Your professional ethics

c_man

I was talking to a friend there, who's an electronic engineer in the UK, and he was telling me about some recent difficulties at work. Namely he refused to work on a new project which was for the military. Apparently he got a lot of flak, and it got me thinking what are your ethics in your profession, or has it even entered your mind? Is there an area/role which you would refuse to do? Would ye judge a co-worker who refused to work on something which you were involved in?

Personally, like him I would never work on military stuff. I asked some co-workers at lunch and there was an interesting cross section of thoughts on the matter. Some industries (*cough* finance *cough*) seem to bring out the worst in people's professional ethics, or maybe the industry itself that attracts some people.

tldr; is there anything legal (or indeed on the grey side of the legal interpretation) which is relatively common among your peers, for which you'd refuse to do if asked by your boss?

major bill

Irishman works in the UK for UK company yet won't work on a project for the British Military cause it offends him?? Is that right?

El Weirdo

major bill wrote: »

Irishman works in the UK for UK company yet won't work on a project for the British Military cause it offends him?? Is that right?

That wasn't how I read it.

Perhaps he'd refuse to do work for any military.

Your Superior

I've always had very strong personal ethics when it has come to business, and am in the very fortunate position that I can ensure my company operates along those lines. We will not work with, or for, arms manufacturers, sweatshops(unless pay and working conditions meet required standards and all staff are given the opportunity to join a union), fast food outlets or companies that test on animals for non-medical purposes such as cosmetics.

Those are just a few of the contracts we have refused in the last ten years, there have been many more besides that we have felt did not tie in with our civic and social responsibility.

Bring out thr the worst in ethics = different to my ethics?

c_man

El Weirdo wrote: »

That wasn't how I read it.

Perhaps he'd refuse to do work for any military.

^This.

evo2000

c_man wrote: »

I was talking to a friend there, who's an electronic engineer in the UK, and he was telling me about some recent difficulties at work. Namely he refused to work on a new project which was for the military. Apparently he got a lot of flak, and it got me thinking what are your ethics in your profession, or has it even entered your mind? Is there an area/role which you would refuse to do? Would ye judge a co-worker who refused to work on something which you were involved in?

Personally, like him I would never work on military stuff. I asked some co-workers at lunch and there was an interesting cross section of thoughts on the matter. Some industries (*cough* finance *cough*) seem to bring out the worst in people's professional ethics, or maybe the industry itself that attracts some people.

tldr; is there anything legal (or indeed on the grey side of the legal interpretation) which is relatively common among your peers, for which you'd refuse to do if asked by your boss?

If thats what he wanted to do, he was dead right for doing it, anyone giving him flak needs to stfu to be honest, some people seem to have extreme difficulties accepting personal decisions tho!

Menas

Hard to give a definitive list of what I would or would not work on.
Weapons and animal testing are two types of projects I would not work on. I did refuse to work on a project with a british tobacco firm some years ago but that was more because I just did not like them rather than ethics.
But that aside, it is case by case.

cajonlardo

El Weirdo wrote: »

Perhaps he'd refuse to do work for any military.

That puzzles me.

If his life or the lives of those dear to him could be saved by military action and said military requested him to provide his services would he then refuse?

c_man

Your Superior wrote: »

....

Those are just a few of the contracts we have refused in the last ten years, there have been many more besides that we have felt did not tie in with our civic and social responsibility.

Interesting. But turning down such contracts must put financial pressure on your company? And presumably you have competitors willing to do it for them, embigging (yeah it's a word right?) their market share? Like fair play, just wondering about it all!

bluewolf wrote: »

Bring out thr the worst in ethics = different to my ethics?

Not at all. I'm more referring to the carry on in Anglo etc during the 2000s. Having differences over what constitutes ethically behavior is one thing, but I'd be amazed to find someone who thinks the lads in charge there had any.

c_man

cajonlardo wrote: »

That puzzles me.

Some people would rather not work on projects/products, whose sole purpose is to kill human beings. Do you really find that puzzling?

evo2000

cajonlardo wrote: »

That puzzles me.

If his life or the lives of those dear to him could be saved by military action and said military requested him to provide his services would he then refuse?

Would his not helping cause the military to collapse and stop functioning ? a pointless scenario to bring up tbh!

I can imagine the military bringing in say plumbers and giving the Armageddon style briefs on how there plumbing abilitys could help save lives!

B.A._Baracus

From my experiences with others in life... I found the words 'ethics' and 'money' rarely appear in the same sentence.

Senna

Your Superior wrote: »

fast food outlets

??

heroics

Unless its illegal I am struggling to think of anything that I would refuse to do in work on ethics grounds. Definitely something like working for military etc wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

I can understand why in the UK he might have gotten a bit of flak for not working on a military project. Were the people giving him Flak from the UK? Did any of them have family/friends in the Military? Would this project have helped prevent more UK troops dying/getting injured in combat etc. Remember UK troops have been in combat deployments since the 2003 between Iraq and afghanistan. In Afghanistan over 450 were killed and over 6000 were returned home on medical grounds. Not wanting to get into a debate over whether these wars etc were right or wrong but simply looking at it from the side of the people giving your mate a bit of flak.

Would you assist on a project if it was for a UN peacekeeping mission?

You seem to think that just because you wouldn't work on a military project that all others should be the same. I don't get the ethics part of not working on these projects so is it fair for me to say I think whatever industry you work in brings out the worst in peoples professional ethics because they are too sensitive?

I am not in finance or any related field btw.

I'm not sure why I ranted on, your second paragraph just seemed to bug me. Must be lack of caffeine and I might be hungry

Your Superior

c_man wrote: »

Interesting. But turning down such contracts must put financial pressure on your company? And presumably you have competitors willing to do it for them, embigging (yeah it's a word right?) their market share? Like fair play, just wondering about it all!
.

Not really that much of an issue to be honest. We're a very niche organisation, quite often working in collaboration with our so-called rivals. We throw business to them if we are too busy, and they do likewise. Granted, had we taken on those contracts we would probably been able to expand at a faster rate, but we've preferred to do it organically and in a way that suits our social vision.

c_man

heroics wrote: »

Were the people giving him Flak from the UK? Did any of them have family/friends in the Military?

Ok, maybe I mixed people up. I don't think this was for the British military, but rather a defence contractor or whatever. Though I'm sure they'd be supplying the British. I don't know the exact ins and outs, nor would I ask tbh.

You seem to think that just because you wouldn't work on a military project that all others should be the same. I don't get the ethics part of not working on these projects so is it fair for me to say I think whatever industry you work in brings out the worst in peoples professional ethics because they are too sensitive?

Nah, I don't wanna be judging people. It's not for me, that's all. Some of the lads on my team have previously worked on defence projects (I'm in software) and they're all sound. I just started this thread to get a conversation going!

I'm not sure why I ranted on, your second paragraph just seemed to bug me. Must be lack of caffeine and I might be hungry

I just had a Moro and coffee. I highly recommend the combo

castletownman

In my line of work I will do anything, as long as it doesn't involve having sex with old ladies for money or bear traps.

anncoates

Last time I checked, my bank doesn't take ethics as payment for the mortgage or my kids can't eat them.

B.A._Baracus

anncoates wrote: »

Last time I checked, my bank doesn't take ethics as payment for the mortgage or my kids can't eat them.

Well said.

Baggy Trousers

c_man wrote: »

I was talking to a friend there, who's an electronic engineer in the UK, and he was telling me about some recent difficulties at work. Namely he refused to work on a new project which was for the military. Apparently he got a lot of flak, and it got me thinking what are your ethics in your profession, or has it even entered your mind? Is there an area/role which you would refuse to do? Would ye judge a co-worker who refused to work on something which you were involved in?

Personally, like him I would never work on military stuff. I asked some co-workers at lunch and there was an interesting cross section of thoughts on the matter. Some industries (*cough* finance *cough*) seem to bring out the worst in people's professional ethics, or maybe the industry itself that attracts some people.

Excuse the pun right?

Antar Bolaeisk

I wouldn't work on a project, the result of which was a tool to that existed to kill people, even if that tool, in the right hands, could prevent further death.

I would have no problem working on a military project so long as it was of a non-lethal nature and couldn't be used to inflict suffering on others.

I also couldn't work in an environment that utilised animals for testing purposes though I can appreciate the necessity of such practices in the field of medicine.

c_man

anncoates wrote: »

Last time I checked, my bank doesn't take ethics as payment for the mortgage or my kids can't eat them.

Whilst I get your point, I feel it's pretty short sighted. Kids aren't brought up on food alone (and let's be honest this is Ireland, your kids won't starve). Would you work on something which you think would lead to a poorer future world (something like environmental damage etc.) in which your children would live?

Gongoozler

Ah, I do what I'm paid to do, I don't get to choose.

Can't imagine there's a whole lot of people out there where this is something they have to consider.

castletownman wrote: »

In my line of work I will do anything, as long as it doesn't involve having sex with old ladies for money or bear traps.

Why would you be paid in bear traps?

kirving

Some of the thought that goes into designing the business end of weapons systems is absolutely sick. As an engineer I just couldn't sit there all day trying to come up with the optimum way to kill someone, whether they're a terrorist or not.

The fact is though, something like an infrared camera can be used to find people in a lifeboat, or an enemy, so it's very difficult to pick and choose your work based on morals.

KomradeBishop

Would anyone who has a "so long as it's not illegal to do business with them" approach to ethics, have ethical issues doing business with the chemical company Bayer, who used slave labour from Auschwitz in WWII, and at the time was part of the same company that manufactured Zyklon B, which was used to kill prisoners in the Holocaust? (plus, they also invented Heroin)

Found that with just a couple minutes Googling - probably more interesting stuff to find, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_the_Holocaust

pharmaton

I have incredibly restrictive ethics. My fcuking stupid desire to seek out fairness, equality and justice prevents me from getting priddy much every most jobs. (there still may be a few places that aren't completely corrupt, which also don't require you to be corrupted)

Jawgap

c_man wrote: »

I was talking to a friend there, who's an electronic engineer in the UK, and he was telling me about some recent difficulties at work. Namely he refused to work on a new project which was for the military. Apparently he got a lot of flak, and it got me thinking what are your ethics in your profession, or has it even entered your mind? Is there an area/role which you would refuse to do? Would ye judge a co-worker who refused to work on something which you were involved in?

Personally, like him I would never work on military stuff. I asked some co-workers at lunch and there was an interesting cross section of thoughts on the matter. Some industries (*cough* finance *cough*) seem to bring out the worst in people's professional ethics, or maybe the industry itself that attracts some people.

tldr; is there anything legal (or indeed on the grey side of the legal interpretation) which is relatively common among your peers, for which you'd refuse to do if asked by your boss?

But you post using the internet

oppenheimer1

The company I used to work for refused work in certain middle Eastern countries due to the treatment of women in those places.

They did eventually cave since the option was sell out or go bust.

UCDVet

I dunno - I work in finance now and I feel like it's the MOST ethical job I've ever had.

Maybe it's because we don't deal with other people's money - we don't have any fast-talking salesmen trying to get your life savings so we can invest it for you.

Each day we try to make money by buying and selling things. We trade with other firms like us (I don't know that we've ever traded with an actual person, just other companies) or we trade on exchanges. In any case, the rules are all there, a combination of legal requirements and rules set by the exchanges. Everyone playing has to meet the rules. Anything not expressly disallowed, is fair game.

No lying, no cheating. We make money because we do a good job of buying and selling things. The people we buy from are happy, the people we sell to are happy, and we make money. Anyone could do the same thing.

Before this I worked on Tax Software that was sold to local governments (not in Ireland). *THAT* was pretty unethical. First, we did all sorts of shady things - we had sales teams that would lie, we'd also buddy up to the committee that would decide what software the tax payers would be purchasing. In many cases, after someone on said committee pushed really hard to get us to be selected, we'd hire them. They'd do nothing, and we'd pay them, because they got us a million euro contract.

The company eventually got sued after the sales team told too many lies. The company had managed to rack up 30 million in debt and declared bankruptcy. Then, as if that wasn't all bad enough, in bankruptcy, another company came in and bought the failing company out.

It's the same building, in the same town, with 70% of the same employees, but the bankruptcy basically let them get a fresh start. The CEO made herself rich as f*** and while she's not actively involved in the company, I have seen her house and knowing that it was obtained through (what I consider to be) fraud and running a company 30 million into debt is insane. And I helped by working for her. That's unethical.

I'd take finance over that any day.

Gmol

I wouldn't have anything to do with the S*n. I would leave if our company had anything to do with it.

UCDVet

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Would anyone who has a "so long as it's not illegal to do business with them" approach to ethics, have ethical issues doing business with the chemical company Bayer, who used slave labour from Auschwitz in WWII, and at the time was part of the same company that manufactured Zyklon B, which was used to kill prisoners in the Holocaust? (plus, they also invented Heroin)

Found that with just a couple minutes Googling - probably more interesting stuff to find, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_the_Holocaust

I can only speak for myself but....I wouldn't mind working for Bayer now

I mean, that's kind of like saying everyone who has a job in Germany and pays taxes is supporting the German government/German army. And the German Army killed millions, tried to exterminate entire races, and was just all sorts of crazy....

While those things did happen, it doesn't mean it reflects the current goals of the country/company.

Maybe I'm just naive, or greedy or both...but I can't really imagine a case where I'd quit or not take a job because of ethical concerns over legal activities. Maybe there are a few cases where I'd be like, 'No - that's too much, I'd quit' but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Would anyone who has a "so long as it's not illegal to do business with them" approach to ethics, have ethical issues doing business with the chemical company Bayer, who used slave labour from Auschwitz in WWII, and at the time was part of the same company that manufactured Zyklon B, which was used to kill prisoners in the Holocaust? (plus, they also invented Heroin)

Found that with just a couple minutes Googling - probably more interesting stuff to find, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_the_Holocaust

If they had a job that suited me I wouldn't hesitate in applying and working for them. It's nonsensical refusing to do business with a company over something that happened decades ago. Hugo Boss made nazi uniforms but that doesn't bother me when I buy a nice t-shirt they make today.

On the topic of the op I've never faced anything at work that I had to think twice about so I don't know if or what would test my ethics. Working on something military I would see as being kind of cool rather than something to turn down.

anncoates

c_man wrote: »

Whilst I get your point, I feel it's pretty short sighted. Kids aren't brought up on food alone (and let's be honest this is Ireland, your kids won't starve). Would you work on something which you think would lead to a poorer future world (something like environmental damage etc.) in which your children would live?

To be fair, I sounded like I'd work at anything which isn't true.

Id see refusing to do something like working on a concentration camp or a tabloid journalist destroying people's lives as an ethical issue. I'd see working for a company, whose products might include munitions, as more a lifestyle choice, much the same as boycotting a country like Israel.

I don't disagree with the production of weapons per se, just with some of the people that use them.

c_man

Jawgap wrote: »

But you post using the internet

I think most people can see the difference between technology born under military investment research and development, which has long since entered the civilian sector and matured under same, and working on current products designed to kill.

I'm pretty sure a hell of a lot of what I take for granted these days originated in use for armies, from medical stuff and techniques to technologies to ways and means of running logistics. That doesn't mean I'm a hypocrite for not working on some software guidance system for a missile for instance.

I'm not some fanatic for gods sake, I just don't think that I personally would feel right about working on it.

KomradeBishop

UCDVet wrote: »

I dunno - I work in finance now and I feel like it's the MOST ethical job I've ever had.

Maybe it's because we don't deal with other people's money - we don't have any fast-talking salesmen trying to get your life savings so we can invest it for you.

Each day we try to make money by buying and selling things. We trade with other firms like us (I don't know that we've ever traded with an actual person, just other companies) or we trade on exchanges. In any case, the rules are all there, a combination of legal requirements and rules set by the exchanges. Everyone playing has to meet the rules. Anything not expressly disallowed, is fair game.

No lying, no cheating. We make money because we do a good job of buying and selling things. The people we buy from are happy, the people we sell to are happy, and we make money. Anyone could do the same thing.

The entire financial industry today, is basically receiving massively subsidized profits/wages, due to Quantitative Easing, and how that is pumping enormous amounts of money into commodities that the financial industry is making an absolute killing on - at the expense of the rest of society. Ethical my arse tbh.


A frequent comment you hear, is that the various bank bailouts that countries performed, was one of the most massive redistributions of wealth ever - almost like the redistribution is a done thing - except it's not over yet, we're still undergoing an enormous redistribution of wealth, from the rest of society to the wealthy - and the financial industry + QE is the focal point of the 'upward' part of this redistribution.

We have budget-balancing + austerity policies, removing money from economies when aggregate demand requires it more than ever - causing a huge removal of wealth from everyday society - and we have Quantitative Easing dumping huge amounts of money into commodities, which the financial industry are effectively receiving a gigantic subsidy from.


Every single person working in a financial company that is profiting from QE's effects on commodities, is benefiting through wages, from one of the most massive redistributions of wealth from rest of society to the wealthy, in history; nothing ethical about that.

People need not quit their jobs, but they should at the very least, be aware of what they're profiting from.

fannymagee

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Would anyone who has a "so long as it's not illegal to do business with them" approach to ethics, have ethical issues doing business with the chemical company Bayer, who used slave labour from Auschwitz in WWII, and at the time was part of the same company that manufactured Zyklon B, which was used to kill prisoners in the Holocaust? (plus, they also invented Heroin)

Found that with just a couple minutes Googling - probably more interesting stuff to find, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_the_Holocaust

I used to work for that company. One day somebody told me over a cup of tea, that Bayer used to supply gas to the Nazis. That was it- I couldn't work for them any more, and I had a new job within the month. I've also refused to work on projects involving psychiatric drugs, and I refuse to work anywhere that encourages the use of electroconvulsive therapy for patients.

My ethical stance has cost me money, but it means I can sleep at night ;-)

Jawgap

c_man wrote: »

I think most people can see the difference between technology born under military investment research and development, which has long since entered the civilian sector and matured under same, and working on current products designed to kill.

I'm pretty sure a hell of a lot of what I take for granted these days originated in use for armies, from medical stuff and techniques to technologies to ways and means of running logistics. That doesn't mean I'm a hypocrite for not working on some software guidance system for a missile for instance.

I'm not some fanatic for gods sake, I just don't think that I personally would feel right about working on it.

The amount of dual use technology floating around combined with hybridisation of war, means it's almost impossible to not be working on something that has actual or potential military utility.

c_man

Jawgap wrote: »

The amount of dual use technology floating around combined with hybridisation of war, means it's almost impossible to not be working on something that has actual or potential military utility.

To be fair, that's complete bollox. I can 100% guarantee you that what I work on, does not operate on any direct killing machine*. Which is all I've said. Honestly, why are people so fixated on this?

I think I should have amended the story to be about an engineer and some dodgy, bribed through government environmentally disastrous project. You say 'military' and you can already hear the cries of 'internet', 'pentium chips' etc.



*if it did run on them it might be better for the world, none of the bloody things would work

Jawgap

c_man wrote: »

To be fair, that's complete bollox. I can 100% guarantee you that what I work on, does not operate on any direct killing machine*. Which is all I've said. Honestly, why are people so fixated on this?

I think I should have amended the story to be about an engineer and some dodgy, bribed through government environmentally disastrous project. You say 'military' and you can already hear the cries of 'internet', 'pentium chips' etc.



*if it did run on them it might be better for the world, none of the bloody things would work

Because ethics is not absolute - any job can be situated in an ethical framework that highlights a downside.

RDM_83 again

fannymagee wrote: »

I used to work for that company. One day somebody told me over a cup of tea, that Bayer used to supply gas to the Nazis. That was it- I couldn't work for them any more, and I had a new job within the month. I've also refused to work on projects involving psychiatric drugs, and I refuse to work anywhere that encourages the use of electroconvulsive therapy for patients.

My ethical stance has cost me money, but it means I can sleep at night ;-)

All psychiatric drugs and all electroconvulsive therapy? Things can be positive if used correctly

c_man

Jawgap wrote: »

Because ethics is not absolute - any job can be situated in an ethical framework that highlights a downside.

Yes... which is what the thread is about... Where do you in your job/career draw the line, or even do you, and why. As Omar said, every man's gotta have a code.

fannymagee

RDM_83 again wrote: »

All psychiatric drugs and all electroconvulsive therapy? Things can be positive if used correctly

Yes I agree, but in practice they're often not used correctly, so they're definitely not for me. Plus I find it really disturbing to watch ECT.

My work is guided by a strict code of conduct and is subject to pre-emptive and continuous scrutiny by an ethics committee. Wouldn't have it any other way, in accord as it is with my personal principles.

Merrion

c_man wrote: »

Apparently he got a lot of flak

Literally or metaphorically?

osarusan

One thing I can remember is from a few years ago. There was a student who had reached his time limit at the university - if he didn't get the credits needed from my course, he would simply not be able to graduate and have to leave.

So he did what he'd been doing the previous 7 years, which was next to nothing, if he even turned up. At the end I failed him, and was called in to be 'persuaded' that I should pass him. I was happy to do so, but only if I was able to write something like 'administrative reasons' as the reason for changing. The department wanted me to make the change for 'academic reason', meaning that he actually deserved to pass the course.

It developed into something of a impasse, until finally they relented.

It was funny though - a different time I failed somebody by mistake (mistook the name for another student in a class). That student rightly appealed the decision, and I went to change the grade, but it was quite difficult because the same people in the same department were insisting that it could only be done if there was a valid academic reason for doing so, and wanted to ensure that I wasn't doing it just to make life easier for myself/the student.

pushkii

No matter how much money perks etc I would receive I would never work for a company who makes baby formula or any job that promotes the use of same.

DoYouEvenLift

Personally, I'd love to get involved in anything that gets lots of money easily from fools. Nothing more satisfying than getting paid by the average idiot who just throws away their money without thought. Marketing something sh!t but successful like magazines or websites about celebrities would be a good laugh, I'd honestly have total satisfaction just from the knowledge that there are actually fukin idiots buying the sh!t we put out.

Online personal training/diet plans is also good. Just charge a ridiculous fee, which idiots seriously pay for, and just copy and paste the same general plans for everyone. This happens as well, a guy in NZ just bought a Lamborghini because of this lmao.

pushkii

pushkii wrote: »

No matter how much money perks etc I would receive I would never work for a company who makes baby formula or any job that promotes the use of same.

Why on earth not? Ireland is one of the worlds biggest baby formula makers, we make more the 20% of the worlds formula and it's something to be proud of. Shows how good our dairy industry is.

Baby formula is also vital.

DoYouEvenLift

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Personally, I'd love to get involved in anything that gets lots of money easily from fools. Nothing more satisfying than getting paid by the average idiot who just throws away their money without thought. Marketing something sh!t but successful like magazines or websites about celebrities would be a good laugh, I'd honestly have total satisfaction just from the knowledge that there are actually fukin idiots buying the sh!t we put out.

Online personal training/diet plans is also good. Just charge a ridiculous fee, which idiots seriously pay for, and just copy and paste the same general plans for everyone. This happens as well, a guy in NZ just bought a Lamborghini because of this lmao.

So basically, ethics aren't a big concern of yours?

minidazzler

I'm under a legal obligation to not over serve people alcohol in my job, and I strictly won't. To the point that I've taken a drink off of people and refunded their money because I thought a coworker shouldn't have served them... The co worker, young and stupid, thought I was just trying to undermine him, but the customer could barely talk.

It sounds like something mpnormal, but it's surprising the amount of people you work with who don't care that they are putting peoples health at risk when they just transfer a drink from a broken or cracked glass to a fresh one... I've had full arguments with people about this. Who couldn't see that they were wrong because "the glass broke outward".