ce 401 civil engineering seminar gilbane gold quiz 5- 5 questions-10 minutes max. revisit ethical...

CE 401 Civil Engineering Seminar Gilbane Gold

•Quiz 5- 5 Questions-10 minutes max.•Revisit Ethical Theories and False Theories•Review of Truesteel (Continuation From Last Week) •Gilbane Gold – Case Study-Application of Josephson’s GKC Model


ETHICAL THEORIES• Duty Ethics

• Rights Ethics• Virtue Ethics• Utilitariamism

FALSE THEORIES OF ETHICS• Ethical Egoism• Ethical Conventionalism• Divine Command Ethics


TRUESTEEL AFFAIR

• Robert knew trusses not right and posed hazard to public and other•Carter, not an engineer, refused to fix the trusses•Carter tells Robert if Robert resists, he will cause everyone at Truesteel to lose their jobs •Is this right?•Is this fair?

•Carter demands that Robert not get in his way


TRUESTEEL AFFAIR• Robert had to decide whether to get in Carter’s way or let the trusses go as fabricated•Going Along With Carter supports: Loyalty, and perhaps Compassion•Resisting Carter supports: Honesty, Responsibility, Law Abidedness, Pursuit of Excellence, among others

•This Choice Begs the Question: Why Would Robert Williams go along with Carter under these circumstances?


TRUESTEEL AFFAIR• To go along with Carter, Robert had to gamble the public safety, and interests and well being of the client and Truesteel against the hope that the defective trusses would not fail.•If the trusses do not fail, •Robert avoids conflict with Carter•Carter will continue to operate Truesteel, and•Robert will probably be rewarded by Carter

•BUT!!!


TRUESTEEL AFFAIR• To go along with Carter, Robert had to gamble the public safety, and interests and well being of the client and Truesteel against the hope that the defective trusses would not fail.•If the trusses do fail, •Robert pays a high personal price for his decision with loss of job and possibly loss of career•Carter, Client, and Public will have serious losses•Probable personal injury, possible loss of life


TRUESTEEL AFFAIR• Why Would Robert Williams go along with Carter under these circumstances?•The only plausible explanation is that Robert placed his self-interests above the public health, safety and welfare

•Clear violation of the Code of Ethics•Clear violation of Josephson’s criteria of finding the greater balance of good over bad results•Clear violation of the De George Criteria, re Whistle Blowing!

•Did Robert do the right thing? NO!•Last Week, no one in class would argue for this option•You thought this option was clearly wrong


TRUESTEEL AFFAIR• What Rationalizations Did Robert Use in the Video?•I did it for others (employees, family)•It is necessary (Carter’s argument, Robert accepted it)•Everybody does it (Robert, it’s the way the world works)

•Josephson Notes That Most people:•Overestimate the cost of doing the right thing, and •Underestimate the cost of failing to do so.


GILBANE GOLD• You are David Jackson, and this is what you know•Effluent concentrations have exceeded permit limits on occasion•Exceedances have been small•Permit limits are very low•David’s job is to certify compliance to the City of Gilbane


GILBANE GOLD• You are David Jackson, and this is what you know•Proposed plant expansion will increase total pollutants 500% over the next 5 years•Permit allows dilution of effluent to satisfy permit levels•Permit does not limit total volume of discharge


GILBANE GOLD• You are David Jackson, and this is what you know•Proposed plant expansion will increase total pollutants 500% over the next 5 years

•Permit allows dilution of effluent to satisfy permit levels•Permit does not limit total volume of discharge

•Discharge goes to City’s WWTP where metals removed by precipitation into City’s Sludge, Gilbane Gold

•City Sells Sludge to farmers for fertilizer•Heavy Metals build up in soil, and do not biodegrade


GILBANE GOLD• Video will play to the end and then small groups•What is David concerned about?•Is David the only engineer involved in this situation?•Who are the stakeholders•What are David’s Options•Does David face an ethical dilemma? How defined?•What did David Decide to do?


GILBANE GOLD• Answer the questions in small group, and when done:•First Group puts 2 Stakeholders and 1 Option on Board•Other Groups add 1 Stakeholder and 1 Option to Board


GILBANE GOLD

• What is David concerned about?•David believes that •the Company’s environmental practices are not proper, and pose a risk to the public, and•the Company will not change its practices

•David believes that the Company’s plan to expand 500% will compound the harm.


GILBANE GOLD•Is David the only engineer involved in this situation?•No.•Phil Port, Frank Seeders, Tom Richards, Professor Massin are all engineers•Diane Collins may be an engineer•The City has engineers involved in this matter

•Is David essential toward finding a proper solution?


GILBANE GOLD•Who are the stakeholders•David•Z-Corp/Employees/Stockholders•City of Gilbane•Publics: Consumers, farmers, taxpayers•Engineering Profession


GILBANE GOLD•What are David’s Options•Blow the whistle – This is what he decided to do•Go along with Z-Corp directions to dilute effluent•Quit and move on to another job•Develop the documentation to support his concerns


GILBANE GOLD•Does David face an ethical dilemma? How defined?•Probably, with a conflict between his duty of loyalty to Z-Corp and his duty to protect the public health, safety and welfare.•There is also a conflict involving the public’s enhanced quality of life due to Z-Corps tax base and jobs.


GILBANE GOLD•What did David Decide to do?•David blew the whistle on Z-Corp by divulging confidential information to those outside the company

•Did David do the right thing? Show of hands•Were there any other whistle blowers in this case?•Yes, Tom Richards also disclosed confidential information after Z-Corp fired him.


GILBANE GOLD

• What did you think about Richards’ assertion that there was not enough time to allow the experts to study the issue?•How long would such a study take to complete?

•A few weeks?•A few months?•A year or two?

•Current rate of application will take 100 to 200 years to damage the soil•500% increase reduces time to 20 to 40 years


WHISTLE BLOWING TRUESTEEL VS GILBANE GOLD

• Truesteel/Robert Williams (De George): •Did Robert believe the trusses posed serious public risk YES•Did Robert Go to his Immediate Supervisor? YES•Did Robert Exhaust Internal Channels? YES

•DE GEORGE GIVES ROBERT THE MORAL AUTHORITY TO BLOW THE WHISTLE ON TRUESTEEL



• Truesteel/Robert Williams (De George): •ROBERT HAS MORAL AUTHORITY TO BLOW THE WHISTLE ON TRUESTEEL•Did Robert have objective documentation proving his concern? YES•Would Whistle Blowing eliminate the public risk? YES

•DE GEORGE IMPOSES A MORAL DUTY ON ROBERT TO BLOW THE WHISTLE ON TRUESTEEL



• Gilbane Gold/David Jackson (De George): •Did David believe the effluent posed serious public riskYES•Did David Go to his Immediate Supervisor? YES•Did David Exhaust Internal Channels? NO•DE GEORGE DOES NOT GIVE DAVID THE MORAL AUTHORITY TO BLOW THE WHISTLE ON Z-CORP, BUT STATUS AS ENGINEER PROBABLY DOES.



• Gilbane Gold/David Jackson (De George): •SINCE DE GEORGE DOES NOT GIVE DAVID THE MORAL AUTHORITY TO BLOW THE WHISTLE ON Z-CORP, DE GEORGE’S SECOND TIER ANALYSIS NOT APPLICABLE, BUT:•Did David have objective documentation proving his concern? NO



• Truesteel/Robert Williams (De George): Had duty to blow the whistle and he did not (Engineering Status Also Imposes Same Duty)

• Gilbane Gold/David Jackson (De George): Had no moral authority to blow the whistle, but he did. (Engineering Status may suggest a duty, but given the facts, I am not sure it imposes the duty)


WHISTLE BLOWING TRUESTEEL VS GILBANE GOLD•These cases provide bookend analyses for the De George process.•Real life cases will fall between these bookends when using the De George Analysis•Whistle blowing decisions require very careful consideration of the facts, and delineation of facts from opinion or belief

ce 401 civil engineering seminar gilbane gold quiz 5- 5 questions-10 minutes max. revisit ethical...

Documents