in my cv.
 08 February 2014 05:09 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: mbirdi
Now what's the name of that company which produces machined engineered parts for millions? I might send in my cv.

Lord Birdi and Sons Precision Machined Parts.

Regards.
 09 February 2014 11:13 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbirdi

Posts: 1907
Joined: 13 June 2005

That sounds a jolly go idea.

You wouldn't know the price of a top of the range CNC machine? I need to put in an expense claim form to parliament in addition to gardening and duck island maintenance.
 21 February 2014 11:15 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

I question your understanding of the business world, if you thought that holding IEng would somehow improve your salary or else maintain it and if you somehow think there has been some re balancing towards manufacturing. Manufacturers are doing what they are doing in spite of successive governments who can do little more than appear for photo opportunities and make headline grabbing statements.

Professional registration is overall not that important for the majority of the business world; there are far too many engineers without it for it to be. The combination of good quality experience and qualifcations is the key requirement and will remain so for the forseeable future. EngTech, IEng and CEng of course have their place but it will be a long long time, if ever, before they will have enough prominance in most work places to make a significant different to overall salaries. If you personally want more of a marketing campaign to raise your IEng profile then get together with all your other IEng colleagues and each donate £100 each to pay for the said campaign. I think you will find most IEng are ok with how things are now.

Regards.
 23 February 2014 09:00 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbirdi

Posts: 1907
Joined: 13 June 2005

Originally posted by: westonpa
Professional registration is overall not that important for the majority of the business world; there are far too many engineers without it for it to be. The combination of good quality experience and qualifcations is the key requirement and will remain so for the forseeable future.

As the comment above and elsewhere agree closely with my own; I'd just like to say that I'm not operating under the alias of westonpa. These really are the views of another person.

On a serious note for pmiller2006. The salaries of CEngs and IEngs are representative of their job titles and responsibilities and not their registration titles. So for the EC to make suggestions of trends in salaries of their registered members is totally misrepresentative of the truth. There isn't a single CEng or IEng in the UK who is actually employed and paid to be a CEng or IEng. It's like saying the salaries of knighthoods and dames have gone up compared to previous years. It's a complete nonsense.

The salaries of those registered in the category of IEng may be in decline because the members concerned probably aren't making the kinds of career changes necessary to cause an upward trend in their salaries. This may be due to members being of an older generation plodding away in safe jobs, waiting for when they retire.

The younger generation are clearly more interested in achieving CEng then IEng; and that's making it worst for IEng registration. Marketing won't really change that; besides why waste money to market IEng when it would be more cost effective to just transfer over IEngs to CEng registration and then focus on promoting the CEng brand.

It's only rules & regulations and stubbornness on the part of CEngs that is preventing this from happening. We clearly saw that following the results of the IEng review survey, where the largest number of IEngs chose to change to CCEng and nothing happened to effect the change.

Edited: 23 February 2014 at 09:25 PM by mbirdi
 24 February 2014 01:12 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: pmiller2006
You misunderstand my point.

The Engineering Council are making broad assertions that registered engineers salaries are increasing compared to other sectors. In the case of incorporated engineers the ONS statistics show that public sector workers have enjoyed larger increases over the same period.

For the sake of good order I was merely pointing this out.


Maybe the point you should have made is the one in bold.

Anyway, I do hope you get a large salary increase this year and then at least the IET will be correct about you!

Regards, mbirdi
 24 February 2014 04:29 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



basil.wallace

Posts: 219
Joined: 01 April 2006

Originally posted by: mbirdi

The salaries of those registered in the category of IEng may be in decline because the members concerned probably aren't making the kinds of career changes necessary to cause an upward trend in their salaries. This may be due to members being of an older generation plodding away in safe jobs, waiting for when they retire.

The younger generation are clearly more interested in achieving CEng then IEng; and that's making it worst for IEng registration. Marketing won't really change that; besides why waste money to market IEng when it would be more cost effective to just transfer over IEngs to CEng registration and then focus on promoting the CEng brand.

It's only rules & regulations and stubbornness on the part of CEngs that is preventing this from happening. We clearly saw that following the results of the IEng review survey, where the largest number of IEngs chose to change to CCEng and nothing happened to effect the change.


Especially when there is no dual-career opportunities for the older generation to progress either as managers or as technical specialists.

As for the 3rd edition of UK-SPEC, apart from a lot of tinkering in the IEng category, nothing is really going to change as EC has totally ignored the plight of the IEngs.

That's what the current UK-SPEC review Steering Group seems to have lost sight of. And that's the real tragedy after so much time debating.


Basil Wallace PgDip EngTech MIET

Edited: 24 February 2014 at 04:41 PM by basil.wallace
 24 February 2014 05:04 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbirdi

Posts: 1907
Joined: 13 June 2005

According to the EC news bulletin the only reference to the ONS is in the following text:

The majority of respondents in the 2013 survey were in employment, with just 1% identifying themselves as 'unemployed and seeking re-employment'. This sits well below the national unemployment figure of around 7% (Office for National Statistics).

There is also no reference to the ONS in the EC 2013 Survey whatsoever.

The only reference to salary comparison between private sector and public sector is on page 13: 5.2.3 Basic income by sector. It's no surprise that private sector employees earn more than their public sector compatriots. Private sector generates money and can afford to reward their engineers and technicians whilst the public sector spends the money generated by the tax payers and there is only so much (or so little) to go round.

In formula 1 racing, the most important piece of static a driver (and team manager) looks for is the one that shows how fast they are compared to their team mate, before comparing themself against drivers from other teams.

The most important static for registered engineers is one that would show the salary differences between registered engineers and non-registered engineers in the various sectors; this of course doesn't exist because the EC doesn't want anyone to see the reality and be able to decide for themselves if getting registered is worthwhile or not.

Now that the EC has done this survey what are they supposed to do with it? The EC (and IET) don't serve as trade union where they could make representation on behalf of its members to effect a pay rise.

Speaking of Trade Unions. The salaries derived by CEngs and IEngs in the EC survey represent the market values of engineers (Chartered or otherwise) in general rather than being specific to CEngs or IEngs. As an example the salaries of CEngs working as university lecturers and professors are derived as a result of the efforts put in by the Universities trade union, of which the vast majority of the members aren't registered as CEngs; but CEngs nevertheless enjoy the benefits from the increase pay rise the union achieves for its members.

Therefore, the conclusion that can be drawn from the survey (paid for by registered members) is that the salaries are representative of market values of managers, engineers and technicians in various posts and in various types of industries. They do not represent the values specific to being registered as CEng or IEng; any inference suggested by the EC or anyone else that they are is complete nonsense.

The bottom line is that one has to detach the salaries from the registration grades and just look at the salaries on their own to see what managers, engineers and technicians earn in various jobs in various industries. The registration grades are completely irrelevant to the exercise.

Edited: 25 February 2014 at 03:55 AM by mbirdi
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.