moonlighting and ethics 14

[oceana1234]

First the background....EIT with solid autocad drafting skills.

Btw, I still have to study and take the ethics exam which is why I'm asking the question here.
So be kind, please....

I used to do occasional moonlighting when I was a draftperson/technician. Drafting in other disciplines not related to the job. Out of curiosity, how many people here have moonlighted? Does it cause you any conflicts?
It seems like a common practice even though most places specify that they do not allow moonlighting. I have never seen enforcement of this rule.

So, I been asked to do some drafting for an engineer. He used to work at my current place of employment.
The project is in another jurisdiction, where chicken wire solutions seem to be the order of the day....
sorry I'm being a little glib here.

This involves doing some shop drawings which he will approve as part of one of his projects.
He claims that there is no conflict of interest for him.
Isn't the manufacturer responsible for the design of the piece of work?
Doesn't production and signing of said "shop drawings" represent a conflict of interest or more to the point
a liability problem for the project design engineer?

I was provided with sample drawings of what was expected and the current design drawings.

When we met, I mentioned that I would only be providing him with a preliminary and that he would obviously have to
revise, since I was providing him with drafting work and not doing design work. This type of design work is outside of my expertise.

After a preliminary review of shop drawings samples with the associated project drawings, I cannot feel confident as to certain dimensions and connection details for the work. These would obviously be part of the manufacturer's expertise.

I really feel uncomfortable doing this side contract. I feel obligated, because I said I do it, plus he's an experienced engineer and I would call him a friend and definite possible reference

Now, that I am an EIT, am I exposing myself to any future problems?

Any advice on how to handle the situation? How do I get out of it?

 

[buzzp]

There is no legal liability for a drafter.

RDK said, "Is there such a thing as “no liability” in the USA for any business?" Who is talking about a business, we are talking about a drafter.
RDK also said, "Working another job or playing softball or any other reason is not grounds for showing up unable to work." We were talking about being less productive not being unable to work. Ever have a headache? Ever have body aches? Ever get sick and still go to work? Anyone of them cases could cause you to be less productive. Shame on me for dissing my employer by getting a head ache. If your that committed its only because its your company. If your so committed to avoid anything after hours which may hinder your performance the next day (and I sincerely doubt you are), then all I can say is get a life but in your case, as you said, you do have a life. Here is your quote, "I do live my life in such a manner that I am ready and able to go to work and be productive." Keep up the good work. If thats all your life revolves around is work, then your missing out on a lot more. I like my career but I like my family, sports, racing, hiking, fishing, etc equally or more.

If I have to stay up late to participate in a 10:00 softball game then I will make that sacrifice and be tired the next day. Most people try to get a good nights rest but when your living life, there is no way you can hit the sack every night at 10:00 (or whatever time you go to bed to be rested). If you want to, more power to you. To expect your employees to give up their life for your company is simply ridiculous.

JAE, while I understand your concerns over any agreements in place when he was hired, if the company can not justify how this may affect them (assuming he approached them and they said no) then I would do it anyway (of course everything depends on the circumstances around the situation). Also, there is no way a lawyer could ever get a drafter be named in a lawsuit provided the drawing was signed by a licensed engineer. He may get him named, but I can assure you he would never be liable unless he misrepresented himself. It would also be extremely difficult to get his current employeer involved in the lawsuit. The guy said he is acting as a drafter on this project, not a licensed engineer.

 

[JAE]

Also, there is no way a lawyer could ever get a drafter be named in a lawsuit provided the drawing was signed by a licensed engineer. He may get him named, but I can assure you he would never be liable unless he misrepresented himself

buzzp - I'm not an attorney - but I just don't see how there is "no way" that there is any potential for the danger of getting pulled into a suit no matter who you are...and this guy IS an EIT.

If some major disaster were to happen, you can bet that the attorneys would be all over ANYONE associated with the project. They would blanket the suits out to all and then sift through the details later. In the meantime, ocean here would be sucked into hiring an attorney to get him out of it all....$$$$ There is liability, probably less so (as you state) for drafters of firms (I have to admit I've never heard of a drafter getting sued while working within a firm - but for drafters working on their own, on contract, there is a huge jump in exposure.

It would also be extremely difficult to get his current employeer involved in the lawsuit.

Again, lawyers sue anyone closely involved, even if you "know" that there is no direct liability (legally) for the home company. The main reason firms have NO MOONLIGHTING clauses in their personnel handbooks is due to the exposure to litigation.

 

[EddyC]

If I understand the original post correctly, it appears that oceana1234 is involved in the process of creating shop drawings and is concerned about whether he will have liability should his engineer client/partner make a design/review mistake. I guess it all depends on who is considered the Engineer-of-Record of the shop drawings. It most likely isn't oceana, but the legal system doesn't always make these distinctions. Being an EIT and being involved in connection design will most likely expose oceana to some liability, but I'm no lawyer.

 

[IRstuff]

Don't forget that being sued is not related to being guilty or vice versa. ANYONE can bring a suit, even if it may eventually be tossed out.

The issue, then, is whether you have sufficiently deep pockets to weather such an event. There was recently, a company in California that took advantage of a certain law to simply extort money from companies by threatening to sue. If the other party refused, they'd bring suit and the party would either have to settle or tough it out.

TTFN

 

[UcfSE]

Yes I understand whyun. In fact, after reading UNLengineer's post it dawned on me that I had taken your comment wrong. Thank you for taking the time to explain it to me mo'.

 

[BJC]

I too will disagree with RDK.
Moonlighting is not inherently unethical. The ethics of the situation depend on the details. A mechanical engineer that works for an aircraft company is not unethical if he or she designs barbecue on weekends. Is a structural engineer that designs furniture unethical? Given the details of the situation it's not hard to determine the ethics in a particular case. Should engineers be limited to moonlighting only in non-engineering jobs (like pumping gas, working at WalMart etc.)? I think they should be limited from injuring their employer, which is the basis of ethics.
Some of the arguments presented here are not valid and have been so found in court.
The argument that moonlighting make for tire employees is valid, however that same employer had best apply the same standards to mothers with sick children, athlete who spend the week in iron man contest, people taking large class loads etc. etc. It the results that they have to respond to not the cause.
What ethics apply to employers that try to control the activities of employees off work?
California law has recently been amended to prevent employers from acting against employees for "lawful conduct occurring during non working hours away from the employer’s premises". The law was originated to prevent employers from discriminating against employees that were involved in highly visible activities like political races, gay pride parades, etc. The law has been applied to moonlighting.
The ethics of employers telling employees what to do and how to act has been tested in courts many times. People are entitled to a life, where you work is not what you are

 

[JAE]

Politics and parades are one thing, moonlighting by using your particular job-related skills (usually developed at your primary place of employment) are another.

Yes, your company has no business telling you what TV shows to watch, what to wear after working hours, or what parades to participate in. But they do have the right to terminate your employment if you take your job-related skills and market them to their own clients, or potential clients, during off hours.

But the situation described for this thread was one of an Engineer Intern doing drafting work on the side for another engineer while working at another engineering firm. The home firm has every right to be concerned that engineering efforts, SOLD to another engineer (a potential client) might expose their company to lawsuits and also provide all sorts of issues related to ethics.

If ocean's services weren't available via moonlighting, would the engineer have to go directly to the engineering firm to get those same drafting services?

What was the essence of ocean's employment? Was moonlighting an allowed activity under the terms of the employment?

These are all very valid questions and there ARE ethical issues to consider.

I agree with BJC that moonlighting is not INHERENTLY unethical, but it many times is.

 

[BJC]

"using your particular job-related skills (usually developed at your primary place of employment)"

I developed my job-related skill in engineering school and a couple of employers before the present one. I may be adding to those skills in my moonlighting job.
An employer hires my time and my skills, if they want the exclusive use of those skills it would cost them more than they usually pay people.
I won't steal from them (clients, money time or material), use their name or use thier name in marketing. 40 Hrs a week is all there entitled to.

 

[Jordonlaw]

Aspects of this subject is close to my heart. When I was interviewed for my current job I said I wanted to finish some work for my old employeer on a contract basis in a manner (ie at weekends with seperate IT and licenses) that wouldn't affect my new position. This was verbally agreed but when the contract arrived it said :-

"Employees will not engage in any other form of employment, paid or otherwise, during or outside working hours without the written consent of the company"

Needless to say I've refused to sign this as it would mean I can't do anything including weekend charity work without the company agreeing to it which is rediculous. I would suggest this type of stipulation is unethical.

 

[RDK]

The Kansas City Hyatt disaster was caused by a detail changed on the shop drawing.

If the drafter of that detail had been a sub-contractor (not an employee), a graduate engineer and an EIT is there anyone out there that does not believe that they would be named in the lawsuit?

“Your honour, as a graduate of a school of engineering and someone in training for admission to the profession the defendant knew or should have known that this detail would not support the structure that he was assigned responsibility for the drawing of the connection and connection that he drew in such a manner that it lead to the collapse of the structure and the deaths of over 100 people.. We request that you give us all his assets, future earnings and first born male child in compensation.”

Moight not be successful but the cost of defense would be significant.

Remember the lawyer’s motto “Sue them all and let the judge sort it out.”


Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[BJC]

RDK said
"But over the long term, if you are coming to work hung over don’t expect to have to worry about you job cutting into your drinking time for very long."

Oscar Wilde said
"Work is the curse of the Drinking Class"

 

[stevenal]

See IIIc of

http://www.nspe.org/ethics/eh1-code.asp

Not the only code around, but most are similar.

 

[EddyC]

Good link stevenal! I didn't know that it was part of the NSPE ethics. I give you a star.

 

[buzzp]

You have a potential to get sued everywhere you go and in everything you do in todays world regardless if the case has any merit or not. I was not talking about frivolous law suits in my previous posts but if you want to we can. I agree that the drafter could get sued or be named in a suit but he can also get named in a lawsuit where he works now. Would they give him access to a lawyer? Would they give him a bonus to help defend himself? I doubt it. My point is, he could get sued because of where he works or where he mooonlights or when he drives, or when his kids friends comes over or ..... The list of frivolous lawsuits goes on an on. In fact, the likeliness of getting sued at work is more probable than with his one (or many) moonlighting jobs. When your talking about reducing your risk of lawsuits, its best to be concerned with merit based lawsuits or pretty soon, you won't want to leave your house, won't let anyone come over, won't let anyone walk down your sidewalk (or try), etc.. The probability of getting sued from this, in my opinion, is as likely as getting sued from anything I mentioned above.

Jordanlaw, See they lied to you basically. Where are the ethics in that? Any almightys out there care to comment on his situation?

I hold myself to high ethical standards in my life(believe it or not). When it comes to employers, I give them in return what they give me. They have to practice what they preach.

 

[ziggi]

RDK,
First off, you sure spend a lot of time on this forum, is that working time or personal time ........I personally call this professional education time.

Oceana,
My logic is that if employer A pays me to work from 8-5 with a lunch in between. I dedicate myself to employer A from 8-5 minus the lunch hour. I also do any overtime as required but I make up for it by taking longer lunches, leaving early etc, so that my time is more or less equal.

Now if it's lunch time or after 5 pm or before 8 am and I'm employed by another employer then my time is fair game, I disagree with using employer A's office supplies, internet etc to benefit employer B, however.

If a conflict of interest developed wherein B has my drawing and A will be using it, my opinion sides with whomeever is paying me during the review.
I tend to think like a mercenary when it comes to work....or a prostitute whatever is more appropriate. I do whatever my contract states for whomever happens to be paying me at the time. ie. If I begin work at B at 5:30 pm and if we are reviewing the drawing from between 4:50pm to 5:31pm I classify my tha time as overtime for A, the extra minute...that's officially still A's overtime, and I should state that I am technically working for both at that time....but I won't...no need to ruin my relationship with either.

As for being tired/hung over etc on the job, well that's a breach of my contract. All things aside I'd be pretty pissed if my boss was too hung over to fill out my pay slip.

Anyway it's lunch time and this is classified as professional education, so I refuse to type anymore as I'm not being paid .

 

[JAE]

buzzp - for some reason I just don't agree with some of your points on this post...but I do enjoy the discussion and your thoughts as it challenges me all the same.

I would still disagree with you on the concept that ocean would be just as exposed to litigation at his home employment verses contracting work outside of his normal job.

When working for a firm/corporation, you are covered by that corporation against claims against your house, car, etc. If a lawsuit was raised against me personally, it would be tossed out as I am "under" the corporate umbrella and I had no personal contractual participation in this. The firm's attorneys would come in and get an immediate judgement (I think the term is summary judgement) removing all references to personal suits and converting them to a suit directed only at the corporation. Attorneys do this all the time.

But for ocean, working on his own, contracting directly with another engineer, he is totally "out there" and exposed. His home and personal assets would be all fair game. There is no corporate umbrella.

 

[ziggi]

An addition to my views on the topic,

When I say I take a mercenary additude to work, I also mean that generally don't take an active interest in the company's ideals, future goals etc. unless they directly influence, or I am required to do so as part of my job. Personally I don't think they care about my personal goals and ideals as well, unless those goals can benefit the company.

 

[RDK]

An employee is an agent of the employer and thus is usually immune from legal action against him as long as he is acting within the scope of his duties and within the law.

Doesn’t stop the employee from being named in the lawsuit, may just protect the employee from judgment. This usually does not apply to officers of the company.

A contractor acting as a sole proprietorship (without any sort of corporate protection) could be on the hook for damages to the extent of any and all personal property.

Thus a drafter who was an employee could claim that he was simply drawing what he was told to draw and since the act of drawing that was within his scope of duties and a legal act the employee would be immune from judgment.

If the employee was named in a lawsuit then the employer would find it to his best advantage to hire the employee’s legal representative for two reasons. First the defense would be consistent. Secondly the employee would have less incentive to make a side agreement wit the opposition to provide evidence against the employer in return for being dropped from the lawsuit.

A firm that I know of was sued and in the lawsuit the firm was named as well as every employee that had contact with the plaintiff. This included the principals of the firm right down to the survey crew. The issue was not technical but contractual in nature.

If this can happen in Canada where our legal system does not go to the same extremes as does the US system, then a drafter could also be named in a US suit.





Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[buzzp]

JAE,
I do see where your coming from but I don't think the risk is anymore significant than the risk of getting sued for some ridiculous reason. Yes, he is probably out there a little more than if he were under his company. But he is not acting as an engineer when he was moonlighting. He was simply drawing what he was asked to draw, the engineer did or will approve it. He is the one most likely to be named in the suit. The drafter may get named as well but the engineer is the professional and as such takes full responsibility for any drawing he may sign and stamp. This pretty much makes the drafter immune (bad word as not totally immune, obivously) in a suit where fault is found.
I am just saying it is very unlikely he would ever be found at fault and held accountable. He may be named (and therefore have to hire a lawyer) but he could be named for countless other suits as well with the same probability, in my opinion.
On the flip side, if he can get sued working for his employer (even though he is no PE) then what extra risk is there in working for himself? (I don't think there is as much risk with the employer just using some of the material presented by some of the posters against them).

 

[UNLengineer]

Buzzp,

Most employers don't care to much if you are tired at work every once in awhile. We have all done that before, including me. But it is the attitude that it seems that you have and it frustrates me. Do just enough to get a pay check and not get fired? I may have misread your posts and be wrong about your attitude, but I hate the idea of not wanting to excel. My attitude of wanting to do my best comes with me wherever I go, including work and home. This means that I put in more time at work than the 40 I am paid for, but if I refuse to do my best at work, what am I going to settle for at home.