Regardless of the positive and negative side effects resulting from the referral of forced labor, it must be acknowledged that there is a confusion in the definition of the concept of this work, which the majority of the engineering community has been unaware of.
The referral of system work through the organization was only because the owner was denied the right to choose the supervising engineer. Because the role of governance inspection has been mistakenly assigned to the supervising engineer of the organization. The inspection and control institution is responsible for defending the rights of successive users of a building for many years after construction against possible violations by a percentage of the builders. Something like the police that defends the rights of the members of the society against the violation of a percentage of them
This #inspection is a construction that the owner does not have the right to choose the inspector, and according to what came out of the law and the explicit opinions of the Presidential Legal Vice President, it is the responsibility of the entity that issues the license (municipalities, etc.) and not the engineering system.
Unfortunately, the implementation of the debate on the separation of supervision from control remained sterile.
Accepting the role of control and inspection for the supervising engineer is in practice the same as accepting heavy lifelong responsibilities for the supervising engineer
According to its concept, supervision is a service to the owner to monitor the performance of executive agents and contractors, and its selection cannot be mandatory.
The establishment of the supervision work referral plan is blatantly obvious because of deducting 5% of the engineers’ salary and injecting it into the financial resources of the organization. Financial resources that are at least necessary for the livelihood of the organization’s personnel. But the question is, why don’t they provide it from the establishment of receiving the cost of issuing the technical ID of the property, which according to the law is the responsibility of the organization and must be paid by the #owner? Here too, the engineer should be oppressed and not the owner?
Rules and regulations have their own spirit and will find their meaning. If the referral of monitoring work is accepted (its algorithm is not important at all, just establish it in the name of referral of monitoring work through the organization), it means that we have accepted with our own hands that control and inspection is also the responsibility of the supervising engineer and we will be burdened with heavy responsibilities.
Footnote:
1. The fact that municipalities do not bear this responsibility has nothing to do with this analysis. This is the art of management of engineering system organizations, which, as far as possible, by preparing legal and convincing defense bills, prove this concept at least to law enforcement and judicial authorities that the concept, limits and scope of work and responsibilities of #supervising_engineer are different from #inspector. This should have happened from now on.
2⃣ (repetition) The joy and welcome of some offices from this analysis (whether healthy or unhealthy and brokers) who have the right to sign the supervising engineers’ business has absolutely nothing to do with what was said. It is another thing to collect the carpet of brokers and unhealthy offices
3⃣ The fact that building construction is traditionally done by the owner himself in many cases and it comes to mind that the owner does not need a supervisor and considers it to be a kind of nuisance, it is true to a large extent, but this practice must be changed from one place to another. Culture building was done in such a way that the owner considered the supervising engineer as his assistant in the matter of supervising executive agents. Obviously, this will take time, but it had to start somewhere
This post is written by ashabibi1355