07G004

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS

Unit IV : Safety, Resp nsi!i"ities an# Ri$%ts Safety and risk Assessment of safety and risk Risk benefit analysis and reducing risk . Fundamental Rights, Responsibilities and Duties of Indian Citi ens Collegiality and loyalty Respect for authority Collecti!e bargaining Confidentiality Conflicts of interest "ccupational crime #rofessional rights $mployee rights Discrimination UNIT IV SAFETY, RESPONSIBILITIES AND RIGHTS

SAFETY AND RISK

Imagine you are a fresh graduate. You get a job as an engineer in a large atomic power plant. Would you take it or not? Under what conditions would you take it? Under what conditions would you not? Why?

People as Consumers Active Consumers directly in!ol!e themsel!es e.g." mowing the lawn" washing clothes or toasting bread. Passive Consumers ha!e less choice and less control e.g." Water" #lectricity" Petrol" Bystanders e.g." e$posed to Pollution from unknown sources .What is safe to #ntrepreneurs" may not be so to #ngineers. e.g." Pilots %Indian &irports are not safe' (ow )ision in *og+ What is safe to #ngineers may not be so to Public. e.g." ,op loading Washing -achine

,ypically se!eral groups of people are in!ol!ed in safety matters but ha!e their own interests at stake. #ach group may differ in what is safe and what is not.

Concept of Safety
.. 3. +& ship in harbor is safe" but that is not what ships are built for/ 0 1ohn &. 2hedd 4& thing is safe if its risks are judged to be acceptable5 6 William W. (awrence We buy an ill6designed Iron bo$ in a sale67 Underestimating risk We judge fluoride in water can kill lots of people 67 8!erestimating risk We hire a ta$i" without thinking about its safety 67 9ot estimating risk :ow does a judge pass a judgement on safety in these ; cases? <.So, this definition won't do in real life.

& thing is 98, 2&*# if it e$poses us to unacceptable danger or ha=ard >I2? is the potential that something unwanted and harmful may occur. a. We take a risk when we undertake something or use a product that is not safe. b. >isk in technology could include dangers of bodily harm" economic loss" or en!ironmental degradation. 2ome may assume that +safety/ is a concrete concept" while +risk/ is a !ague" hypothetical concept In fact" its the other way around >isks always e$ist. @ut true safety ne!er e$ists" e$cept in hypothetical situations 2o" risk is reality" safety is fantasy What degree of risk is acceptable? 2afety is a matter of how people would find risks acceptable or unacceptable" the risks" and are basing their judgments on their most settled value perspecti!e. 2o" to this e$tent" it is objective. Perspecti!es differ. ,o this e$tent" it is subjective. 2o" 2afety is 'acceptable risk'.
Acceptable Ris

if they knew

4& risk is acceptable when those affected are generally no lon er !or not" apprehensive about it.5 &pprehension Ai.e. an$ietyB depends largely on factors such as whether the risk is assumed !oluntarily. how the probabilities of harm Aor benefitB is percei!ed. job6related or other pressures that causes people to be aware of or to o!erlook risks. whether the defects of a risky acti!ity or situation are immediately noticeable or close at hand . whether the potential !ictims are identifiable beforehand.
V!l"#ta$% $is a#& '!#t$!l

& person is said to take #$%&'()A*+ *,S-. 6when he is subjected to risk by either his own actions or action taken by others and 6volunteers to take that risk without any apprehension. 6*or e$ample" 1ohn and &nn 2mith enjoy riding motorcycles o!er rough ground for amusement. ,hey take !oluntary risk" part of being engaged in such a potentially dangerous sport. Connected to this notion of !oluntarism is the matter of Control. In the e$ample cited" the 2miths are aware of the high probability of accident figures in such a sport" but they display characteristically unrealistic confidence of most people when they belie!e the dangers to be under their control. In terms of engineering as social e$perimentation" people are more willin to

be the subjects of their own e/periments than of someone else5s Awhether social e$periment or notB. Chauncey 2tarr informs us that indi!iduals are more ready to assume !oluntary risks than in!oluntary risks" e!en when !oluntary risks are .CCC times more likely to produce a fatality than the in!oluntary ones. & DI2&2,#> E & seriously disrupti!e e!ent F & state of unprepared ness. e.g." ,itanic collision with an iceberg" at night #mergency *ewer lifeboats" inadeGuate training and warnings of icebergs unheeded 67 Disaster. Effect of information on risk assessments ,he manner in which information necessary for decision making is presented can greatly influence how risks are percei!ed. Consider this e$ample In a particular case of disaster management" the only options a!ailable are pro!ided in 3 different ways to the public for one to be chosen Awhere li!es of HCC people are at stakeB.

Alternate 1
If program & is followed" 3CC people will be sa!ed. If Program @ is followed" .I; probability is HCC people will be sa!ed and 3I; probability that nobody will be sa!ed.

Response
J3K of the target group chose option & and 3LK option @

Alternate 2
If program & is followed" MCC people will die. If Program @ is followed" .I; probability is that nobody will die and 3I; probability that HCC people will die.

Response
,his time only 33K of the target group chose option & and JLK option @ Conclusion: .. ,he option percei!ed as yielding firm gain will tend to be preferred o!er those from which gains are percei!ed as risky or only probable. 3. 8ption emphasi=ing firm losses will tend to be a!oided in fa!our of those whose chances of success are percei!ed as probable.
Sec!#&a$% '!sts !( P$!&"cts

Cost of products is :igh" if designed unsafely >eturns and Warranty #$penses (oss of Customer Noodwill Cost of litigation (oss of Customers due to injuries in using it Cost of rework" lost time in attending to design problems -anufacturer5s understanding of the risk in a product is necessary

 ,o help reduce secondary costs ,o know the possible risk for purposes of pricing" disclaimers" legal terms and conditions" etc. ,o know the cost of reducing the risks ,o take a decision before finali=ing the design. @uyer5s understanding of the risk in a product is necessary ,o judge whether heIshe wants to take the risks ,o judge whether the 4risk !s. costs5 justifies taking the risk. JOB RELATED RISKS -any workers are takin risks in their jobs in their stride like being exposed to asbestos. Exposure to risks on a job is in one sense of voluntary nature since one can always refuse to submit to the work or may ha!e control o!er how the job is done. @ut generally workers ha!e no choice other than what they are told to do since they want to stick to the only job available to them. @ut they are not generally informed about the exposure to toxic substances and other dangers which are not readily seen" smelt" heard or otherwise sensed. 8ccupational health and safety regulations and unions can ha!e a better say in correcting these situations but still things are far below expected safety standards. #ngineers while designing work stations must take into account the casual attitude of workers on safety Aesp. when they are paid on piece rateB. Problems faced by engineers about public concept of safety ,he optimistic attitude that things that are familiar" that ha!e not caused harm before and o!er which we ha!e some control present no risks. ,he serious shock people feel when an accident kills or maims people in lar e numbers or harms those we know" e!en though statistically speaking such accidents might occur infreGuently. Safety in a commodity comes with a price Explain. Absolute safety is never possible to attain and safety can be impro!ed in an engineering product only with an increase in cost. 8n the other hand" unsafe products incur secondary costs to the producer beyond the primary AproductionB costs" like warranty costs loss of goodwill" loss of customers" litigation costs" downtime costs in manufacturing" etc. *igure indicates that P6 Primary costs are hi h for a hi hly safe Alow riskB product and 26 Secondary costs are hi h for a hi hly risky Alow safeB product.

If we draw a cur!e ,EPF2 as shown" there is a point at which costs are minimum below which the cost cannot be reduced. If the risk at -inimum ,otal Cost Point is not acceptable" then the producer has to choose a lower acceptable risk !alue in which case the total cost will be hi her than - and the product designed accordingly. It should now be clear that 4safety comes with a price. only Knowledge of risk for better safety >obert 2tephenson writes that all the accidents" the harms caused and the means used to repair the damage should be recorded for the benefit of the younger -embers of Profession. & faithful account of those accidents and the damage containment was really more valuable than the description of successful work. :ence it is imperati!e that knowledge of risks will definitely help to attain better safety. @ut it should be borne in mind" that still gaps remain" because iBthere are some industries where information is not freely shared and iiBthere are always new applications of old technolo y that render the a!ailable information less useful. Uncertainties encountered in design process & decision on ma$imising profit or ma$imising the return on in!estment. Uncertainties about applications like dynamic loading instead of static loading" !ibrations" wind speeds. Uncertainties regarding materials and skills reGuired in the manufacturing. Changing economic realities. Unfamiliar en!ironmental conditions like !ery low temperature. ,he a!ailable standard data on items like steel" resistors" insulators" optical glass" etc are based on statistical a!erages only. Due to the inherent nature of processes" all compts ha!e a tolerance in design leading to the probability statistics by which assemblies5 capability is assessed. esting strategies for safety Some commonly used testing methods! Using the past e$perience in checking the design and performance. Prototype testing. :ere the one product tested may not be representati!e of the population of products. ,ests simulated under appro$imately actual conditions to know the performance flaws on safety. >outine Guality assurance tests on production runs. ,he abo!e testing procedures are not always carried out properly. :ence we cannot trust the testing procedures uncritically. 2ome tests are also destructi!e and ob!iously it is impossible to do destructi!e testing and impro!e safety. In such cases" a simulation that traces hypothetical risky outcomes could be applied.

2cenario &nalysis A#!ent 67 ConseGuencesB *ailure -odes O #ffects &nalysis A*ailure modes of each componentB *ault ,ree &nalysis A2ystem *ailure 67 Possible Causes at component le!elB What if there is a combination of factors? &ll &nalysis pre6suppose a thorough understanding of the physical system

Failure modes and effect analysis F!EA" 0 ,his approach systematically e$amines the failure modes of each component" without howe!er" focusing on relationships among the elements of a comple$ system. Fault #ree Analysis F#A" : & system failure is proposed and then e!ents are traced back to possible causes at the component le!el. ,he re!erse of the fault6tree analysis is 4e!ent 0 tree analysis5. ,his method most effecti!ely illustrates the disciplined approach reGuired to capture as much as possible of e!erything that affects proper functioning and safety of a comple$ system.

Ris Be#e(it A#al%sis

#thical Implications When is someone entitled to impose a risk on another in !iew of a supposed benefit to others? Consider the worst case scenarios of persons e$posed to ma/imum risks while they are reaping only minimum benefits. &re their rights violated? &re they pro!ided safer alternati!es? #ngineers should keep in mind that risks to known persons are perceived differently from statistical risks #ngineers may ha!e no control o!er grie!ance redressal.
'!#cept"al &i((ic"lties i# Ris )Be#e(it A#al%sis

@oth risks and benefits lie in future :ea!y discounting of future because the !ery low present !alues of costIbenefits do not gi!e a true picture of future sufferings. @oth ha!e related uncertainties but difficult to arri!e at e$pected !alues What if benefits accrue to one party and risks to another? Can we e/press risks O benefits in a common set of units? e.g. >isks can be e$pressed in one set of units A deaths on the highwayB and benefits in another !speed of travel"? -any projects" which are highly beneficial to the public" ha!e to be safe also. :ence these projects can be justified using >I2?6@#9#*I, analysis. In these studies" one should find out iB What are the risks in!ol!ed? iiB What are the benefits that would accrue? iiiB When would benefits be deri!ed and when risks ha!e to be faced?

i!B Who are the ones to be benefited and who are the ones subjected to risk6are they the same set of people or different. ,he issue here is not" say" cost1effective design but it is only cost of risk takin $s benefit analysis. #ngineers should first recommend the project feasibility based on risk6benefit analysis and once it is justified" then they may get into cost1effectiveness without increasing the risk !isuali=ed. In all this" engineers should ask themsel!es this ethical Guestion 4Under what conditions" is someone in society entitled to impose a risk on someone else on behalf of a supposed benefit to others..
Di((ic"lties i# assessi#* Pe$s!#al Ris s

Indi!iduals are ready to assume voluntary risks than involuntary risks. ,he difficulty here is generally in assessing personal risks which are in!oluntary. ,he problem of Guantification of risk raises innumerable problems. *or e$ample" how to assign a rupee value to one.s life. ,here is no o!er the counter trade in li!es. #!en for a sale" it has to be clear under what conditions the sale is to take place. If one buys a kg of rice it matters whether it is just one additional purchase one makes re ularly or it is the first rice purchase after 2uite sometime. #!en when compensations are made to people e$posed to in!oluntary risk" the basis on which it is made or e!en the intensity of risk could be different for different people. &s of now" the one suggestion could be to employ an open procedure" o!erseen by trained arbiters" in each case" where risk to individuals is to be studied and remedied .

P"blic Ris a#& P"blic Accepta#ce

>isks and benefits to public are more easily determined than to indi!iduals 9ational :ighway ,raffic 2afety &dministration A9:,2&B6 proposed a !alue for life based on loss of future income other costs associated with the accident estimate of Guantifiable losses in social welfare resulting from a fatality 98, a proper basis for determining the optimal e$penditure allocated to sa!ing li!es
Acc!"#ti#* p"blicl% (!$ be#e(its a#& $is s

#ngineers should account publicly for benefits and risks in the following manner #ngineers must remain as objective as humanly possible in their in!estigations and conclusions.

 ,hey must also state openly any personal biases that they may ha!e about the project being in!estigated. #ngineers" e!en if they are acknowledged e$perts" may not have complete knowled e of the issues at hand. ,hey should" if necessary" admit their lack of knowled e" in any particular area publicly. & willingness to admit uncertainty and also to reveal methodolo y and sources particularly when numerical data is presented. ,he way statistical information is presented can create misconceptions in the public mind. :ence it should be presented in a way to improve realistic interpretations . ,hey must consider the views of the parties affected by the project under study before coming to conclusions. ,he type of action taken should be morally e!aluated regardless of its conseGuences. If it is wrong to !iolate certain rights" then figuring out the benefit of the conseGuences of doing so is irrele!ant.
Difficulties in establishing 2afeguards

Incomplete knowledge of the engineering subject >efusal to face hard Guestions caused by lack of knowledge *alse sense of security e.g. 9uclear waste disposal problem Caution in stating probabilities of rare e!ents )arying understanding of risk based on presentation of facts >isk assessments based on incorrectIunacceptable assumptionsIdata 8nly a few personsIgroups participate in the e$ercise 2ome of the ways by which engineers may try to reduce risks. In all the areas of works" engineers should gi!e top priority for product safety. ,hey should belie!e that accidents are caused by dangerous conditions that can be corrected. 9egligence and operator errors are not the principal causes of accidents. If a product is made safe" the initial costs need not be high if safety is built into a product from the beginning. It is the design changes done at a later date that are costly. #!en then life cycle costs can be made lower for the redesigned or retrofitted product Afor safetyB. If safety is not built into the original design" people can be hurt during testing stage itself. ,hey should get out of the thinking that warnings about ha=ards are adeGuate and that insurance co!erage is cheaper than planning for safety. &ll it takes to make a product safe is to ha!e different perspecti!e on the design problem with emphasis on safety. #$amples of Impro!ed 2afety -agnetic door catch introduced on refrigerators Pre!ent death by asphy$iation of children accidentally trapped inside ,he catch now permits the door to opened from inside easily Cheaper than older types of latches Dead6man :andle for Dri!ers in trains 2emaphore signaling

 )olkswagenPs car safety belt &ttachment on the door so that belt automatically goes in place on entry
Liabilit%

#arly logic and social philosophy A>ichard C. )aughanB 4Ca!eat #mptor5 buyer beware #$amine what you want before you buy If he is negligent" he suffers the bad bargain. (aw will not aid those who are negligent 4Pri!ity of Contract5 User" if he is not a party to the contract" has no rights for any claim A user buys from the retailer and not from the manufacturerB. Nradually.... -anufacturer was made liable for injuries resulting from negligence in the designImanufacture ,he new law concept of 2trict (iability was established in the case 4Nreen man !s. Yuba Power Products5 in California. If the product sold is defecti!e" the manufacturer is liable for any harm that results to users "mplications to Engineers! #ngineers must weigh chances of defect causin injury against cost of minimi3in defects 4inimal compliance is insufficient 0 enough adhering to accepted practices O standards not

2tandards are mere checklists 6 use them creati!ely and judgmentally #ngineers can be sued personally e!en when actin employers accordin to guidelines set by

e.g. 8ne county highway engineer was sued for failure to repair roads66 had to pay Q3 million 2ome Cos. protect their engineers and allow themsel!es to be sued for such money damages Independent engineers can write liability limits into their contracts Nood knowledge of liability is necessary for engineers

SAFE EXIT
It is almost impossible to build a completely safe product or one that will ne!er fail. When there is a failure of the product SA56 67,) should be pro!ided. 2afe e$it is to assure that iB when a product fails" it will fail safely"

iiB that the product can be abandoned safely and iiiB that the user can safely escape the product. -ore than the Guestions of who will build" install" maintain and pay for a safe e$it" the most important Guestion is who will recogni=e the need for a safe e$it. ,his responsibility should be an integral part of the e$perimental procedure. 2ome e$amples of pro!iding 42&*# #RI,5 2hips need lifeboats with sufficient spaces for all passengers and crew members. @uildings need usable fire escapes 8peration of nuclear power plants calls for realistic means of e!acuating nearby communities Pro!isions are needed for safe disposal of dangerous materials and products.

'!llea*ialit% + Its Ele,e#ts

4Collegiality is a kind of connectedness grounded in respect for professional e/pertise and in a commitment to the oals and values of the profession and as such" collegiality includes a disposition to support and co1operate with one.s collea ues 5. 6 Craig Ihara ,he central elements of collegiality are respect, commitment, connectedness and co1operation . *espect &cknowledge the worth of other engineers engaged in producing socially useful and safe products. Commitment 2hare a de!otion to the moral ideals inherent in the practice of engineering. Connectedness &ware of being part of a co6operati!e undertaking created by shared commitments and e$pertise. Colle iality" like most !irtues" can be misused and distorted. ,t should not be reduced to # roup interest. but should be a shared devotion for public ood. ,t is not defamin collea ues, but it does not close the eyes to unethical practices of the co1 professionals, either.

Classifications of Loyalty
A ency1&oyalty o o o o *ulfill one5s contractual duties to an employer. Duties are particular tasks for which one is paid Co1operatin with colleagues 5ollowin legitimate authority within the organi=ation.

,dentification1&oyalty o It has to do with attitudes" emotions and a sense of personal identity. o 2eeks to meet one5s moral duties with personal attachment and affirmation. o It is against detestin their employers and companies" and do work reluctantly and horribly Athis is construed as disloyaltyB

,his means o &!oid conflicts of interest" o Inform employers of any possible conflicts of interest" o Protect confidential information" o @e honest in making estimates" o &dmit one5s errors" etc. #oyalty $ $bligation of Engineers A ency1&oyalty o #ngineers are hired to do their duties. o :ence obli ated to employers within proper limits ,dentification1&oyalty 8bligatory on two conditions' .. When some important oals are met by and through a group in which the engineers participate 3. When employees are treated fairly" recei!ing the share of benefits and burdens. @ut clearly" identification6loyalty is a virtue and not strictly an obli ation. Relationship - Professionalism and Loyalty .. &cting on professional commitments to the public is more effective to ser!e a company than just followin company orders. 3. &oyalty to employers may not mean obeyin one5s immediate supervisor. ;. Professional obligations to both an employer and to the public might stren then rather than contradict each other.

Need for Aut ority

&uthority is needed since aB &llowing e!eryone to e$ercise uncontrolled individual discretion creates chaos AconfusionB. bB Clear lines of authority identifies areas of personal responsibility and accountability.
I#stit"ti!#al A"t-!$it% a#& E.pe$t A"t-!$it%

,nstitutional authority 4,he institutional right gi!en to a person to e$ercise power based on the resources of the institution5. o It is acGuired" e$ercised and defined within institutions. o It is gi!en to indi!iduals to perform their institutional duties assigned within the organisation. ,here is not always a perfect match between the authority granted and the Gualifications needed to e$ercise it.

6/pert authority 4,he possession of special knowledge" skill or competence to perform some task or to gi!e sound ad!ice5. #ngineers may ha!e e$pert authority but their institutional authority" may only be" to provide mana ement with analysis of possible ways to perform a technical task" after which they are restricted to followin mana ement.s directive about which option to pursue. In large companies" en ineers, advisors and consultants in staff function carry e/pert authority" while institutional authority is !ested only with line mana ers. Authority $s Power ,neffective persons" e!en if !ested with authority by their institution" may not be able to summon the power their position allows them to e$ercise. 8n the other hand" people who are effective may be able to wield reater power that goes beyond the authority attached to the positions they hold. :ighly respected engineers of pro!en integrity belong to this class. Authority 1 4orally justified 8bser!ations on authority. o &n employer who has institutional authority may direct en ineers to do something that is not morally justified. o #ngineers may feel that they ha!e an institutional duty to obey a directi!e that is morally unjustified" but their moral duty" all things considered" is not to obey. o ,o decide whether a specific act of e/ercisin institutional authority is morally justified " we need to know whether the institutional oals are themsel!es morally permissible or desirable and whether that act violates basic moral duties.
/0!#e O( Accepta#ce1 !( A"t-!$it%

4& subordinate is said to accept authority whene!er he permits his beha!iour to be guided by the decision of a superior" without independently e$amining the merits of that decision5 6 :erbert 2imon o 2imon notes that all employees tend to ha!e a #3one of acceptance. in which they are willing to accept their employer5s authority. o 8ithin that 3one" an indi!idual" rela$ing his own critical faculties" permits the decision of the employer to uide him. o #mployees generally do not make an issue of Guestionable incidents on morality" out of a sense of responsibility to gi!e their employer leeway within which to operate and often not to risk their jobs.

o ,he problem increases when employees slowly e/pand the boundaries of tolerance and rationali3e it. ,his only shows that engineers should never stop critically reviewin the employer5s directives especially on moral issues.
/Fait-("l A*e#t A$*",e#t1

9ational 2ociety of Professional #ngineers A92P#B Code states" +,he engineer <<<will act in professional matters for client" or employer as a faithful a ent or trustee<<<<<:e will not actively participate in strikes" picket lines or other coercive action/ meaning that when one is a faithful trustee of one5s employer he cannot acti!ely participate in any collecti!e forcible action. Board of 6thical *eview argued that engineers have a hi her standard than self interest and that their ethical duty is to act for their employer as a faithful agent or trustee. Collective bar ainin is inconsistent with loyalty to employers because it o is against the desires of the employer o uses force or coercion against the employer and o in!ol!es collecti!e and organi=ed opposition. @ut every instance of such conduct need not be unethical. &n e$ample ,hree engineers sincerely feel that they are underpaid. &fter their representations to their bosses are in !ain" they threaten their employer" politely" that they would seek employment elsewhere. :ere" e!en though" they act against the desires of their employer and ha!e acted collecti!ely" they ha!e not acted unethically or !iolated their duty. %onclusion! 45aithful a ency5 only concerns with performin one.s duty but does not mean that safety" salary and other economical benefits cannot be ne otiated from a position of strength. #mployee5s duty to employer does not mean unlimited sacrifice of self6interest. #%ublic

Service Argument&' %ollective bargaining.

o 4Public 2er!ice &rgument5 is an ar ument a ainst collecti!e bargaining. o ,he paramount duty of engineers is to serve the public. o 'nions" by definition" promote the interests of their members and whene!er there is a clash of interests" the interest of the general public is ignored by them. ,hough the argument is a !alid one" it looks at the worst possible scenarios with unions and decides that engineering unions act only irresponsibly. o & body of engineers can promote en ineers. interest within limits set by professional concern for the public good. (enefits of Collective (argaining) aB bB cB dB Unions ha!e created healthy salaries and hi h standard of livin of employees. ,hey gi!e a sense of participation in company decision makin . ,hey are a good balance to the power of employers to fire employees at will. ,hey pro!ide an effective rievance redressal procedure for employee complaints.

*arms Caused by Collective (argaining) aB Unions are devastatin the economy of a country" being a main source of inflation bB With unions" there is no con enial !friendly"" cooperati!e decision makin . cB Unions does not promote Guality performance by making job promotion and retention based on seniority. dB ,hey encoura e unrest and strained relations between employees and employers.

/'!#(i&e#tialit% !$ c!#(i&e#tial i#(!$,ati!#1

Information considered desirable to be kept secret. &ny information that the employer or client would like to ha!e kept secret in order to compete effecti!ely against business ri!als. o ,his information includes how business is run, its products, and suppliers, which directly affects the ability of the company to compete in the market place o 9elps the competitor to ain advanta e or catch up o o Privileged information& Proprietary information and Patents. o Privile ed information0 4Information a!ailable only on the basis of special privile e5 such as granted to an employee working on a special assignment. o Proprietary information0 Information that a company owns or is the proprietor of. ,his is primarily used in le al sense. &lso called )rade Secret. & trade secret can be !irtually any type of information that has not become public and which an employer has taken steps to keep secret. o Patents0 :iffer from trade secrets. &e ally protect specific products from being manufactured and sold by competitors without the e$press permission of the patent holder. ,hey ha!e the drawback of bein public and competitors may easily work around them by creating alternate designs.
Obli*ati!# !( '!#(i&e#tialit%

.. @ased on ordinary moral considerations I. *espect for autonomy o *eco ni3in the le itimate control o!er pri!ate information Aindi!iduals or corporationsB. o ,his control is reGuired to maintain their privacy and protect their self6interest. *espect for Promise o >especting promises in terms of employment contracts not to di!ulge certain information considered sensiti!e by the employer

II.

III.

*e ard for public well bein o 8nly when there is a confidence that the physician will not reveal information" the patient will ha!e the trust to confide in him. o 2imilarly only when companies maintain some degree of confidentiality concerning their products" the benefits of competitiveness within a free market are promoted.

3. @ased on -ajor #thical ,heories o&ll theories profess that employers ha!e moral and institutional ri hts to decide what information about their organi=ation should be released publicly. o,hey acGuire these rights as part of their responsibility to protect the interest of the or ani3ation. o&ll the theories" rights ethics" duty ethics and utilitarianism justify this confidentiality but in different ways.
E((ect !( '-a#*e !( 2!b !# '!#(i&e#tialit%

o #mployees are obli ed to protect confidential information regarding former employment" after a chan e of job. o ,he confidentiality trust between employer and employee continues beyond the period of employment. o @ut" the employee cannot be forced not to seek a change of job. o ,he employer.s ri ht to keep the trade secrets confidential by a former employee should be accepted at the same time" the employee.s ri ht to seek career ad!ancement cannot also be denied.

'!#(lict !( I#te$est
Conflict of ,nterest arises when two conditions are met .. ,he professional is in a relationship or a role that reGuires e$ercising good judgment on behalf of the interests of an employer or client and 3. ,he professional has some additional or side interest that could threaten good judgment in ser!ing the interests of the employee or client. #.g. 8hen an en ineer is paid based on a percenta e of the cost of the desi n and there is no incentive for him to cut costs1 ,he distrust caused by this situation compromises the engineers5 ability to cut costs and calls into Guestion his judgement.

4&n act of gift5 and 4&n act of bribe5

4& ift is a bribe if you can5t eat, drink or smoke it in a day5. 4If you think that your offer of acceptance of a particular gift would ha!e rave or merely embarrassin conse2uences for your company if made public " then the gift should be considered a bribe5.

4Bribe can be said to be a substantial amount of money or goods offered beyond a stated business contract with the aim of winnin an advanta e in gaining or keeping the contract5. :ere 4substantial5 means that which is sufficient to distort the jud ment of a typical person.

Conflict of Interest created !y Interest in ot er co"panies

When one works actually for the competitor or subcontractor as an employee or consultant. :a!ing partial ownership or substantial stock holdin s in the competitor5s business. It may not arise by merely ha!ing a spouse workin for sub1contractor to one5s company" but it will arise if one5s job also includes rantin contracts to that subcontractor. )emptin customers away from their current employer" while still working for them to form their own competin business. 4oonli htin usually creates conflicts when working for competitors" suppliers or customers but does not conflict when workin for others without affectin the present employer5s business. #4oonli htin . means workin in one.s spare time for another employer.

Conflicts of Interest created !y Insider infor"ation

'sin inside information to set1up a business opportunity for oneself or family or friends. o Buyin stock in the company for which one works is not objectionable but it should be based on the same information a!ailable to the public. o ,he use of any company secrets by employ1ee to secure a personal ain threatens the interest of the company. o

A#oidin$ Conflicts %f Interests

,aking guidance from Company %olicy In the absence of such a policy taking a second opinion from a coworker or manager . ,his gi!es an impression that there no intension on the part of the engineer to hide anything. o In the absence of either of these options" to examine ones own motives and use the ethical problem solving techni+ues. o 8ne can look carefully into the professional codes of ethics which uniformly forbid conflicts of interest. 2ome of these codes ha!e !ery e$plicit statements that can help determine whether or not the situation constitutes conflict of interest. o o ypes 'f %rime Domestic crime 9on6accidental crime committed by members of the family

Professional Crime When crime is pursued as a profession or day to day occupation Blue collar crime !or" Street crime Crime a ainst person, property Atheft" assault on a person" rapeB $ictimless crime Person who commits the crime is the victim of the crime. #.g. Drug addiction 9ate crime Crime done on the banner of reli ion, community, lin uistics

$ccupational Crime 8ccupational crimes are ille al acts made possible through one5s lawful employment. It is the secretive violation of laws regulating work acti!ities. When committed by office workers or professionals" occupational crime is called 4white collar crime5. People Committin %ccupational Crimes Usually ha!e hi h standard of education *rom a non1criminal family back round -iddle class male around ;< years of a e AJCK of the timeB with no previous history (o involvement in dru or alcohol abuse ,hose who had troublesome life e$perience in the childhood A@lumB People without firm principles A2pencerB *irms with declinin profitability AColeman" .SSMB *irms in highly re ulated areas and volatile market 6pharmaceutical" petroleum industry. A&lbanese" .SSTB

&rice Fi'in$
&n act was passed" which forbade Apre!entedB companies from jointly settin prices in ways that restrain free competition and trade. Unfortunately" many senior people" well respected and positioned were of the opinion that 4price fi/in . was good for their organi=ations and the public.

E"ployees Endan$erin$ Li#es of E"ployees

#mployers indulge in e$posing their employees to afety ha=ards. ,hey escape criminal action against them" by paying nominal compensations e!en if their crimes are pro!ed in court. &nd e!en this happens only when the victim sues company for damages under ci!il law.

En$ineers (oral Ri$ ts

#ngineers5 moral rights fall into categories of human, employee, contractual and professional ri hts. Professional ri hts ,he right to form and e/press one.s professional jud ment freely ,he right to refuse to carry out ille al and unethical activity ,he right to talk publicly about one5s work within bounds set by confidentiality obligation ,he right to en a e in the acti!ities of professional societies ,he right to protect the clients and the public from the dan ers that might arise from one5s work ,he right to professional reco nition of one5s ser!ices.

Ri$ t of &rofessional Conscience

o ,here is one basic and generic professional right of engineers" the moral ri ht to e/ercise responsible professional jud ment in pursuing professional responsibilities. o Pursuing these responsibilities in!ol!es e/ercisin both technical jud ment and reasoned moral convictions. o ,his basic right can be referred to as the ri ht of professional conscience.

Ri$ t of Conscientious Refusal

,he right of Conscientious refusal is the right to refuse to en a e in unethical behaviour and to refuse to do so solely because one views it as unethical. ,wo situations to be considered. =. 8here there is widely shared a reement in profession as to whether an act is unethical :ere" professionals ha!e a moral right to refuse to participate in such acti!ities. ;. 8here there is room for disa reement amon reasonable people over whether an act is unethical. :ere" it is possible that there could be different ethical view points from the professional and the employer. In such cases the engineers can ha!e a limited ri ht to turn down assignments that !iolates their personal conscience only in matters of reat importance such as threats to human life. ,his right also depends on the ability of the employer to reassi n the engineer to alternate projects without serious economic hardships to the orgn. ,he ri ht of professional conscience does not e/tend to the ri ht to be paid for not workin .

Ri$ t to Reco$nition
>ight to >ecognition in!ol!es two parts. ,he right to reasonable remuneration gi!es the moral right for fighting against corporations making good profits while engineers are being paid poorly. &lso is the case where patents are not being rewarded properly by the corporations benefiting from such patents.

,he other right to recognition is non6monetary part of recognition to the work of engineers. @ut what is reasonable remuneration or reasonable reco nition is a difficult Guestion and should be resol!ed by discussions between employees and employers only.

&rofessional Ri$ ts ) Et ical T eories

=. *i hts 6thics0 ,he most basic human right" which needs no justification" as per &.I.-eldon" is to pursue one5s legitimate Athose that do not !iolate others5 rightsB interests. o ,he right to pursue legitimate interests gi!es a person right to pursue professional moral obligations. o ,his may be !iewed as a human right of conscience directly deri!ed from the basic human right. o

;. :uty 6thics0 I ha!e a right to something only because others ha!e duties or obligations to allow me Aand not interfereB to do so. o If we deri!e the meaning of 4others5 as employers" then the basic professional right is justified by reference to others5 duties to support or not interfere with the work related e$ercise of conscience by professionals. o >. 'tilitarianism0 o o o Public good can be ser!ed by allowing professionals to meet their obligations to the public. ,hese obligations arise due to the professional5s role in promoting public good. ,he basic goal of producing the most good for the greatest number of people is enough to justify the right of professional conscience.

3-istle)bl!4i#* a#& Its Feat"$es

8histle blowin is an act of conveyin information about a si nificant moral problem by a present or former employee" outside approved channels Aor against strong pressureB to someone" in a position to take action on the problem. ,he features of 8histle blowin are &ct of Disclosure ,ntentionally conveyin information outside approved or ani3ational channels when the person is under pressure not to do so from hi her1ups. ,opic )he information is believed to concern a si nificant moral problem for the or ani3ation. &gent )he person disclosin the information is an employee or former employee. >ecipient )he information is conveyed to a person or or ani3ation who can act on it.

Types of * istle +lo,in$

External ,histle blowing0 ,he act of passing on information outside the organisation. -nternal ,histle blowing: ,he act of passing on information to someone within the organi=ation but outside the appro!ed channels. 6ither type is likely to be considered as disloyalty, but the second one is often seen as less serious than the latter. 5rom corporations. point of view both are serious because it leads to distrust, disharmony, and inability of the employees to work to ether. $pen ,histle blowing0 Indi!iduals openly re!ealing their identity as they con!ey the information. Anonymous ,histle blowing0 Indi!idual con!eying the information conceals hisIher identity.

P$!ce&"$es t! be (!ll!4e& be(!$e 3-istle Bl!4i#*

6/cept for e$treme emer encies" always try workin throu h normal organi=ational channels. @e prompt in e$pressing objections. Proceed in a tactful manner with due consideration to the feelin s of others in!ol!ed. &s much as possible" keep supervisors informed of your actions" both informally and formally. @e accurate in obser!ations and claims and keep all formal records documenting rele!ant e!ents. Consult colleagues for advice and also to avoid isolation. Consult the ethics committee of your professional society before going outside the organi=ation. Consult a lawyer regarding potential legal liabilities. A reat deal of introspection and reflection are re2uired before 8B. 4otive should neither be for reven e upon fellow employee, supervisor or company nor in the hope of future ains like book contracts or speakin tours etc.
'!#&iti!#s t! be satis(ie& be(!$e 3-istle Bl!4i#*

>ichard ,. De Neorge suggests the following .. ,he harm that will be done by the product to the public is serious and considerable. 3. ,he indi!idual makes hisIher concern known to his?her superiors . ;. If one does not get any proper response from immediate superiors" then one should e/haust the channels that are a!ailable within the or ani3ation including the board of directors. M. 8ne must ha!e documented evidence that would convince a reasonable and impartial observer that one5s !iew of the situation is correct and the company policy is wrong.

T. ,here must be stron evidence that making the information public will in fact prevent the threatened serious harm.
P$e5e#ti!# !( 3-istle Bl!4i#*

,he following actions will prevent?reduce whistle blowing .. Ni!ing direct access to higher le!els of management by announcing 4 open door. policies with guarantee that there won.t be retaliation. Instead such employees should be rewarded for fosterin ethical behavior in the company. 3. ,his gi!es greater freedom and promotes open communication within the organi=ation. ;. Creation of an #thics >e!iew Committee with freedom to investi ate complaints and make independent recommendations to top management. M. ,op priority should be gi!en to promote ethical conduct in the organi=ation by top mana ement. T. #ngineers should be allowed to discuss in confidence" their moral concerns with the ethics committee of their professional societies. H. When there are differences on ethical issues between engineers and management" ethics committee members of the professional societies should be allowed to enter into these discussions. J. Chan es and updations in law must be e$plored by engineers" organi=ations" professional societies and go!ernment organi=ations on a continuous basis.
E,pl!%ee Ri*-ts

Employee rights
employee. 6mployee ri hts are

are any rights" moral or legal" that in!ol!e the status of being an

,here should be no discrimination against an employee for critici.ing ethical" moral or legal policies and practices of the organi=ation. ,he organi=ation will not also discriminate against an employee for engaging in outside activities or for objecting to an organi=ation directi!e that !iolates common norms of morality. ,he employee will not be deprived of any enjoyment of reasonable privacy in hisIher workplace. /o personal information about employees will be collected or kept other than what is necessary to manage the organi=ation efficiently and to meet the legal reGuirements. /o employee who alleges that her(his rights have been violated will be dischar ed or penali=ed without a fair hearin by the employer organi=ation.

Some clear e/amples0 falsifyin data, avoidance on the safety of a product

Disc$i,i#ati!#
o Discrimination generally means preference on the grounds of sex0 race0 skin colour0 age or religious outlook. o In e!eryday speech" it has come to mean morally unjustified treatment of people on arbitrary or irrelevant grounds. o ,herefore to call something 4Discrimination/ is to condemn it. o @ut when the Guestion of justification arises" we will call it 1%referential #reatment&.