Surveying without a license?

[Ric7308]

https://bpelsg.ca.gov/pubs/bulletin43.pdf Read the article on Unlicensed Surveying on Page 1 & 2.

That's a good article right there. (haha, I totally forgot about this one)

[bryanmundia]

https://bpelsg.ca.gov/pubs/bulletin43.pdf Read the article on Unlicensed Surveying on Page 1 & 2.

That's a good article right there. (haha, I totally forgot about this one)

I didn't forget, only for the sake that the gentleman behind the reason for that article (I believe) is one of the people supporting a current ongoing case and rallying another certain profession that will remain unnamed around support for said ongoing case.

It was a very well written article and I remember reading it when it came out. Kudos to you Ric for summarizing it so well.

[bryanmundia]

Here are a few more articles to digest.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/im-unlic ... ctors-inc-

https://amerisurv.com/2009/05/17/survey ... urveyor-2/

[CBarrett]

So, a question - as I'm finding out California is an outlier in the way our surveying is regulated. Large number of states don't seem to require much in a way of license for "construction layout" AKA Construction staking.

Then they come to California and kind of sort of don't want to be bothered with out little licensing law. They want to do their project, on their terms and be done.
In most cases, they do have the power and means and political standing to do their project and be done, and, speaking of political power, push to deregulate what stands in their way. My first sense is that fighting them in legislation is akin to suicide, you start that fight, you will not win.

Option two, diplomacy and cooperation? How does that play out? I'm sure it has been tried in the past? What happened?

I know for a fact that when it comes to boundaries, even large design build contractors look for an LS. Not on construction staking.
Fines as we have them are not a deterrent.

[Mike Mueller]

We are getting a little off in the weeds here, but I have often wondered how much of the current legal framework was a descriptive law codifying the status quo or a prescriptive wish list land/grab back in the day.

For context, I am the primary custodian of two roughly complete records collections from older surveyors. Dick Hogan's records from ±1955-1980 and George Abbott's from ±1939-1960. They both had pretty decent records, which includes complete job lists that provide what type of work they did. Something in the range of 80-90% of their work was boundary/subdivision. It is very rare for them to have a topo map in their records, and when its there, it is always as a support to a road project for Abbott who was also an engineer(RCE 3748), or for Hogan it would generally be a large aerial mapping project as he was one of the few doing aerial mapping then.

The point I am trying to make is I don't think either of those guys made their business on topo's or construction staking. I assume there is some selection bias because our Historical Records Collection probably didn't try hard to acquire the records from a business that only did staking. Which leads me to my question:
Are there any readers/posters that know what percent of a particular surveyor's business was construction staking pre 1975?

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[CBarrett]

Most pre '75 guys are retired and gone now. In southland, I worked for and with some of the firms in late 80's who were super busy with construction staking. A lot depends on the local area economy, and how much building was going on. Southern CA in 70's, lot of building needing staking. Especially in Orange County.
Several big local firms were built based on subdivision Engineering and Surveying work.

In the late 80's early 90's when I worked at RBF, there were times they were running 15 and 17 crews, mostly construction staking for subdivision work. I lost touch with RBF in mid 90's when I went to Keith Companies, also working off the same business model.

[DWoolley]

...
In most cases, they do have the power and means and political standing to do their project and be done, and, speaking of political power, push to deregulate what stands in their way. My first sense is that fighting them in legislation is akin to suicide, you start that fight, you will not win.

Option two, diplomacy and cooperation? How does that play out? I'm sure it has been tried in the past? What happened?
...

I do not think this is correct. Two assumptions that are incorrect:

1. The assumption contractors want to do land surveying, they don't.

The contracting system is structured to incentivize the self-performance, plus having contractors and "surveyors" being members of the same union is a conflict with professional business interests when the union dispatches directly to the contractors. Surveyors, in the purest professional form, are there to protect the owner and protect the design. How are the engineers' and owners' protected when the surveyor's check is paid by the contractor we are supposed to protect them from? It is a moral hazard. Additionally, on public works projects land surveyors have lined up, tin cup in hand, to work under the Public Contract Code i.e. lowest bid for professional services. The contracting system (although illegal for professional services), technology, the OE and our general professional meekness has created a confluence of incentives.

Restated, land surveyors have prostituted themselves and yet, remain scared of their own shadow (as demonstrated by the "suicide to fight", "diplomacy" [not a knock, a convenient example], and all out fear in trying to legislate and regulate the practice etc). Ignore the instant examples, look around, we let engineers, clients, hobos, whoever, have their way with us, our procedures, budgets - we, collectively, are willing to break the law to work for them. We invented "record boundaries" for them, proof positive. Collectively, we worry and cower from proposed laws that would define and distinguish the practice - regulations that might close inappropriate or imagined loopholes resulting in a price increase for wealthy clients we might not yet know.

2. The assumption "they" would fight to survey (see 1). Again, they don't want to survey. In discussions, both the representatives from AGC and UCON said to me [and others on this forum] "if we could get surveying out of our contract chain we'd be heros with our members." In a backwards unintended way, they actually did it.

The deregulation is to secure land surveying as a trade, not a profession, to add members to their failing pension funds and secure PLAs. Union membership has been falling for decades.

We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Read this forum, listen to surveyors, "we can't do this...we can't do that, we're nobodies - everyone is smarter, has more money, we can't, we can't, we can't...BOO! (We, collectively, just pissed our pants).

I legitimately think we could do most anything, because nobody knows who we are, what we do and basically, do not care about our issues. Our problems rest with our subservient scofflaw nature, a lack of fortitude and an aging population that is not invested in the profession's future 10, 20, 30 years down the line.

DWoolley

[CBarrett]

Re professional suicide: I thought you are the one who said we shouldn't be revising couple of items in the PLS act because it would create a strong opposition from deregulatory elements. Maybe I misunderstood something. If that's not something we need to worry about, even better.

I gather revising labor code 1720 to remove Land Surveyors will gain a lot of traction in survey community. At least considering reactions within CLSA and ACEC boards.

I've seen the usual suspects on this forum, and honestly... I think the bark is stronger than the bite in most cases. I'm starting to tune it out. At the board meetings, especially at state meetings I am finding that a bit of explaining things over lunch has gotten people to buy into a *few* of ideas. Lot of people are experiencing the same issues. Fear of solutions - I'm trying to address that on the leadership academy committees, fear of change, lack of planning, fear of trusting someone etc... even negotiation.

Diplomacy is not about giving in, it is about finding a nice way to get what you want, without people's guards going up so fast that they will dig their heels in and say no. People are complicated and funny, getting a political buy in is often much more about how it is sold than what is being sold. (This is in part why the leadership academy and continued education etc... knowing what the end result needs to be and knowing how to get there - two different skills.)

[DWoolley]

Re professional suicide: I thought you are the one who said we shouldn't be revising couple of items in the PLS act because it would create a strong opposition from deregulatory elements. Maybe I misunderstood something. If that's not something we need to worry about, even better.
...
Diplomacy is not about giving in, it is about finding a nice way to get what you want, ...

Your memory serves you well and you are correct. We cannot open up 8726 because OE (blaming the carpenters and laborers) rewrote it to deregulate construction staking and underground utility location. The union wants to claim the work to turn land surveying into a trade and ultimately, drive membership to try to salvage their pensions.

If we create standards i.e. monumentation, mapping (ex. site plans), accuracy standards, signs, insurance requirements, contracting requirements, business entities/structure, (8729, 8730, 8759, 8761, 8762, 8764, 8766, 8771, 8772) nobody outside of our community will look or care.

The umbrella organization, Building and Trades, is somewhat in disfavor with the California Legislature due to their inflexibility on attaching their PLAs to low income housing. I find this particularly interesting because the union mantra is "a skilled and trained workforce reduces the cost of construction". Apparently, the Legislature thinks otherwise when trying to reduce the costs of housing.

As for diplomacy, this is not in my wheelhouse. I genuinely appreciate any help and leadership in this department.

DWoolley

[DWoolley]

Looking back at my posts, there are a few holes between the original guy "fighting like a wildcat", "self-performing incentives" and "nobody [from outside] looking or caring about" land surveying legislation.

In short, the near future of land surveying will be predominantly in public works through the infrastructure bills.

To remove the contractors incentives to self-perform, the owners must provide land surveying through QBS contracting law that already exist. Clearly, the most qualified firms will have multiple licenses and LSITs in the field [no credential, no work]. This allows the land surveyor to function as a professional with the other professionals and protects the design and the owner, similar to an inspector. Rightfully, nobody allows a contractor to inspect their own work. The contractor has no incentive to self-perform land surveying because it would actually add costs for something that was not budgeted in the low bid contracts.

Again, the land surveyor maintains professional status under QBS and is not tucked into a low bid trade contract. The contractor makes money surveying by securing a budget from a real surveyor to create and pocket the delta by self-performing the work. Remove the budget and remove the incentive. Remember, the contractors would rather have the surveyor/surveying provided and not be part of their contract. As for the guy that started this post, well, he is SOL. Kiewit doesn't care, neither do we. If he liked the job, he can work for a land surveyor providing professional services.

Not a public works surveyor? Boom times for you too. Outside of certain clients and/or litigation support, I am [as are others] out of the private surveying market - the world is your oyster. The professionals win.

Or we can do nothing and see how it works out.

[Not that I have given it any thought]

DWoolley

[CBarrett]

[Not that I have given it any thought]

DWoolley

Just a tad, but that's great.
I'm still reading and re reading and digesting your last two posts.... while working in between thoughts.

[Ian Wilson]

I'm just going to leave this right here:

https://www.moasure.com/products/moasur ... Xh2ecBOt-k

Pass the popcorn, please.

[bryanmundia]

Not entirely great on the accuracy standards but the same could be said about the 1st iteration of survey instruments. I guess you gotta start somewhere right?

Moasure Accuracy Specifications.PNG

[CBarrett]

Methodology plays a large part in resulting accuracy. Often more so than instrumentation capability.

If we had accuracy standards, or whatever you want to call classifications, one can easily say that only surveyors can achieve certain levels (and guarantee them) virtually regardless of instrumentation used.

[Mike Mueller]

That tool looks awesome Ian, thanks for the link!

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

PS Nice golden apple :)

[LS_8750]

Don't worry those of us with the education and licenses will prevail..... With a little explanation and teaching.........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfgX0fyNeLc

[hellsangle]

LMAO, Clark!!!

Ma 'n Pa Kettle know their math, huh?! LOL I'm still laughing.

[jamesh1467]

Just to throw it out there, I worked in the Northeast for awhile and there as a lot of talk about creating a separate survey licence for "construction surveyor". Basically take everything a PLS out of the licence does except for construction layout and local control. Just food for thought. I don't know if that idea has made it out here yet.

[CBarrett]

Just to throw it out there, I worked in the Northeast for awhile and there as a lot of talk about creating a separate survey licence for "construction surveyor". Basically take everything a PLS out of the licence does except for construction layout and local control. Just food for thought. I don't know if that idea has made it out here yet.

Yes, it's been tossed around, and the answer is usually "Not a chance" and kicked to the curb.