Fluent Essays

Homework 1: Read the article by Vivian Wang (Attached) and summarize the content of the article you read. Homework 2: Read “Was it Piracy or Privacy” (Attached) and answer the questions: · What do you think Gwen should have done? · Which alternative would you choose (Just give number) and why? · Have you ever encountered a situation like this? Read “Santa in the Summer” (Attached) and answer the questions: · Under the circumstances, is Rod obligated to say anything about the gifts to anyone and, if so, to whom and when? · Which alternative would you choose (toy can just give the number) and why? · Have you encountered a situation like this? Santa in the Summer (Case 1024) The mission of the National Institute for Engineering Ethics (NIEE) is to promote ethics in engineering practice and education. One component of NIEE is the Applied Ethics in Professional Practice (AEPP) program, providing free engineering ethics cases for educational purposes. The following case may be reprinted if it is provided free of charge to the engineer or student. Written permission is required if the case is reprinted for resale. For more cases and other NIEE Products & Services, contact the National Institute for Engineering Ethics, Texas Tech University, www.niee.org .. (All reprints must contain these statements) The Case: Rod Traverse is a civil engineering student at a well-known university in the mid-west. Because he did well in his surveying course during his junior year, he is working for the summer before his senior year for the state Department of Transportation (DOT) on a road construction project 140 miles from his hometown. His duties include working closely with the states on-site resident engineer, Jim Upwright and several other state highway construction engineers for the project. Ethel Hicks (known to her friends as “Eth”) is Upwright’s supervisor at the DOT headquarters and visits the site every couple of weeks to see how the project is progressing. Every Friday afternoon about 4:00 p.m., Rod and the DOT engineers get into their cars or trucks to drive home for the weekend. Since he works a good bit of the time reducing survey data and keeping records in the states construction trailer, Rod has noticed individual foremen for the three separate bridge contractors working on the project putting a box or other article in the back of the resident engineers pickup truck about 3:30 p.m. on most Fridays. These boxes and articles have included a new set of tires, a mountain bike, a case of Duggans Dew o’ Kirkintilloch Scotch whiskey, and a shotgun. There are several more bridge structures to be designed and built under another contract for the project. Upwright will be asked to make comments and give recommendations regarding the three bridge contractors presently on the project, if they show interest in obtaining the additional work. Since Rods work is part of a summer credit course program at the university, Upwright will also be required to communicate with Rods advisor at school (Dr. R. E. Serchur) and recommend an appropriate grade for Rod’s summer work course. Under the circumstances, is Rod obligated to say anything about the gifts to anyone, and if so, to whom and when? Alternate Approaches for “Santa in the Summer” (Case 1024) 1. Rod is only a summer hire and should keep his nose out of things that are none of his business. He has heard that things like this happen on some construction projects. The last thing he wants is to jeopardize his chances for a good grade in the summer work course, which could impact his job opportunities the following spring when he graduates. 2. Rod should contact his faculty advisor, R. E. Serchur, over the weekend and ask for his advice about the most appropriate course of action, if any, he should take. 3. Rod should approach one of the bridge contractor foremen to try to clarify the facts of the situation through them, before confronting Upwright (perhaps the items in the pickup truck were intended for charity or they may be purchasing items that Upwright wants at a discount and Upwright is reimbursing them for the cost of each item). 4. Rod should send an anonymous letter to “Eth” Hicks in guise of a taxpayer who frequently observes things on the project, and has noted the apparent transfer of gifts from contractor personnel to a pickup truck with a license plate number that coincides with that of Upwright’s pickup. The letter should suggest that these actions appear improper and should be looked into. 5. Rod should discretely inquire of someone in the DOT who is not connected with the project what the policy is with respect to DOT personnel accepting gifts from contractors. If it is against DOT policy, then Rod should blow the whistle to “Eth” Hicks. 6. Rod should ask Upwright directly about what has transpired with the contractors’ foremen and explain that while nothing wrong may be occurring, the appearance of impropriety exists to the casual observer. 7. Rod should approach one of the contractor’s foremen and mention how nice it would be to have a Bose Lifestyle 20 sound system to put in his fraternity room during the ensuing college year. 8. Rod should photograph the Friday gifts for a few weeks with dates, times and the license plate on Upwright’s pickup clearly visible. He should show Upwright copies of these photos, emphasizing how practical Rod’s summer job is, then suggest that his efforts surely deserve an A grade and a glowing recommendation for his university file. 9. Rod has no control over the situation. He should leave the construction project as soon as possible and take an incomplete in the summer work course, so that he won’t be included as part of the situation should anything happen (someone blows the whistle) before the summer has ended. WAS THAT “PIRACY” OR “PRIVACY”? (Case 1031) The mission of the National Institute for Engineering Ethics (NIEE) is to promote ethics in engineering practice and education. One component of NIEE is the Applied Ethics in Professional Practice (AEPP) program, providing free engineering ethics cases for educational purposes. The following case may be reprinted if it is provided free of charge to the engineer or student. Written permission is required if the case is reprinted for resale. For more cases and other NIEE Products & Services, contact the National Institute for Engineering Ethics, Texas Tech University, www.niee.org .. (All reprints must contain these statements) The Case: Lawrence, the managing principal of NorthLink Consultants, is pleased at his firms’ new information technology (IT) capabilities. Knowing that effective use of IT offers a strategic competitive advantage in the marketplace, Lawrence observes an increase in cooperation on projects and the office is using much less paper for memos and policy directives. The company web site is growing as staff, engineers and clients contribute to the site. Lawrence, however, worries that several employees are spending an excessive amount of time on email. He suspects that much of this email activity is directed at family and friends on the Internet and outside the firm. He had reminded the employees of NorthLink’s policy which states that email is for company business and emails are considered part of the firm’s property. Still, Lawrence feels that there is way too much time when employees are emailing in inappropriate ways. He approaches his systems engineer, Gwen, with a question. Since all the computers are connected on the computer network, could she access the employees’ email files on their PCs? Gwen replies that such an examination of the files on the PC workstations is possible. Her own feelings, however, are that such an attempt to reach out and touch the users’ PCs would be a breach of trust. In fact, some employees might be so offended with this intrusion of privacy that they would leave the firm. Lawrence responds that company policy clearly informs employees that the email files are the property of the firm. They should understand that it is part of his supervisory responsibility to see that they use the email properly. Gwen argues that employees might well use the email to talk about issues that they do not want management to see. These may be legitimate company issues, but are not meant to be shared with the management. Adamant in his resolve, Lawrence states (as he walks out of Gwen’s office) that, by tomorrow evening, he expects to be able to access all of the email files on each of the PCs. Gwen is very disturbed. This policy will open up communications she feels should be regarded as private except when some formal legal decision requires them to be opened. However, since it is her job she knows she cannot refuse to perform a technical change in the system, and she feels she must allow Lawrence access by tomorrow evening. Question: What should Gwen do? NOTE: This case is based on “Reach Out and Touch Someone” by the Public Administration at the University of Arkansas, and is used with permission. Alternate Approaches for “Was That “Piracy” Or “Privacy”?” (Case 1031) 1. Comply, willingly. Gwen should do what she is told. NorthLink employees are using company equipment to make personal email transmittals and doing so on company time, despite having been informed that doing so is against company policy. They have no reason to complain, nor should Gwen complain or feel uncomfortable about following her supervisor’s orders. 2. Comply, reluctantly. Gwen should stifle her conscience and abide by Lawrence’s request. She does not have the responsibility for strategic vision, running the company, or any other business decision, and should not insert herself into that process. Lawrence is in charge of this section and responsible for implementing company policy as it pertains to IT activities. Times are tough and she needs the job. After all, Gwen is not the one spending company time on private business. 3. Refuse, flatly. Gwen should refuse to access the email files for Lawrence in the manner he has requested on the basis that his action is unethical. Further, she should inform Lawrence that she is prepared to resign if he forces the issue. 4. Refuse, conditionally. Gwen should refuse to access the email files for Lawrence in the manner he has requested on the basis that his action may not be legal. Further, she should inform Lawrence that she will not access the files without express written approval from the human resources department, the employee union, and the firms legal department. 5. Analyze, carefully. Since she has access to the employee email files, Gwen should offer to do a confidential analysis for Lawrence of the email files to determine the apparent volume of personal messages, as well as which employees seem to be using the system the most for personal emails, but she will not review the nature or content of any of the messages. 6. Document, clearly. Gwen should help Lawrence put together a brief agreement form for each employee to read and sign that reiterates the company’s policy regarding the use of its equipment and time for personal email communications, and which clearly states that the employee agrees that the company has the right to review employee email communications on a random, unannounced basis, for compliance with the policy. 7. Monitor, quietly. Gwen should propose an option to Lawrence that instead of trying to read the emails, she can install a clandestine tracking system that keeps a daily log of internal and external email volume (sent and received) by individuals. This system will provide weekly reports of email activity to Lawrence, which he can use to manage IT resources and activities. 8. Monitor, openly. Gwen, as administrator, should suggest that she monitor the email of those employees who are putting the most strain on the email system and, if the email is not related to company business, counsel them privately to cut it out or risk the loss of their job. Prior to setting her on this course of action, Lawrence should announce to the staff that, in accordance with the Company Policy, email will be read and individuals engaging in email correspondence unrelated to Company business will be subject to the written corrective action policy (counseling, warning, formal reprimand, suspension, termination). All discipline above counseling would be performed by Lawrence and/or his partners. 9. Inform, quickly. Gwen should quietly inform all employees of Lawrences abrupt decision, immediately, and suggest that individuals clean out their email files so as to not face Lawrences ire. She should note the date and time of Lawrences remarks to her, and, for her own file only, reasons for her opposition. 10. Download, surreptitiously. Gwen should realize that this is the perfect opportunity to see how the firm’s partners, including Lawrence, spend their email times. After making sure that her own email box is clean as a whistle, she should make a copy of each manager’s inbox for perusal later, since you never know when this type of information might come in handy.