Shock at low pay for high skill

[Anonymous]

Posted by brian jones 11 on 10/07/2021 10:08:34:

………………….react to many other gases……………..

Cross-sensitivity is an ongoing problem. There is some evidence that it can be reduced by altering the hotplate temperature for different gases. The sensors we work with have sening elements consisting of a mix of transition metal oxides.

Andrew

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Andrew Johnston on 09/07/2021 22:08:25:

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 09/07/2021 16:50:05:

Qualified engineers have some of the highest paid jobs in the UK and that will persist. These are designers, planners, organisers and supervisors rather than persons with practical skills: what separates them from the rest of us is their ability to innovate by applying higher mathematics and deep knowledge. Academia is the main way into this world.

That must be one of the daftest statements ever made on this forum, and there's been some pretty stiff competition.

It presupposes that an engineer with academic qualifications is, ipso facto, not practical. Of course some aren't, but conversely some are. The reverse is also true, some practical people are hopeless at basic arithmetic, but others are good.

The best, and best paid, people in both categories are those that are comfortable with both aspects.

Andrew

Making the daftest statement ever on this forum would be high honour indeed, but Andrew has misunderstood me.

I certainly don't presuppose engineers with academic qualifications are impractical, or that practical men are incapable of innovation. I was only meant the highest paid jobs in engineering require an academic start, not suggesting all well-paid engineering jobs are closed to lesser mortals.

I'm thinking of big hitters like James Watt, John Smeaton, Isambard Kingdom Brunel, Charles Babbage, James Clerk-Maxwell, Oliver Heaviside, Nikola Tesla, Henry Ford, Marconi, Frank Whittle, Werner von Braun, Robert Oppenheimer, Soichiro Honda, Fazlur Rahman Khan, Elon Musk and similar. (An observation: many of these individuals had serious character flaws up to and including devastating mental illness. High-end success is no bed of roses.)

In the early days of engineering, it was possible to rise from practical beginnings to top of the profession without much formal education. But as technology has developed over time, the need for deep knowledge has increased well beyond what can be picked up on the job, essential as practical experience is. This goes back a long way: James Watt wasn't a simple practical man. He worked at the University of Glasgow, at a time when Scottish learning was leading the world. In addition to being a trained Instrument Maker, Watt knew many key scientists of his day, including Joseph Black, and was thoroughly familiar with current scientific thinking in his field of interest. Not just a clever chap with a workshop, he had access to a first rate university. High quality thinking, plus practical skills and well-planned experiments, carefully aimed at solving a series of difficult engineering problems. Nothing amateur about his methods.

Otherwise, I see engineering very much as team work. James Watt succeeded only after partnering with Matthew Boulton, who added essential business skills. James Watt was a miserable failure as a businessman! When Fazlur Rahman Khan designs a skyscraper, it won't be built unless someone organises the money and the mass of skills needed to build it: surveyors, bricklayers, steelworkers, crane-drivers, electricians, and interior decorators etc. All these depend on other clever people; for example the average bricklayer couldn't make his own cement or bricks from first principles, let alone a cement mixer. Nor should he: brickmaking and bricklaying are different skills. It's always better to leave it to the experts. (But make sure they really are experts!)

Most engineering depends heavily on work already done by someone else, and everyone involved deserves credit for adding value. It's not about individuals though. Dependent hierarchies were obvious in my line of work, with different engineering skills required at all levels.

• Copper and fibre optic cables are useless unless connected by routers, gateways and switches to make a network
• Networks are useless until computers are connected to them
• Computers are useless until they've been programmed
• Computer programs are useless until they are applied to a purpose by a human being
• Human beings are useless until they are educated and trained sufficient to apply themselves to a purpose
• Purposes are useless unless they have some value to society
• Societies are useless unless they provide value to their members
• The whole stack is liable to collapse in a power cut.

Society tends to value innovative skills more than trained skills because training doesn't cater for change. However, I'd rather be an ordinary sparks than Nikola Tesla, because Tesla was maddened by his genius. Society benefited, he didn't.

Money and fame aren't all they're cracked up to be. I'd rather be comfortable and happy! However, whatever is done to make a living, it's essential someone else wants it. That's what's important when choosing a job, and these days youngsters have to be ready to change, ideally without stressing out. Choices were more straightforward when I left school; not now. To misquote LP Hartley: 'the future is a foreign country, they do things differently there.'

Dave

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

It would be hard to disagree with every word you have written S o D.

Just how cheaply 'the team' gave away all the technical achievements to the 'Services lot' to exploit for the only form of 'value' (money) we have to live , is a debate yet to be had.

Gates certainly covered all the legal options before imposing his OS on us. A clever move, made him worth a lot of money.

[brian jones 11Participant @brianjones11]

Well my question was "would you encourage a kid to become an engineer"

Sadly the becoming a professional engineer is to start on a long road of disappointments. The training is long and arduous as is gaining experience and credibility

At a party for yuppies

What do you do?"

"Im an engineer"

"oh good could you come and fix my washing machine"

Industry in general gives talented engineers a very paltry prestige level

But you are probably pursuing this lost cause out of a sense of vocation – as many of the best do,

As you move up in the heirarchy you may get to "Chief Engineer". At this level you do almost no real engineering and your time is taken up with man management and board room politics.

The politic clowns make a nonesense out of you work for personal aggrandisment (just look at Bojo)

Look how his two chief scientists = pre-eminent in their fields of virology and epidemics (Messrs Whitty and Valance)

See how they were publicly humiliated and discredited for their cautious but scientific approach.

Thats what you can expect when you rise up as a chief engineer – you become a political football and you have neither the patience nor interest in fighting off these clowns.

Prime example was the development of the Rolls Royce jet engine

In 1946, the UK government agreed to sell Rolls Royce Nene jet engines to the USSR as long as they don't use it for military purposes. The Soviets quickly started putting them into jet fighter aircraft. Was the British government really that naive?

Sir Stafford Cripps, whose decision it was, leaned heavily to the left of the political spectrum (and was expelled from the Labour Party before the war because of that) and was in addition extremely naive. He managed to rejoin the Labour Party in 1945, and was made President of the Board of Trade in the 1945 Labour government.

He was besotted with Communist Russia and the Soviet regime, and so was naturally inclined to agree when a Russian trade delegation asked to buy a few Nene engines and a licence to produce the Nene.

Soviet technicians reverse-engineered the Nene, produced their own version, the Klimov VK-1. Rolls-Royce, of course, never saw a penny in license fees. Installed in the MiG-15, the engine was responsible for many British and Allied deaths during the Korean War.

[Jason ThompsonParticipant @jasonthompson71618]

I have noticed that most of the put down comments have come from those who are academics/engineers in the well-paid jobs. Nobody was accusing you of not earning your money although that may be a matter of opinion. It should be recognised that very few were defending the lower levels of the profession. Are we so woke, leftist and constipated that we no longer give a c**p about the lower levels of our profession? The philanthropists of old encouraged skills, education and invention, now all anyone wants to do is make money and look down on those less fortunate so they can go on a jolly in a spaceship with their brother. how many of those earning 60k plus go down onto the shop floor and show an interest in the people actually making the parts and the money. No far too important they would rather head of home at 5pm to plan yet another family holiday to somewhere exotic. having this superiority and lack of interest in others is what is destroying society and worse our profession. We will always need skilled workers (or grunts as we treat them as) to make the parts for PCs, Robots, manufacturing machines, cars, lifestyle goods. Industry 4 is pure fiction created by academic boffins to show their superiority and present their image of the future. Personally i think the future will be more localised and cooperative based. Covid has shown us what happens when the supply chain is disrupted or if there is an event which stress tests the large corporations. Aircraft manufacturing is going to take years to recover, big shops were forced into closing. Small operators were kept going throughout the pandemic and managed to ride the storm far easier. Having a situation where we have a local builder who works in the local town and is kept going for work without having to go to far like the 1700/1800s – bit of a Larkrise to Candleford would sustain the planet and population far better that the current failing capitalist model. I’m not WOKE by the way, i just spend a great deal of time using my un diagnosed OCD and Autism to look at our industry and wonder who are the heroes and who are the leaches. As for STEM, when i was at school it was the 3 R's so now we give it a fancy title which means the same thing, just like banning the word black from our vocabulary. Science, Technology, English and Math. Like normal lessons then. If we don’t encourage the next generation to enter engineering and don’t act as role models then the skills shortage is going to be a much greater pandemic. China is already teaching us a lesson as we recover from covid, steel and goods prices have risen sharply. Sad thing is we sold out. Would i encourage a young person into engineering, yes with serious reservations? where lean is a mind-set to improve productivity we also need a mind set to sort this attitude our and make the profession more inviting and if i dare say it professional – we are hardly acting like it at this present time. we all need to take a good hard look at our selves and give the whole profession a shake. Why do we insist on treating skilled craftspeople like they are worthless and should be grateful for little more than the minimum wage.

Edited By JasonB on 10/07/2021 18:32:23

[Roger BestParticipant @rogerbest89007]

Wow this thread has gone all over the place.

I am a senior engineer, chartered a good long while ago, in the business for a third of a century. I still work for a manufacturing company, albeit one that produces high-tech items in a non-competitive environment. My previous employers all crashed and burned, so this was a good choice.

By golly the world has changed in my lifetime.

UK manufacturing is not what it was concerning pay by a huge margin. However if you take a wider view at technical services, and construction, a skilled job is worth a good wage. There is the problem that those skills now favour a graduate over time-served, but any engineering manager worth his salt understands the power of diversity and keeps a balanced team.

"A good wage" is not what it was, it has shrunk relative to inflation and youngsters are getting hit hard. My own income has barely kept pace with inflation, only promotions have kept me ahead. But working in a large wealth-creating company is still the best form of employment outside of the city. Everyone else pays pants.

As for the city, yes it still pays obscene amounts, but only to a few people. Its very competitive and there is a price to pay. I would recommend that people give it serious consideration and have a go if they wish. It was the same a long time ago and won't change any time soon.

[BazyleParticipant @bazyle]

All this linking engineers to high pay must be from er? not engineers. It is the ones who move on from engineering into management of engineers that may get better pay.
As for "applying higher mathematics" I've never needed even algebra at work, yes needed it for getting the degree but not for real work but other jobs may need a bit more.
"and deep knowledge" well not really these days as things change so quickly anything learned more than 3 years ogo is probably no longer true.
Degrees seem to be regarded as essential but actually only used to mention at the interview. Will they check? Might be an interesting test for a reasearch journalist to blag their way into some jobs to check that out. Nowadays without business cards used much there is nowhere to show off the letters after your name so only if people check out Linkedin (which can be hoccum) will they be impressed.

[Nick WelburnParticipant @nickwelburn]

Interesting discussion, I think the crux is probably the definition of engineering. For me I’d say that’s the use of abstract science in a creative manner to solve a problem.
I think this will always be an area of value.
So onto fabrication, machine operating. That can be engineering, but it could also be the work of a technician. The crux being does the operator add value or follow rote?

My lad will be an engineer, he’s 8. His hero is Isambard Kingdom Brunel.

The nature of his engineering in the physical / technology / philosophical domain I couldn’t answer you. My father was an aircraft engineer, I’m trained in electronics but work in software. As for my lad maybe it’ll be effective use of AI?
Time will tell but the engineers will still engineer.

[CalumParticipant @calumgalleitch87969]

I think one point not perhaps clearly set out here is that it is the natural fate of the engineer for his or her work to be standardised and simplified and ultimately commodified: to be ripped off by rivals is the mark of a well designed product. For Brunel a well made bridge was a triumph: for us it is a project which will run more or less to plan, perhaps a little late, a little over budget, but it will be done to plan and no-one will die and the design will work. Whatever your place in the foodchain, from the guy that sweeps the floor to the pipe-smoker examining plans in the swanky HQ building far away from the dust and grime, that process of commodification is always at work and if you aren't constantly looking at your own place in the world someone will find a way to reduce your importance.

[Anonymous]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 10/07/2021 12:13:15:

………………………but Andrew has misunderstood me.

Oooopsie, and it wouldn't be the first time.

Andrew

[old martParticipant @oldmart]

15 years ago I was taking home just over £300 for 50 hours skilled fitting in aircraft parts and subassemblies. £25 an hour seems a huge ammount to me.

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

Posted by brian jones 11 on 10/07/2021 17:21:13:

Sir Stafford Cripps, whose decision it was, leaned heavily to the left of the political spectrum (and was expelled from the Labour Party before the war because of that) and was in addition extremely naive. He managed to rejoin the Labour Party in 1945, and was made President of the Board of Trade in the 1945 Labour government.

There was a lot of starry eyed hope for the future back then, a brave new world needed built and some leaps of faith were required

He would have been well warned… and chose to ignore those warnings

Later on as the Soviet influence spread we helped Israel get onto the A-bomb ladder

Britain is always up to something somewhere, it's in the DNA of whitehall people people who seem to live lives filled with paranoia, it's certainly not something the general population gives two hoots about

Edited By Ady1 on 11/07/2021 18:39:35

[Anonymous]

Posted by Jason Thompson on 10/07/2021 18:06:58:

Are we so woke, leftist and constipated that we no longer give a c**p about the lower levels of our profession?

What the point is of joining a forum and immediately denigrating members is a mystery to me.

Those of us who have to work for a living get paid what our employers, oe clients, think we are worth. Whether one thinks that rewards the skills we have is another matter. If we think we are underpaid there are two choices. One, do something about it, like expand skillsets, ask for a rise or find another job. Two, sit back and moan.

Andrew

[Mike PooleParticipant @mikepoole82104]

If you have a job you enjoy and it pays enough to have a comfortable lifestyle then it’s happy days.

Mike

[Alan DonovanParticipant @alandonovan54394]

Hello.

I have been following most of this discussion, and Bazyle made a couple of interesting comments.

In my years as an Engineer, the ability to use higher mathematics (Algebra) was necessary. I cannot see how an engineering designer can design a piece of equipment if he cannot prove to himself and more importantly the client that it is 'fit for purpose'. There were times where an even 'higher' level of mathematical skill was required and we had a 'Stress Office' to provide guidance to the designer and/or fulfil that function.

The main problem I saw was not the ability to perform mathematics but the ability to actually understand how a component or structure is loaded when in use. Not all loadings are the 'text book' example we may think they are.

Degrees are regarded by industry as essential, but many of the degree qualified engineers are unprepared for industry. This is NOT a criticism of the graduate engineer, but a criticism of some (not all) employers who expect graduates to know ALL the answers. Some gentle mentoring of a new graduate by an experienced colleague(s) can make such a difference to the graduate AND the success of that company.

Do employers check that their employees have the qualifications (Degrees) they claim?

I would hope so and as part of the company's Quality Accreditation they are supposed to 'back check' with the issuing University (who should provide 'hard copy' evidence/proof). For large contracts, the CVs of those 'highlighted' to be working on the project are (usually) included in the bidding documents. Well ….. they were at one company I worked for.

I do however share Bazyle's concerns about whether employers make sufficient checks about a persons qualifications. But that is where the Auditors for the company's Quality Accreditation Organisation verify that the company is maintaining the necessary quality processes to retain their accreditation.

Alan.

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

I can't get worked up about a skilled machinist calling himself an engineer. I have quite a few letters after my name, but I wouldn't pretend to even have a clue about driving (for instance) a horizontal borer, especially cutting an internal thread. Similarly I'd be quite worried if the horizontal borer guy set about doing the sums for designing a bridge. And yes I do realise that some highly skilled shop floor guys will move into the more theoretical roles.

Many moons ago there were sandwich courses, where aspiring graduate engineers did a mix of industrial and academic time, including starting off by at least learning what various machine tools and other processes could achieve. This has always seemed like a very good idea to me, Unfortunately I wasn't made aware of this until too late, but on leaving university I got myself a shop floor job. Only basic stuff, and not for very long, but it has been immensely useful over the years, especially when some production engineer was trying to pull the wool over my eyes.

What does get up my nose is the "sales engineer" in the shiny suit with the company car who goes around agreeing with the customer to supply something that can't be made within the timescale or cost quoted. Then he gets a bonus for increasing sales and the poor engineers get blamed for being over budget and time.

Would I advise my son to go into engineering? Well I did, and he's doing well. What's not to like about using other people's money to make whizzo machines

[Martin KyteParticipant @martinkyte99762]

I few comments not really as a response to anyone just general thoughts.

If I look at my own career, educated to degree level (electronics) via HND and CEI Part2 and not moving around much (Marconi Avionics and then the Medical Research Council's Laboratory of Molecular Biology, I can either be disgruntled because I have been paid less than many other less skilled jobs generally and specifically less than equivalent posts in industry in the same job or I can be pleased that I have had a satisfying career doing interesting things with enough money for modest needs and having access to a contributory pension scheme which will keep me comfortable in retirement.

Both views are valid and whilst I have been known to grumble a times about comparative rates of pay I choose to dwell on the second view of things acknowledging that I am happy where I was and had no great inkling to shop around for jobs.

As a more direct response to an earlier post as to would I recommend engineering to an offspring, I would recommend that they choose something that will satisfy them whatever it is. The worst you can do is follow someone elses idea of the right career.

regards Martin

[Mike PooleParticipant @mikepoole82104]

Many large companies take on more graduates than they need so they can find the ones who can deliver what they require. Many graduates will leave of their own free will when they realise what the job requires is not for them and the ones who don’t see their own shortcomings will be fired which will leave the company with the people they were looking for. I suppose this sorting process applies with non graduates as well. I served a craft apprenticeship and there were a few who didn’t complete and then quite a lot who left within a few years, I was the only one of our group to go the full distance, after promotion I settled into a job I really enjoyed and could get up every morning keen to go to work.

Mike

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by duncan webster on 11/07/2021 23:49:43:

…the poor engineers get blamed ….

Yep, blame is common whatever sort of engineer you are. Mismanagement is more easily hidden in many other jobs, and simple folk think they understand mechanical failures, and ignore anything remotely complicated like poor customer decisions, bad planning, supply chains, skills shortages and financial issues.

Sir Thomas Bouch got all the blame to the Tay Bridge disaster, even though the Board of the North British Railway were thoroughly culpable too. Guess who ordered the cheapest possible bridge, failed to maintain it properly, and allowed a passenger train to run over it during a Force 11 storm.

Not that Sir Thomas was innocent! Although he discussed wind pressures with the Astronomer Royal (who at the time was Government Chief Scientist rather than a mere star-gazer), the pair of them boobed. On the principle that British is Best, they failed to consult recent Continental and American advice. American engineers in particular had much experience of collapsing railway bridges, and their up-to-date figures showed the Tay Bridge's wind safety factor was too low, even assuming the design, materials, build quality and maintenance were all spot on, which they weren't. The Tay design was also flawed compared with similar bridges in that fixings were weakened to make assembly quick and therefore cheap. Small bolts in big holes are easy to fit but allow the structure to move sideways.

Despite apprearances, I'm not sure engineering is especially difficult and poorly paid compared with other jobs. If there were lots of dead easy high paid jobs available, we'd all be doing them. Brutal truth is most of us have to work hard to make a living, and most jobs aren't properly appreciated. Consider, Nurses and Pensioners. After coping with Covid, skilled professionally qualified Nurses who have gone the extra mile are rewarded with a 2% pay rise. Pensioners get 2.5%. Why are pensioners more valued by society than nurses?

Dave

[Neil LickfoldParticipant @neillickfold44316]

In NZ, milk tanker drivers earn more per annum than toolmakers do. Not saying there is no skill in driving a tanker, but it certainly does not take 4 years.

[Martin KyteParticipant @martinkyte99762]

re Tay bridge. I think that was the last major structure to be designed empirically so to a certain extent it had to happen at some point. There were also so fairly major frauds going on at the foundrey with blow holes in casting being filled with iron filings and beeswax rather than being rejected, as SOD has alluded to.

regards Martin

[CalumParticipant @calumgalleitch87969]

> milk tanker drivers earn more per annum than toolmakers do

Yes, but milk tank drivers need (I presume, I don't know NZ's road licensing regime!) a specific ticket to drive a milk tanker, which are more dangerous than other tankers because they are unbaffled for hygiene reasons. Apply that on top of the fact that HGV drivers in general are always in short supply, and that you are always a heart murmer away from having your career cut short by the doctors, and you can see why the market is as it is. Skills and experience are part of what makes up a market salary, but not all of it.

[JAParticipant @ja]

Until now I have stayed away from this conversation. I have been a mechanical engineer all my working life (even in retirement). Except for four months, after my official retirement, I worked as a salaried member of staff, not a contractor. My comments, for what they are worth, are:

1. Engineering is a very broad church. I spent most of my life designing, testing, analysing and support engine parts. Others were team leaders, sales engineers, manufacturing engineers and even chief engineers. Some used a lot of their college education, others did not (so what).
2. Most enjoyed their work. Those who did not soon left and probably became supermarket managers earning more money.
3. It was intense work and a lot was expected of you. The work load was around 150% and you set your priorities. You received no real help or respite from your customers, in my case chief engineers. It was recognised by all that you were burnt out, of little use, by the age of 60.
4. Operating in a capitalist society, it was general practice to take on an excess number of junior staff and encourage the useless ones to leave. Every so often the ones that did not were made redundent. This always sapped the morale of those who remained. Later it became practice to recruit a limited number of good staff and to use contractors to take up any slack. In general, but not always, the contractors were of poor quality (some were unbelievably bad).
5. The pay was not good. It seemed to be pegged to teachers' pay. We had very senior engineers that had been teachers and took pay cuts to join the company. If a company was well known and respected it generally paid less.
6. Would I repeat my working life? Yes and I would not repeat the mistakes (not technical) I made. Other than falling out with almost everyone at one time or another I throughly enjoyed my work. I still see quite a few of my collegues. None were idiots.
7. I would recommend engineering to anyone interested. By all means go to university but if I did it again I would still start as an apprentice. As an apprentice, if you are any good and inclined you could be sent to university on full pay and without any future debts.

Enough said.

JA

Edited By JA on 12/07/2021 13:26:08

[Anonymous]

Posted by JA on 12/07/2021 13:18:47:

……….falling out with almost everyone at one time or another……….

Been there, done that, in most companies where I've worked.

It takes a certain type of person to be a contractor, flexibility is key. Contractors are a bit like immigrants. You get the restless mavericks at one end who do excellent work in short bursts and then move on (that's me) and the unemployable losers at the other end who want it all but aren't prepared, or able, to work for it. What you don't get are the middling, but stolidly competent, people who are happy to plod along doing the hours and getting paid a steady but unspectacular salary.

When I want to annoy a millennial I tell them I got paid to go to university. I did a thick sandwich course with MoD. A year at RAE Farnborough, three years at university (working in MoD or their suppliers during the summer) and a final year working in MoD establishments with the aim of joining the PTO grades, ie, chargehands and up. At university I didn't get an LEA grant, but got paid a regular salary. And since the university was a long way from my home base (RAE Farnborough) it was classified as detached duty so I got travel allowances. Even better MoD would pat half the cost of any textbooks on the official list. So I bought all of them on the grounds that when you really needed them (at exam time) the university libraries would have dozens of students fighting over limited copies.

Andrew

LEA = local education authority

PTO = professional and technical grade as opposed to the parallel scientific grades

[brian jones 11Participant @brianjones11]

well said JA, thats what I did. I wouldnt swap my apprenticeship for £1,000,000. The epxerience carried me through the whole of my life and gave me the edge over "paper" engineers, I used to do the milk round some 20 years ago and I was appalled at the low standard of applicants

I explained how learning doesnt stop when you graduate, in fact it persists at a punishing rate throughout your career.

An engineer has to be able to think through all the data around a problem so I asked them to guess what the mass of the air was in the room, then they were given density 0.1 lbs/ft3 (approx for round figures vs .08). The room was 10'x20'x10' to be estimated by students eye ie 2000ft3 so mass should be calculated as ca 200lbs

Many were thrown by being asked to think on their feet and clammed up, Many were annoyed at being challenged. Out of 20 I saw only 2 rose to the challenge and made an informed guess and both estimated 10-20lbs and were surprises at 200lbs

These bright hopes were clearly focused on management fast track scheme. The rest probably wouldnt make bus conductors (that job post has long ceased)

[Author]

Posts