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:

It is ethical
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:

It is not ethical
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:

August 2023 Ethical chart

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 is not ethical

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.