Engineers Responsibilities Towards Employees 2

[JOM]

Hi all.

Interesting discussions regarding engineers' responsibilities. But I don't see any refernces to responsibilities towards employees. I don't mean people who work for the engineer, but people who work for the company the engineer works for.

Code of ethics emphasise the responsibility of considering public safety, but what about workers? Are engineers responsible for considering their safety or is that management's role? On face value, the answer is likely to be "yes", but in reality, there must be many situations where the engineer is not welcome in voluntarily pointing out potential hazrads. (hazards too).

Cheers,
JOM

 

[redtrumpet]

The very first item in the code of ethics for professional engineers in Saskatchewan, Canada is

"hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and the protection of the environment and promote health and safety within the workplace".

It doesn't get much clearer than that. Perhaps your code of ethics differs and omits the part about safety within the workplace. Also, last time I looked workers were part of the public, so yes we should be thinking of worker safety.

 

[JOM]

RedTrumpet,

Yep, that's clear enuf - "safety within the workplace".

In my part of the world (Victoria, Australia) the law does distinguish between employees and the public, although both are protected.

In my ealier days as a green engineer, I saw many unsafe practises that today make my hair curl to think about them. But often, I was lead to consider that this was management's concern, not mine. I think this still happens often, perhaps not so blatantly.

It's not that difficult to find "reasons" why we shouldn't report an unsafe practise - "not my concern" is probably the most common.

Cheers,
JOM

 

[redtrumpet]

I understand your concern, JOM. "Not my department" is a fairly common attitude in some places. I am also aware that in most jurisdictions employees are not considered the public, but I think ethically we have to consider them as part of the public, as their lives are not any less valuable.

I think we all have a duty to take whatever action is necessary to ensure safety when danger is imminent - there was a case in Saskatoon where a structural engineer was inspecting a university building. The building was deemed so unsafe in his opinion that he immediately ordered an evacuation, this when students were writing final exams in the building!

The grey area comes when the danger is not imminent, and it is easier to slough off responsibility on someone else. I guess it comes down to what you can live with in your conscience.

 

[JOM]

redtrumpet,

That engineer who evacuated the building deserved a commendation (not least from the students!).

An example often given in texts is that of a US sailor who reported that he lost a tool on the deck of a carrier. Planes in the air were diverted to land bases, while the crew did a sweep of the deck for the tool. He was awarded a commendation.

These are a few examples from my early career -

. top landing of an internal stairway had no guardrails (a death trap)

. employees carrying buckets of nitric acid up stairs cos the chemical pump had failed

. bursting panels on a spray drier welded up cos they kept bursting (that drier later suffered a fire)

Also, on the environment front:

. supervisors slipping waste into the nearby river at night and thinking they're cute in avoiding the EPA inspectors
. foremen lying to EPA inspectors about plant operations

These are things I knew about and did nothing about them. I wouldn't hesitate to report such things today if management did not take action. But such blatant breaches may be rare today.

Cheers,
JOM

 

[FLisa]

If it is a hazard that means someone's life, limb or livliehood could be lost. Any one who percieves the hazard has a duty to see that it is reported and corrected.

 

[JOM]

Flisa,

I see your point and don't disagree. But, it sometimes isn't simple.

First, it's not the hazard that has to be removed. Hazards have to be identified and then managed. They can't always be removed. It's "dangers" that must be eliminated.

There need to be undergrad education about the "science" of hazard management.

Next, some hazards need careful investigation to identify them. It really is not that difficult to say "not my department", even if you suspect things are not right.

With increasing legal actions, people may not want to "see" the safety deficiencies. I can envisage engineers visting plants, performing their assigned tasks, purposely not "looking" around them - "if I don't see the safety lapse, I can't be blamed for not reporting it."

An example - I knew an engineer who was in charge of a small excavation on semi-public land. He did not erect "DANGER" signs, reasoning that that implied he had judged the place to be dangerous and that fact could be used against him. Not good ethics or morals or even logic.

It's an intersting topic and musn't be swept under the carpet.

Cheers.
JOM

 

[RDK]

I am in the next province to redtrumpet (Manitoba Canada and I also have a license in his province of Saskatchewan). I know about the evacuation of the building during the exam. I also have some experience working on military bases and can state that FOD (military speak for foreign object damage i.e. anything not belonging near the aircraft) is of paramount concern and know of cases in the Canadian military where people have been rewarded for similar actions tothe US sailor.


To not look for problems and try to hide behind the twisted logic that I did not see therefore I am not responsible is wrong, morally ethically and legally. You may not know that there is a problem but if you suspect then you are obligated to take action.


As engineers we are professionals. We are therefore held to a higher standard of care than non-professionals. We have a duty to protect the public. The public clearly includes all persons. This is our first ethical obligation and it is of paramount importance, our duty of care supercedes any duty to the client, our employer or anyone else.

To state “I did not know” is to invite the response that you should have known. Not knowing would not be considered an excuse, since a competent engineer would have known and therefore taken action. You could be held liable even if you really did not know.

If I felt that I was not welcome in pointing out potential hazards, I would not feel welcome working for that company and would consider a job change. This is easier to say with some experence behind me but I have never had a person seriously hurt on any of my projects and do not want to start now.

I once worked with a man who had as a junior gas company employee gone to a small excavation site where city crews were repairing a water line. He was told by his boss that all he had to do was tell the crew that all gas lines were in the back yards and the area was clear.The crews started digging and the backhoe caught the gas line. The gas line had been pulled out at the gas meter inside the house. The house filled with gas, exploded killing a mother and her 2 year old son. Ten years later he still had nightmares about his role in it.

I sleep well at night with the safety record on my job sites. Could anyone look the otherway and have someone hurt and say the same? Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[JOM]

Personally, I feel open discussion that is going on within this forum is one of the most useful ways of improving safety.

It's obviously important to give support to all in making real decisions based on ethical considerations, even if it puts your position at risk. To hear of experienced engineers recounting stories where they put their foot down and survived (or even went up the ladder) must be encouraging for younger engineers.

I hope this forum has a wide readership.

Cheers,
John

 

[yoel]

World's economic is getting worse from day to day, more employees find themselves without jobs.
In that situation, engineers have less force to put ultimate demands in front of their managers, and that may cause less involvement in unpleasant hazards issues.
Even goverments can be less determined to stand in front of manufacturers who hold the economy and have now more power.
And so we can see how bad economic can lower the value of people's life and health.
Let's hope for better days!
y.