Mainwheel,
I don't believe that it is an experience thing.
Don't get me wrong I much prefer engineers doing pushbacks, however don't make the mistake of believing that ONLY engineers can do push backs.
In NZ they use those remote pushback jiggers that push the mains back, and one bloke at the front plays with the remote control, talks on the headset etc..
The engineers need to make a persuasive case to ensure that others don't come and knock off the pushback jobs - you can get almost anything if you can show a valid safety or economic reason why engineers should do push backs.
And by that I mean a reasoned argument, not an emotional one - "we have always done pushbacks etc". I am sure that the pilot body will back you if you can develop a reasoned argument.
As for the "trained" people picking up airworthiness defects - you can't use that as a reasoned argument. The people doing the pushback are there for about 5 minutes of the turnaround.
A LAME does the walkaround and signs the release prior to the departure, so a properly trained eye SHOULD find the defects that are evident. If you take your argument to its logical conclusion, there would be engineers with red flags walking in front of the aeroplane all the way to the active runway, watching like hawks for any bits to fall off prior to departure - the 5 -10 minutes between commencing the push and getting airborne are unlikely to reveal any significant problems not already evident during the walkaround.
In conclusion, get your workmates together and develop a sound reason WHY engineers should do pushbacks. Present it to the appropriate people and seek backing from the other groups involved - the pilots.
You stand a much better chance of having a win if you do that rather than suggesting that the companies are shonky and cutting corners.
With regard a statement made in another post on this topic -
A sign of things to come,this one was on the ground.
- I have yet to see anyone walk into a CFM whilst the aeroplane is in the air!