Then do you believe that the tasks outlined above are in fact Engineering. If so, why do you think so? And what is your definition of what would constitute Engineering versus non-Engineering efforts?
It's true, my definition is US-based (maybe even based on a single state), and even more narrowly, it's based on US PE licensing requirements, which isn't even necessary for many Engineering fields these days. But at least I'm not dodging the question, here.
As an example, drafting is billed at a different rate than Engineering precisely because drawing in CAD itself is generally not considered Engineering.
No, I don't think I am. I believe I addressed this when I said: "Efforts have been proposed to make Software Engineering part of this licensing process, but it seems to have a lot of push back."
As you indicated, ACM would constitute as (a major) part of that push back, so I don't see the contradiction.
It irks me (but only a little), because almost every licensing FAQ now has to have some caveat and say something to the effect of "by the way, Combat Engineer does not actually qualify as Engineering work." Maybe the answer is to simply add a similar caveat to Software Engineering in all of the FAQs until Software Engineering develops its own licensing process (which it should, since unlike some people I actually do think Software Engineering work is Engineering).
For example (note "combat engineers" is in quotes):
"Military experience?
All branches of the military have engineers doing genuine engineering work. In this regard, the military is just like any other employer, and the engineering work experience counts. However, work performed by "combat engineers", electronic repair technicians, and so on is generally not true engineering work." [1]
"Does this mean that drawing blueprints for the bridge is not engineering? What about working a crane? Laying brick? Sealing pavement? Sweeping the bridge?"
Yes. None of these items, strictly speaking, qualify as Engineering work for purposes of licensing. If you are applying for an Engineering license, you will need to subtract these hours from your Engineering experience, and if a large portion of your day-to-day work consists of these tasks, then it may take you significantly longer to obtain your license.
It took me six years rather than the usual four to get my license as a result. Lunch doesn't count. Facebook doesn't count. Filling out expense reports doesn't count. Re-filling the paper in the printer doesn't count. Soldering doesn't count. There are a large amount of necessary non-Engineering distractions in any career, and none of these count.
"Stupid companies have titles and titles are associated with more pay and and more respect."
This is even more true in licensed fields. If you have a two year degree, your title will generally be "Engineering Technician", and not "Engineer". And you get to be on a completely different pay scale for the rest of your life as a result of the degree you obtained, even if you do the same work as an Engineer.
"As someone with an engineering degree, it does irk me to constantly hear programmers referred to around these quarters as 'engineers', it's extremely introspective, and IMO a little disrespectful."
I'm not certain it has anything to do with the physical world; after all Industrial Engineering is considered a valid disciplined that is entitled to an Engineering license, and many of the IE's I know might be better characterized as mathematicians.
Still, I tend to agree with your assessment of the term Engineer, although it's largely because unlike other Engineering fields, Software Engineers in the US seem to be happy to hold the title without having to meet any of the legal requirements [1]. A PE license, while not insurmountable, is not exactly the easiest title to acquire. Efforts have been proposed to make Software Engineering part of this licensing process, but it seems to have a lot of push back. Perhaps the solution is to have legal weight (perhaps like 'Lawyer' or 'MD') behind the title, as countries like Canada have (the US has this to some extent, but it's not nearly as strong).
It's true, my definition is US-based (maybe even based on a single state), and even more narrowly, it's based on US PE licensing requirements, which isn't even necessary for many Engineering fields these days. But at least I'm not dodging the question, here.
As an example, drafting is billed at a different rate than Engineering precisely because drawing in CAD itself is generally not considered Engineering.