This is the August 2023 edition of our monthly series of Ethics case studies titled What Do You Think? This series is comprised of case studies from NSPE archives, involving both real and hypothetical matters submitted by engineers, public officials and members of the public.
Your peers and the NSPE Board of Ethical Review have reviewed the facts of the case as shown below. And, here are the results.
Your opinion has been registered for the August 2023 edition of our monthly series of Ethics case studies titled What Do You Think?
Your vote is recorded as:
Want to know how your peers voted? We’ll send you an email with the poll results on August 22.
Your opinion has been registered for the August 2023 edition of our monthly series of Ethics case studies titled What Do You Think?
Your vote is recorded as:
Want to know how your peers voted? We’ll send you an email with the poll results on August 22.
A Review of the Facts
Engineer Sam is a candidate for the state legislature from a district in which there is a substantial percentage of unskilled workers who are represented by a union. In a particular plant where many of these employees work, the third worker in a year was killed recently in an industrial accident. After many discussions between workers and management, the workers set up a picket line to protest what they claim are unsafe working conditions and alleged management indifference to employee safety. During the political campaign Sam visits the picket site and participates without having visited the plant to investigate the specific conditions of the previous accident. With TV cameras focused on him, Sam holds up a placard which accuses the company of callous disregard for the workers and then joins the protesting employees in the picket line.
What Do You Think?
Was it unethical for Sam to accuse the company of callous disregard for the workers at the plant?
Here is the result of our survey of your peers:
Applicable NSPE Code References:
II.3
Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.III.1.e
Engineers shall not promote their own interest at the expense of the dignity and integrity of the profession.III.2.a
Engineers are encouraged to participate in civic affairs; career guidance for youths; and work for the advancement of the safety, health, and well-being of their community.
Discussion
As has been frequently stated by this Board and is clearly stated in the NSPE Code of Ethics, engineers are encouraged to participate in civic affairs and to become involved in political activity. This position is embodied in Code III.2.a. As has been noted before, this provision is a recognition of the valuable and unique perspective of the engineer and the enormous contribution that the engineer can make to public policy debates.
Certainly, participation by the engineer in the sphere of public policy must be tempered by a sense of reason and rationality. Engineers are expected to act in such matters in a responsible and prudent manner. While no one would ever suggest that engineers should not be opinionated or even vigorous in their political views, we think that it is correct to state that engineers have an ethical obligation to conduct such activities with an eye on objectivity and truthfulness. Without these basic guidelines, the engineer is in danger of losing credibility among members of both the profession and the community as a whole.
Under the facts of this case there appears to be a genuine question as to whether Sam’s actions were in an objective and truthful manner as required by Code II.3 The most obvious point seems to be that the comments were made primarily for political purposes-to drum up support among union employees by suggesting that Sam is sympathetic to their cause. The action also appears to have been made to provide Sam with a great deal of media exposure before the television cameras.
While it is certainly arguable that Sam was legitimately concerned with the issues of unsafe working conditions at the plant and what he saw to be management indifference, another issue of concern is the manner in which Sam addressed the issues of unsafe working conditions and management indifference. Rather than examining the allegation and attempting to mediate the differences between the parties, Sam appears to have furthered the conflict by making rhetorical pronouncements. By holding a placard that accused the company of “callous indifference” to the workers, Sam injected himself into the controversy and lost any and all appearances of impartiality. Sam attempted to exploit an extremely unpleasant situation for political gain.
Finally, the Board is concerned with the actions of Sam because it appears that Sam was promoting his own interest at the expense of the dignity and integrity of the profession (Code III.1.e.). Under the facts, there is little doubt that Sam’s act of thrusting himself before television cameras with the placard in hand, without thoroughly investigating the specific conditions within the plant, suggests that Sam was seeking to promote his own interests, i.e., his political career, at the expense and dignity of the profession.
The Ethical Review Board’s Conclusion
It was unethical for Sam to accuse the company of callous disregard for the workers at the plant.
BOARD OF ETHICAL REVIEW
Wendell Beard, P.E. Robert J. Haefeli, P.E. Ernest C. James, P.E. Robert W. Jarvis, P.E. James L. Polk, P.E. J. Kent Roberts, P.E. Alfred H. Samborn. P.E., chairman
Note – In regard to the question of application of the Code to corporations vis-a-vis real persons, business form or type should not negate nor influence conformance of individuals to the Code. The Code deals with professional services, which services must be performed by real persons. Real persons in turn establish and implement policies within business structures. The Code is clearly written to apply to the Engineer and it is incumbent on a member of NSPE to endeavor to live up to its provisions. This applies to all pertinent sections of the Code. This opinion is based on data submitted to the Board of Ethical Review and does not necessarily represent all of the pertinent facts when applied to a specific case. This opinion is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as expressing any opinion on the ethics of specific individuals. This opinion may be reprinted without further permission, provided that this statement is included before or after the text of the case.
At what point did Sam announce he was an engineer and represent his opinion (the sign) as an engineering opinion? Sam is allowed by the constitution to voice whatever opinion he believes as long as it does not harm immediate public safety. (Think crying FIRE in a crowded movie theater.) The engineering rules only govern when one is acting as an engineer. I can hole up a sign saying I believe the earth is flat, the moon is made of green cheese, or that the politician of my choice is a crook. I am a US Citizen not an engineer at that time. I acknowledge that Sam is probably acting in his own self interest but we allow taht as citizens. While your judgments are usually interesting and supportable on this one you are dead wrong I am afraid.
Politics is not engineering and never will be. Its a completely different animal. It turns otherwise logical thinking humans into idiots. He was not working as a consultant for the plant. In my opinion, if he did not use the name “engineer” in his statement then he did not violate his ethics.
I hemmed about this one, but I disagree with the analysis. It may still be that it comes out on balance as unethical, but this is the 3rd death in a year. Not just the 3rd accident, 3rd osha recordable or something like that, 3rd death. You can’t have 3 deaths without there being a major safety issue. The code does not state that engineers are required to mediate differences, nor should an engineer be required to play devil’s advocate for a company that saw 2 previous deaths in short order and then suffered a 3rd. I think the egregiousness of the 3 deaths was undervalued by the board. A single loss of life should be enough for significant change within a company let alone 3. To me it is reasonable to assume that touring the company would only show the company in the best light, that only book policy would be shown not how management actually ran the workers. I myself have friends put in dangerous situations by managers working against official policy but supported by admin because of the benefits to the bottom line. Thankfully no loss of life occurred, but injuries did. The fact that the company has suffered 3 job related deaths to employees in only 1 year should be considered
Just because I am an engineer, that does not eclipse my rights under the first amendment to the constitution
Perhaps the explaining narrative that brought this before us was incomplete or ignored some facts. It does not, however, appear that Sam while protesting brought his seal and advertised that fact that is a professional engineer and knew more about the company save the most unfortunate deaths. Having been licensed since 1975 I always believed that being a licensed engineer was earned and not given. While I don’t protest nor am I active in any political, social or other of entity, I still believe that my right to express my beliefs is something that is inalienable and can not be taken back by some licensing board!!
I voted “not ethical but I understand the above three comments to the contrary – If he was not making an engineering judgment, nor passing himself off as an engineer, nor leveraging his engineer status for political gain. That said, I think it was unethical in a broader sense than just engineering ethics – it was a purely political act based on self-interest and without knowledge or consideration of the facts of the case. He is taking one side of a question without bothering to find out what happened, and his position as a person “in the news” as well as his professional engineer status lends credibility to his opinions. I think misleading the public is not ethical, whether it falls under the engineering ethics or those of society at large.
Unless Sam expressed his sentiments as an engineering opinion, or identified himself as an engineer – rather than a political candidate – this was ethical (maybe unpalatable, not a engineering ethics violation). Free speech is pretty important….
Those commenting that Sam’s free speech rights are paramount are, I believe, missing the point. As sure as the sunrise, the media will easily discover Sam’s professional license and that exposure will lend undue weight to his utterances. Regardless of how many deaths have occurred, offering an unsupported and arguably inflammatory opinion will reflect poorly on the profession, and any journalist who digs deep enough into the specifics will easily make that case, considering that Sam has zero personal knowledge of the facts.
Being an engineer does not cancel one’s right to voice opinions. The important point here, not well explained, is did he a) make it known he was an engineer, and b) express an engineering opinion on the safety in the plant? If yes, then his actions were unethical. If no, then what he did had nothing to do with our profession and he was invoking his right to free speech. Also I do not agree that engineers have any duty to “mediate”. Our job is to provide relevant scientific facts in a hearing. Others mediate, because mediation might imply compromising, and that might sacrifice safety ir some other objective not in the public’s interest. I
Am surprised at the board’s conclusion here.
With 3 deaths in a short period of time I think we can assume there was some press coverage of the events. I believe we could also assume that because of this Sam had at least some level of knowledge about the circumstances surrounding these events. While maybe he did not have the complete picture, I think he could have been justified in being outraged. Sure, he may have been using this situation to further his political ambitions but the combination of moral outrage and political ambitions are not necessarily ethical lapses. In this case as it was presented I think turning Sam’s actions into a lapse of professional ethics is stretching the definition way too far from the purpose and intent.
If Sam’s profession can be used by media to show the public there is full legitimacy to a claim made by the protestors, then Sam should fulfill his professional obligations by reviewing the circumstances and doing research into the conditions/issue.
Like many of the commenters, I disagree with the board’s analysis. Sam was acting in his capacity as a politician when he held the placard, not as an engineer. If he had cited his engineering qualifications to support his allegation, then he would have violated the rules. Politics has very different rules than engineering – and for good reason. Whereas compromises in engineering can result in disaster, failure to compromise in politics can result in disaster. Also, would the plant have opened their incident investigation files to Sam? Probably not for legal and public relations reasons he would have gotten a highly scrubbed version.