All,
This is an interesting essay based upon the practice of engineering under NAFTA.
This is an interesting essay based upon the practice of engineering under NAFTA.
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Ethics and NAFTA 1
- Thread starter PSE
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #21
VOD,
I would fully expect an independent security force to be very unwelcome in light of the governmental officials "off the record" statements. Which is why I would let the force know that the threat level is accordingly high. If the cost for the force exceeds that of the "protection fees", then I would recommend to my employer that unless they have other reasons for staying, that they should walk away.
The inference I perceived is that unless I as the "individual in charge of financials", submitted to a bribe, then I might expect bad things to happen to my project staff. In my mind this was a direct threat made by this governmental official. Would throwing money his way actually help the situation or just add fuel to the fire? Would there be additional protection "fees" needed at a later date? Having no way to know, I choose to either prepare for a threat using known resources, or walk away. As a representative for my employer, I would consider either option professionally ethical. If I or another firm submitted to this "off the record" request, then I would consider it professionally unethical.
Personally I would regret having to walk away and be unable to help those in need. I would offer them what personal assistance I could in helping them make their own lives better. In this manner, I would not be acting on behalf of my employer.
Yes this answer separates the professional from the personal consideration of ethics. However, as an employee representing my employer, I have agreed to abide by their rules of conduct. On a personal level, I would as an individual try to do what I could to aid those in need.
Regards
I would fully expect an independent security force to be very unwelcome in light of the governmental officials "off the record" statements. Which is why I would let the force know that the threat level is accordingly high. If the cost for the force exceeds that of the "protection fees", then I would recommend to my employer that unless they have other reasons for staying, that they should walk away.
The inference I perceived is that unless I as the "individual in charge of financials", submitted to a bribe, then I might expect bad things to happen to my project staff. In my mind this was a direct threat made by this governmental official. Would throwing money his way actually help the situation or just add fuel to the fire? Would there be additional protection "fees" needed at a later date? Having no way to know, I choose to either prepare for a threat using known resources, or walk away. As a representative for my employer, I would consider either option professionally ethical. If I or another firm submitted to this "off the record" request, then I would consider it professionally unethical.
Personally I would regret having to walk away and be unable to help those in need. I would offer them what personal assistance I could in helping them make their own lives better. In this manner, I would not be acting on behalf of my employer.
Yes this answer separates the professional from the personal consideration of ethics. However, as an employee representing my employer, I have agreed to abide by their rules of conduct. On a personal level, I would as an individual try to do what I could to aid those in need.
Regards
VoyageofDiscovery
Structural
Hi PSE,
Just one comment on the use of "independent security forces".
Though these private armies have been around a long time the UN bans the use of these types of forces.
Regards
VOD
Just one comment on the use of "independent security forces".
Though these private armies have been around a long time the UN bans the use of these types of forces.
Regards
VOD
- Thread starter
- #23
VOD,
Must be a good thing that I don't work for the UN then![[wink]](/data/assets/smilies/wink.gif "[wink] [wink]")
. In all likelihood, given the scenario that you had described. I would view the security situation as untennable and would recommend my employer walk away until such time as stability returned. Another possiblity would be to do the work under the umbrella of a recognized international humanitary organization with the hope that the potential fallout from public outrage would deter any would be rebel actions against the project.
Regards,
Must be a good thing that I don't work for the UN then
. In all likelihood, given the scenario that you had described. I would view the security situation as untennable and would recommend my employer walk away until such time as stability returned. Another possiblity would be to do the work under the umbrella of a recognized international humanitary organization with the hope that the potential fallout from public outrage would deter any would be rebel actions against the project.Regards,
I thought I'd conclude my comments on this thread by reminding readers that ethical obligations have no geographical boundaries. Clearly, there are many here who want to believe otherwise. I don't mean to be too flippant when I point out that there are still those who also believe the earth is flat, . . .go figure.
I referenced church law in an earlier post as one example of ethics rules and geography. Many know that the Roman Catholic Church, head quartered in the Vatican, Rome has ethical rules governing its members. Choosing to be a member of that organization, obligates an individual to comply to the Church's ethical rules regardless of the individual's geographic location. Likewise, there are many national, laws that transend geographic or political boundaries also.
Professional ethics rules cross geographic boundaries, so you must always practice to the highest standard of ethics rules for the various jurisdictions that you are a member. If you do not want to be judged by your home jurisdiction(s) when you practice unethically elsewhere, you had better resign your membership before you go overseas.
Regards,
PS It will not help to resign after the fact as there is adequate case law to support prosecution of such ethic violations as long as you were a member at the time of the violation.
I referenced church law in an earlier post as one example of ethics rules and geography. Many know that the Roman Catholic Church, head quartered in the Vatican, Rome has ethical rules governing its members. Choosing to be a member of that organization, obligates an individual to comply to the Church's ethical rules regardless of the individual's geographic location. Likewise, there are many national, laws that transend geographic or political boundaries also.
Professional ethics rules cross geographic boundaries, so you must always practice to the highest standard of ethics rules for the various jurisdictions that you are a member. If you do not want to be judged by your home jurisdiction(s) when you practice unethically elsewhere, you had better resign your membership before you go overseas.
Regards,
PS It will not help to resign after the fact as there is adequate case law to support prosecution of such ethic violations as long as you were a member at the time of the violation.
Ethical guidelines from Alberta's ASET are sitting beside me on my desk, so I looked through: nowhere does it say that these guidelines are "suspended" at any time or in any circumstance. Clearly, I am bound to practice according to their rules, so long as I'm a practicing member, whether in Alberta, Canada, North America, or Mozambique.
Stick with PM's philosophy, and you'll sleep better, too.
STF
Stick with PM's philosophy, and you'll sleep better, too.
STF
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question