Handing Employee Attitude at Workplace (Case study)

/0 Comments/in /by

It’s just not fair
JoAnne Martin is a manager in the environmental services department at Lake Simon Healthcare System in one of the states along the Great Lakes. Lake Simon Healthcare is a large healthcare system with small inpatient and outpatient facilities in several counties in the state. She has been with the health system for 25 years, starting as a casual call housekeeper (working p.r.n. whenever they needed her) and worked her way into the manager role. She is a “hands on” manager and works as hard as or harder than her staff. Her staff adores her because she “gets her hands dirty” and is compassionate to their work and family needs.
Martha and Lydia are employees in the department of Lake Simon Healthcare at the Central Rock location in a mid size community in the region. They both have a serious health diagnosis (well, this should be confidential, but things get around) and have filed FMLA paperwork with the need for occasional work restrictions due to the health issues.
Martha has been with the health system for 30 years – since it was a small community hospital – and is viewed as a dedicated and knowledgeable employee. New employees gravitate to Martha because she will help anyone learn the intricacies of the job duties; in fact she is known as “mom” in the department. Martha has a serious disease that may require an eventual liver transplant.
Lydia has worked at the health system for 8 years has been battling breast cancer for the last 3 years. Lydia is fun loving and a jokester. She is the social planner in the department, rallying the employees for retirement parties, baby showers, 60th birthdays, etc. Although ill for a couple of years, she is positive, encouraging and supportive of others.  Other employees seek out Lydia when they need a hug or some encouraging words and she is the first person to volunteer to help out by covering another employee’s shift if she is able to do so.
Both of these ladies rarely miss work and do as much as they can within the restrictions they have; in fact both of them usually step over the line on occasion working beyond their restrictions to help out when the staffing is short or the patient census is high and beds need to be turned over quickly.  When they need time off for surgery or other medical treatments for their illnesses, there’s no shortage of people who are willing to cover for them or donate vacation time to help them through their leave.
Betty is also an employee in the environmental services department at Central Rock and occasional relief supervisor. Betty has had a variety of treatments over the 10 years she has worked for the system, most often for her fibromyalgia and blood clotting disorders and is routinely on intermittent FMLA leave. She also has many work restrictions and cannot stand, walk, etc. without some element of pain. Although Betty is a good worker, she is not one that is sought out as frequently as Martha and Lydia. Betty has a tendency to move slowly, complain a bit about her health and family issues, and not go above and beyond in her job duties.  Last year when preparing for a re-licensing visit from the state Department of Health, JoAnne spoke at a staff meeting and reminded the staff of the upcoming visit.
JoAnne: “The Department of Health will be arriving on Monday and we need to make sure all of the hallways and stairways are clean, especially the baseboards and in the corners.”
Martha: “I am working the weekend and will make sure that the hallways and stairways in the north wings are all up to snuff. Sally and Joe are here too; they’ll help.”
JoAnne: “Great.”
Betty: “I can’t do more than I already do. It’s all I can do to get my own work done by the end of the shift and my doctor won’t let me do too much.”
At this, some of the other employees rolled their eyes and started snickering.
Lydia: “We can do this folks. We’ve done this before. Remember last time they were here, they gave us a good recommendation because they said the place was really clean.”
JoAnne: “That’s right. Let’s all pull together and make this place sparkle!”
Lydia: “And then we’ll have a party.”
Wanda is also an employee at the same location. Wanda is negative and complains a great deal about the administration, the work load and other people not pulling their share of the work. She has a lot of family issues and other employees have come to JoAnne to say that Wanda needs to spend more time working and less time “sharing”. Wanda is a member of Betty’s church and says that she “always” sees Betty helping out at the monthly church supper. Wanda never fails to mention this fact at the break table and the “department at Central Rock is always in an uproar” when Betty works the church supper or takes FMLA time off. Besides, according to Wanda, Martha and Lydia “are the ones who are really sick.” Wanda doesn’t think that Betty working the church supper while she is using FMLA time is “fair”. Wanda has been counseled in the past about her negative attitude and not completing her work in a timely manner.  Just last month, JoAnne spoke to Wanda about this.
JoAnne: “Yesterday, you were seen in the break room well past your 30 minute lunch. I was told that you were complaining about administration. I’ve told you that we are all on the same team here and that you need to have a more positive attitude.”
Wanda: “Why do you care what I say…? It’s a free country. I can say what I want as long as I do my work.”
JoAnne: “Well, that’s part of the problem. You are not getting your work done by the end of your shift and the next shift has to pick up and finish your work, or I have to do it before I leave for the day.”
Wanda: “That’s not fair. What about the others in the department who call off when they’re not really sick and we have to cover for them!”
JoAnne: “Wanda, I am not going to discuss other employees. You need to complete your own job duties by the end of the shift and I don’t want to hear any more issues about your negativity.”
Betty called in sick today asking to use FMLA time; according to the rumor mill, she worked the church supper last night. Wanda has been counseled in the past about her negative attitude, again today the other employees in the department are tense and gossiping (JoAnne can hear them whispering) because of Wanda’s comments to them. JoAnne knows that Wanda will be coming to her sometime during the shift to complain once again, that this situation with Betty is not fair…. She mumbles to herself, “What am I going to say to her this time? I just want this nonsense to stop.”

  1. How should JoAnne handle Wanda? Betty?
  2. What can she do under the FMLA? Is Betty violating the FMLA? HINT you may need to do some additional research on the Department of Labor website (dol.gov)

to justify your answers.

Norwegian Air (Case study)

/0 Comments/in /by
After reading case study about Norwegian Air, answer the following questions.

  1. Norwegian challenges many of the accepted practices in international aviation. What are these practices?
  2. What action can the European Commission take to support Norwegian in its bid to fly to the US?
  3. What competition does Norwegian face crossing the Atlantic and how are they likely to respond if the US DOT approves their application?

Human Resource Management Functions (Case Study)

/0 Comments/in /by

Read the case study below about SMU Shoes and answer the questions about HRM functions
SMU Shoes Ltd.
SMU Shoes Ltd. is a medium-sized manufacturer of leather and vinyl shoes located in Halifax, Nova Scotia. It was started in 1973 and currently employs about 500 persons in its Halifax plant and some 200 more in offices and warehouses throughout eastern Canada. In recent months, the company has been experiencing a number of challenges and problems. Added to these was the departure of John McAllister, the company’s human resource manager, two weeks ago. McAllister had been with the company for a little over three years and was reputed to have “run a tight ship”.
Robert Clark, president and a major shareholder of SMU Shoes, decided to re-evaluate the role of the company’s human resource manager before hiring a new person. Tim Lance, a graduate of Saint Mary’s University and now the chief executive and owner of Productivity Systems, a management consulting operation located in Sydney, was hired to “look into the present and future role of SMU Shoes Ltd.’s human resource department and suggest appropriate action plans to improve its contribution to the organization and help the company meet its future challenges”.
Views of the Senior Managers
Lance began his assignment by interviewing the senior managers of SMU Shoes. He made a short checklist of questions to prepare for his interview with the managers (see Figure 1). He was, however, determined not to restrict his interview to these questions. By keeping an informal and free-flowing format, he felt he could obtain a better understanding of the structure, processes, and culture of the organization. His intent, therefore, was to use these questions as a springboard for letting the interviewee speak out and pursue any point that he or she might consider relevant. Lance was able to meet three of the five “key” managers in the company. Figure 2 shows a chain of command in the company in 2013. At the time, Lance conducted his study, Andre Cardin, manager (Design & Research) was away on holidays. Lance was also not able to have an interview with the production manager as he was on trips to Montreal and Toronto investigating the potential of expanding the company’s operations to those cities. Lance felt that the half-hour interview with Robert Clark (interrupted by three or four phone calls on “urgent matters that unexpectedly arose”) was totally inadequate for his purpose. However, Clark was due to leave town the next day and Lance could not wait until Clark’s return to proceed with his study.
Going through his notes, Lance realized that the human resource function was viewed very differently by the three senior managers to whom he spoke. “I believe we need a mover and a shaker here”, Clark told him. “McAllister was all right, but he did not have the time or inclination to have a good system in place. He made most of the human resource decisions himself. I’m not saying that they weren’t correct decisions for those  occasions, but he wasn’t a popular man with either the workers or several managers here. And as you know, this is one job where you need a lot of rapport with people at all levels.”
Some of the excerpts from Lance’s interview with Clark are given below:
“I believe that the new person should be able to work with the people. In fact, not simply working with the people but leading them. He or she should be able to look beyond today’s needs…into the technological and other challenges that face this company and our managers in the new millennium…”
“The future of SMU Shoes? I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, shoes are something that everyone needs – every day, every week, and all through their lives. Also, most persons don’t mind buying an extra pair if the price is right. But, there’s the catch. It’s a pretty competitive market and what we so here and how well we do it depends quite a bit on how good our competitors are. To succeed, we need to have a clear market segment, control our costs, and meet our customer’s needs. Two of our brands, which were leaders in the eastern Canadian shoe market are facing intense competition from products manufactured in China, Indonesia and Korea.The currency crisis in Asia (especially in Korea and Indonesia) can both hurt and help us. On the one hand, the prices of the imported shoes are getting cheaper by the day, thus cutting into our markets. The other side of it is that Western investments in these countries may slow down – at least in the short run. This means that we have breathing time right now to cope with this onslaught…So, all in all…who knows”
“The most immediate problem? I should say we have two  pressing issues: first, we have to upgrade out production processes if we are to improve our efficiency and competitiveness. I personally believe that we have more employees than we need. If we could automate many of the production processes, we could improve the efficiency and reduce costs. But that is easier said than done. We have strong unions, and firing someone is going to be awfully hard in the future. At the same time, the reality is that no customer is going to  pay15 or 20 percent extra for our shoes if we cannot give a damn good reason for that. With the free trade worldwide, the market is flooded with Asian and South American products. We simply cannot compete with the Chinese and the Mexicans on the labour costs…Our survival may very well depend on technological upgrading and improving worker productivity.”
“A second and related issue is dealing with unions. We have four major unions and I would term two of them as militant. Actually our workers are pretty good – many of them have been with us for several years now – it’s the union leadership that’s causing much of the problem. The new human resource manager hired has to be tough with the unions, yet caring and understanding. In the last three or four years, union-management relations have gone from bad to worse. We have to turn a new leaf now or else all of us will sink.”
The response’s to Lance’s questions from the other two senior managers at SMU Shoes were varied. Excerpts from  his interview with Tim McDonald, general manager of Finance, are given below.
“I don’t think human resource management is the most critical activity in the management of a shoe company”. McDonald told him. “True, we have to pay the employees adequately and there must be a system for keeping records. But, beyond that, I don’t think that the human resource department has anything major to offer that has a significant impact on an organization’s working. What we should really focus on now is how to control our cots and come out with a sound marketing program. We especially need a good advertising program; we need to hire competent sales staff and upgrade the skills of the present sales force”.
“The human resource department here hasn’t done much, if you ask me. They haven’t had any input into job design or organizational planning. Part of the problem stems from the fact that there has been little continuity in that department. A typical manager in the human resource department stays for a maximum of three years before he moves out. Neither McAllister nor his predecessor stayed in the company for five years. Tony Rezkov, the manager in charge of administration and security, is new; so are several other junior officers and staff in the department…I do believe that there is a problem there…”
“Oh, don’t get me wrong. The human resource department staff are very friendly and cooperative. McAllister had a few rough edges, but overall, he was someone whom I grew to like. He was one of those tough guys – straight out of a John Wayne movie. He made fast decisions and was sort of a trouble shooter here”.
“The big challenge? Global competition of course. We’d better be prepared to meet the Koreans, the Chinese, and the Mexicans. Unless we maintain our competitiveness, we are just not going to survive. It’s as simple as that”.
“Of course, global free trade also brings with it a great opportunity. NAFTA gave us access to a market now that is several times the size of our local market. Freer trade in Asia and Eastern Europe will do the same…..But can we make use of this opportunity? That’s the big question.”
Pat Lim, general manager, Marketing, had a somewhat different vision of the role of the human resource department:
“It’s probably one of the most important functions in this company.” Lim told Lance. “In my university days, I was taught that human resources are the single most important asset of any organization. After working for nearly twenty-five years in the management area, I’ve grown to realize how true that statement is. In my mind, people make all the difference. You can have all the resources you want, but in the absence of good employees, all those resources are worthless. The human resource department is the backbone of employee relations”.
“What do I expect from the human resource department? Quite a lot, I should say. I believe that the department can play a leadership and developmental role. Until now, it has played a somewhat low-key, record-keeping, staff role. It’s time that the department got involved seriously in employee planning, job redesign, career planning, organizational design, and other developmental activities. Gone are the times when it could simply play a support role. Look at all the successful companies in this country and the U.S., especially those that are listed in books such as In Search of Excellence. It’s the people and people management that differentiate them from the common crop”.
“The new human resource manager should be an expert – an expert on systems and people. We need new ideas here, and with a growing work force we need more formal procedures and systems, whether it’s orientation or performance appraisal. Right now, many of the human resource functions are done on an ad hoc basis.”
“Above everything else, I believe that the new human resource manager needs to bring a new philosophy to deal with the unions. In the last several months, there has been an increasing degree of hostility between the unions and management. I’m not blaming anyone for this. But I do believe that we as part of the management team, have the responsibility to solve some of these problems. It’s up to us to take the initiative to improve the situation. Isn’t that the essence of good management?”
View from the Human Resource Department
As part of the study, Lance met with the three key staff members in the human resource department; Jane Reynolds, special assistant to the human resource manager; Tony Rezkov, manager of administration and security; and Joseph McDonald, the industrial relations officer (no relation to Tim McDonald). Rezkov, being new on the job, wasn’t able to tell Lance very much about his position or the human resource function. In Lance’s opinion, his two meetings (lasting approximately an hour each) with Jane Reynolds was more productive.
Lance studied the various comments made by Reynolds:
“The possibilities here are simply enormous. With a little determination and the right type of resources, we can make this one of the best human resource departments in this country. To be really effective, I believe that human resource management has to be well  integrated with the strategic and operational planning in the firm. That has not occurred here yet”.
“When I joined this company two years back. it didn’t have any system – at least, not anything that is worth mentioning. My job since I arrived here has been to introduce new procedures and decision support systems. For example, recently, we started a formal orientation program for all plant workers. We are also in the process of developing two performance appraisal instruments – one for  the plant employees and the other for administrative staff . We are also beginning to provide absenteeism and turnover data in the various departments to the respective managers. But I want to emphasize that these are just the beginnings. With the right support, we can do wonders here”.
“Why do I sound so pessimistic? Well, look at our department’s staff strength compared to human resource departments in similar-sized organization in this part of the country. We probably employ 50 or 60 percent of the number you would see elsewhere. We also do not have the computer hardware or software support and the necessary number of PCs to do an adequate job”.
“Sure, despite everything, we could still have done better if we had the will to do it. I will be totally frank with you – you will keep my observation confidential, won’t you? Not that I mind too much if someone comes to know about it. It’s as if we are a poor cousin here. Being in human resources is not just considered to be important or very useful. We’re looked at by many others as unnecessary appendage.”
Lance found that Joseph McDonald (“call me Joe, everyone does”), the industrial relations officer, was the toughest to handle. McDonald was very friendly and supportive, but did not give a direct or coherent answer to any of Lance’s questions. McDonald was one of those persons (reflected Lance) who talked to you for an hour nonstop without giving any useful information. Lance realized that he only got two points of information out of his forty-five minute meeting with McDonald. First, one of the unions in the company was very militant and might go on strike when its contract expired in the next few  months, and second, McDonald’s son was planning to go to medical school – Lance knew the former fact already and didn’t care to know about the latter.
In less than ten days, Lance was scheduled to meet Robert Clark to give a summary of his findings and recommendations. Already, Lance had received a call from his office in Sydney informing him that one of his consultants had been injured in an automobile accident and would not be back to work for the next several weeks. This meant that Lance had to return to his office soon to complete the project himself. Given the time constraints, Lance was wondering how he should proceed from here.
Figure 1 – Checklist Prepared by Lance for Interviewing the Senior Managers

  • What do you expect from the human resource department in this company?
  • What is your evaluation of the human resource department’s contribution in the past?
  • What activities should the human resource department of this company carry out?
  • Which of these are done now? How well are you satisfied with the performance of the department in those fields
  • Overall, are you happy with the human resource staff? Why?
  • What are the major challenges facing SMU Shoes in the next five years?
  • What are the unique needs of your department?
  • What new services or information should the human resource department provide you?

Communicating with Crime Victims (Case study)

/0 Comments/in /by
Using the Course Project Case Scenario, complete the following:
2 to 4 pages
Describe at least three conclusions that can be drawn based on three different sources of
body language and/or movements of individuals involved in the scene.
Identify at least three challenges to effective communication in this scenario.
Discuss at least three challenges of communicating with the crime victims including the
challenges specifically due to the diverse group at the crime scene.
Include at least two sources to support each of the assignment deliverables listed above.
Please be sure to prepare your assignment following APA citation and format requirements.
You must include proper citations to any source you relied on for information that you include
in your paper.
Case Scenario
At 6:15 a.m., Dispatch received a 911 call from phone number (715) 766-2112 regarding a
dispute between residents at the Go-Shop at 1000 Main Street Boulevard, in Springfield,
Wisconsin.
The caller identified herself as Sue Jones, The Go-Shop Manager. You, the officer, are
dispatched and arrive to the scene at 6:23 a.m.
When you arrive at the scene, there are two individuals engaging with each other in the
parking lot while a group of three onlookers stand watching. There are two cars parked next to
each other. No other vehicles are parked in the lot. The Go-Shop is not open and no lights are
on in the building. There are no other buildings on the property.
Sue Jones, the 911 caller, approaches you. She is identified by a Wisconsin driver’s license as
Susan Marie Jones, DOB 8/31/78. Her address is 2121 Main Street South, Patterson,
Wisconsin, 54812. Her voice is “shaky” and she is talking very fast. She tells you that upon
arriving at the Go-Shop there was a man trying to open the door to the store with something in
his hand. She wasn’t sure what was going on so she tried explaining to the man that the store
does not open until 7 a.m. and that she was there to prep the store prior to opening it. She
said the man seemed nervous and started walking away. As he was walking away, an
employee, Jose, arrived at the business and tried talking to the man to find out what was going on. Out of nowhere, the man hit Jose with the metal object, knocking him down to the
ground and breaking his glasses.
Sue called 911 right away. She said she yelled at the suspect to wait for the police. However,
he ignored her and started running away after putting the metal object, which she believed to
be an orange crow bar, in his back pack, which was white or light gray. She said the crow bar
was about two feet long. Jose got off the ground and ran after him. She said when the suspect
was trying to leave, he had a hard time standing up. As you, the officer, arrived the suspect
threw the back pack in a garbage can in the parking lot.
The suspect, a Caucasian male, is estimated to be in his mid to late 40s. He stands about
5′-10″, medium length dark brown hair, and wearing blue jeans torn on the back of the right
leg. He is currently pacing on the opposite side of the parking lot.
The victim, Jose, is a Hispanic male and is estimated to be in his mid to late 20s. He stands
about 5’2”, bald, and wearing khaki pants and a blue shirt with the Go-Shop logo. He is also
standing on the opposite side of the parking lot near the suspect. He speaks limited English.
Both men are arguing loudly as Sue explains the altercation to you. The suspect is currently
pacing in a circle in front of the victim, waving his hands up and down and shouting at the GoShop employee. The Go-Shop employee is standing with his arms crossed and backs away
from the suspect when the suspect approaches. The three onlookers are standing at a
distance from the scene.
You separate the victim and suspect to obtain their side of the story. You first try to talk to
Jose, but it is apparent he does not speak English. He keeps pointing to the suspect and
making a punch like motion in the air and towards his face. He also points to a broken pair of
eye glasses that are in front of the store. You do not speak Spanish and there are no Spanish
speaking officers working. You are able to determine Jose’s full name is Jose Jorge Gonzalez
and his birthday is February 28th, 1988. Sue Jones informs you that Jose’s address is 17354
Backer Ave City, Springfield, Wisconsin, 54123. His phone number is (608) 459-7537.
You call for an ambulance to check Jose out. You later learn that his nose is broken.
You then speak to the suspect. As you are speaking with him, he is swaying and unsteady on
his feet. When he looks at you he has a hard time focusing. You ask you what happened. He
points to his ear and makes a motion that you understand as him telling you he is deaf. As you
are trying to speak with him, he almost falls down. Therefore, you decide to continue your
interview at a later time. You locate a Wisconsin Driver’s License in the suspect’s back pocket
identifying him as Darryl Justin Smith, date of birth December 2nd, 1971. His address is listed as 601 Wall Street City, Pine City , Minnesota, 52441.
As you are speaking with the suspect, the three onlookers standing at a distance are moving
closer to the scene. Two of the onlookers are shouting at each other and one has taken a cell
phone out and appears to be recording the scene.
You look in the garbage can in the parking lot and find a light gray backpack. When you pull it
out of the trash, Jose shakes his head in a “yes” fashion and points to the suspect. You take
possession of the backpack and will secure a search warrant at a later time. You also show
Sue Jones the backpack and ask her if that is the backpack the suspect was carrying. She
said yes.
Both Smith and Gonzalez are transported to the police department for interviews.

Change Management at Sony Company (Case Study)

/0 Comments/in /by
  •  Lewin’s and Kotter’s change theories
  • Sony’s experience in dealing with change
  • Howard Stringer’s strategies to lead change at Sony

NSPE Code of Ethics Case Study (Unlicensed Engineer)

/0 Comments/in , /by
Charles Landers, former Anchorage assemblyman and unlicensed engineer for Constructing Engineers, was found guilty of forging partner Henry Wilson’s signature and using his professional seal on at least 40 documents. The falsification of the documents was done without Wilson’s knowledge, who was away from his office when they were signed. Constructing Engineers designs and test septic systems. The signed and sealed documents certified to the Anchorage city health department that local septic systems met city wastewater disposal regulations. Circuit Judge Michael Wolverton banned Landers for one year from practicing as an engineer’s, architect’s, or land surveyor’s assistant. He also sentenced him to 20 days in jail, 160 hours of community service, $4000 in fines, and a year of probation. Finally, Landers was ordered to inform property owners about the problems with the documents, explain how he would rectify the problem, and pay for a professional engineer to review, sign, and seal the documents. Assistant Attorney General Dan Cooper had requested the maximum penalty: a four-year suspended sentence and $40,000 in fines. Cooper argued that “the 40 repeated incidents make his offense the most serious within the misuse of an engineer’s seal.” This may have been the first time a case like this was litigated in Alaska. The Attorney General’s office took on the case after seeking advice from several professional engineers in the Anchorage area. According to Cooper, Landers said he signed and sealed the documents because “his clients needed something done right away.” (The documents were needed before going ahead with property transactions.) Lander’s attorney, Bill Oberly, argued that his client should be sentenced as a least offender since public health and safety weren’t really jeopardized–subsequent review of the documents by a professional engineer found no violations of standards (other than forgery and the misuse of the seal themselves). The documents were resubmitted without needing changes. However, Judge Wolverton contended that Lander’s actions constituted a serious breach of public trust. The public, he said, relies on the word of those, like professional engineers, who are entrusted with special responsibilities: “Our system would break down completely if the word of individuals could not be relied upon.” The judge also cited a letter from Richard Armstrong, chairman of the Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors Board of Registration for Alaska’s Department of commerce and Economic Development. Armstrong said: Some of the reasons for requiring professional engineers to seal their work are to protect the public from unqualified practitioners; to assure some minimum level of competency in the profession; to make practicing architects, engineers, and land surveyors responsible for their work; and to promote a level of ethics in the profession. The discovery of this case will cast a shadow of doubt on other engineering designed by properly licensed individuals.
Questions:
1. Identify and discuss the ethically important elements in this case.
2. How relevant is it that subsequent review showed that none of the falsified documents needed to be changed? (Although Judge Wolverton did not impose the maximum penalty, he did not treat Landers as a least offender.)

NSPE Code of Ethics Case Study (The Aberdeen Three)

/0 Comments/in , /by
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act In 1976, Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The purpose of the act was to provide technical and financial assistance for the development of management plans and facilities for the recovery of energy and other resources from discarded materials and for the safe disposal of discarded materials, and to regulate the management of hazardous waste. This 1976 act expanded the Solid Waste Disposal Act, thereby authorizing state program-and-implementation grants for providing incentives for recovery of resources from solid wastes, resource conservation, and control of hazardous waste disposal. In addition to establishing the EPA Office of Solid Waste, requiring state planning and a ban on open dumping of solid hazardous wastes, RCRA also implemented criminal fines for violations of the open dumping or hazardous waste disposal guidelines. Aberdeen Proving Grounds Aberdeen is a US Army facility where, among other things, chemical weapons are developed. All three engineers involved in the case were experts in the chemical weapons field, and Dee was responsible for developing the binary chemical weapon. The US Army has used the Aberdeen Proving Ground to develop, test, store, and dispose of chemical weapons since World War II. Periodic inspections between 1983 and 1986 revealed serious problems at the facility, known as the Pilot Plant, where these engineers worked. These problems included:

  • Flammable and cancer-causing substances left in the open.
  • Chemicals that become lethal if mixed were kept in the same room.
  • Drums of toxic substances were leaking. There were chemicals everywhere — misplaced, unlabeled, or poorly contained. When part of the roof collapsed, smashing several chemical drums stored below, no one cleaned up or moved the spilled substance and broken containers for weeks.
    The funds for the cleanup would not have even come out of the engineers’ budget — the Army would have paid the cost. All the managers had to do was make a request for the Army cleanup funds, but they made no effort to resolve the situation. When an external sulfuric acid tank leaked 200 gallons of acid into a nearby river, state and federal investigators arrived and discovered that the chemical retaining dikes were unfit, and the system designed to contain and treat hazardous chemicals was corroded and leaking chemicals into the ground. The three engineers maintained that they did not believe the plant’s storage practices were illegal, and that their job description did not include responsibility for specific environmental rules. They were chemical engineers, they practiced good “engineering sense,” and had never had an incident. They were just doing things the way they had always been done at the Pilot Plant. The judicial process On June 28, 1988, after about two years of investigation, the three chemical engineers, Carl Gepp, William Dee, and Robert Lentz, now known as the “Aberdeen Three,” were criminally indicted for storing, treating, and disposing of hazardous wastes in violation of RCRA at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland. Six months following the indictment, the Federal Government took the case of the “Aberdeen Three” to court. Each defendant was charged with four counts of illegally storing and disposing of waste.
    In 1989, the three chemical engineers were tried and convicted of illegally storing, treating, and disposing of hazardous waste. William Dee was found guilty on one count, and Lentz and Gepp were found guilty on three counts each of violating the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Although they were not the ones who were actually performing the illegal acts, they were the managers and allowed the improper handling of the chemicals. No one above them knew about the extent of the problems at the Pilot Plant. Each faced up to 15 years in prison and $750,000 in fines, but were sentenced only to three years probation and 1000 hours of community service. The judge based his decision on the high standing of the defendants in the community, and the fact they they had already incurred enormous court costs. Since this was a criminal indictment, the US Army could not assist in their legal defense. This case marked the first time that individual federal employees were convicted of a criminal act under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Discussion of the Ethical Issues
    1. What could the three engineers have done differently?
    2. What, if anything, could their subordinates have done differently?
    3. What, if anything, could their superiors (i.e., the Army command) have done differently?
    4. Should the Justice department have done anything differently?
    5. Do you think the judge’s sentencing of the “Aberdeen Three” was too lenient or too harsh? Why?
    The actions of the three engineers bring to mind an important question. These engineers were knowledgeable about the effects of hazardous chemicals on people and the environment (they developed chemical weapons), so why were they seemingly so unconcerned about the disposal of hazardous chemicals? It is interesting to note that even after they were convicted, the three engineers showed no apparent remorse for their wrongdoing. They kept insisting that the whole case was blown out of proportion, and that they had done nothing wrong. All containers of hazardous chemical have labels which state that the chemicals must be disposed of according to RCRA requirements, yet the three engineers maintained that they had no knowledge of RCRA. Perhaps the best answer to this question is that they did not hold their responsibilities to the public as engineers as high on their list of priorities as other responsibilities they held. To better understand the responsibility of the engineer, some key elements of the professional responsibilities of an engineer should be examined. As engineers test designs for ever-increasing speeds, loads, capacities and the like, they must always be aware of their obligation to society to protect the public welfare. After all, the public has provided engineers, through the tax base, the means for obtaining an education and, through legislation, the means to license and regulate themselves. In return, engineers have a responsibility to protect the safety and well-being of the public in all of their professional efforts. This is part of the implicit social contract all engineers have agreed to when they accepted admission to an engineering college.
    According to the prosecution, the three engineers involved in the Aberdeen case placed a low priority on this responsibility to society, and instead emphasized the importance of their military mission. The first canon in the ASME Code of Ethics urges engineers to “hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties.” Every major engineering code of ethics reminds engineers of the importance of their responsibility to keep the safety and well being of the public at the top of their list of priorities. Although company loyalty is important, it can, in some circumstances be damaging to the company, if the employee does not think about the long-term effects of his actions on the company. It is a sad fact about loyalty that it invites… single-mindedness. Single-minded pursuit of a goal is sometimes delightfully romantic, even a real inspiration. But it is hardly something to advocate to engineers, whose impact on the safety of the public is so very significant. Irresponsibility, whether caused by selfishness or by magnificently unselfish loyalty, can have most unfortunate consequences.

The engineers were also unaware that their experiments and their handling of waste products had social impact, even though they considered themselves to be far removed from the outside world. The leaking of sulfuric acid into Canal Creek quickly disproved their claim of being removed from the outside world. No matter how far an engineer feels removed from society, he still has an effect on it, even if it is an indirect one. Even though the Pilot Plant was located on a military base, it still had to follow the RCRA guidelines, regardless of its military mission. In addition to their responsibilities to society in general, the “Aberdeen Three” also had responsibilities to their subordinates, which they also overlooked. It was one of these employees who originally went to the press and exposed what was going on at the Pilot Plant. Employees were working under conditions where chemicals were dripping down from leaky pipes above them, and in violation of RCRA rules. Employees who had no hazardous materials training were ordered to handle and dispose of chemicals of which they had little or no knowledge. Whether or not there were rules for the training of employees who would be handing hazardous materials, the three engineers had a responsibility to those employees to inform them of what they were dealing with and how to handle the waste materials properly. The three engineers convicted in this case were well aware of the dangers the chemicals they worked with on a daily basis posed to society, yet they allowed their unfounded feelings of separation from the outside world and their misguided loyalty to their military mission to lessen the importance they placed on their responsibility to society as engineers. The prosecutor in the case had this to say about the Aberdeen Three: “These are experts in their field. If they can’t be expected to enforce the law, then I’m not sure who can.”

NSPE Code of Ethics Case Study (The Ford Pinto)

/0 Comments/in , /by
“The Ford Pinto case is mentioned in most Business Ethics texts as an example of Cost-Benefit analysis, yet in those formats any appreciation of the complexity surrounding the issues of such decisions is overly simplified. As a thorough study, this book provides material that enriches the entire idea of
using a particular case as an avenue of learning about Ethics, Business, Society, Technology, and Government Regulation. Rather than as a mere reference tool for educators and other professionals, this book could be successful in the classroom in a way that no other anthology or collection of short case studies could be.” – Greg Pasquarello, Neumann College
It was the late 60s, when the demand for sub-compacts was rising on the market. Iacocca’s specifications for the design of the car were uncompromising: “The Pinto was not to weigh an ounce over 2,000 pounds and not cost a cent over $2,000.” During design and production, however, crash tests revealed a serious defect in the gas tank. In crashes over 25 miles per hour, the gas tank always ruptured. To correct it would have required changing and strengthening the design. Many studies of reports and documents done by Mother Jones on rear-end collisions involving Pintos reveal that if you ran into that Pinto you were following at over 30 miles per hour, the rear end of the car would buckle like an accordion, right up to the back seat. The tube leading to the gas-tank cap would be ripped away from the tank itself, and gas would immediately begin sloshing onto the road around the car. The buckled gas tank would be jammed up against the differential housing (that big bulge in the middle of your rear axle), which contains four sharp, protruding bolts likely to gash holes in the tank and spill still more gas. Now all you need is a spark from a cigarette, ignition, or scraping metal, and both cars would be engulfed in flames. If you gave that Pinto a really good whack?say, at 40 mph – chances are excellent that its doors would jam and you would have to stand by and watch its trapped passengers burn to death. In pre-production planning, engineers seriously considered using in the Pinto the same kind of gas tank Ford uses in the Capri. The Capri tank rides over the rear axle and differential housing. It has been so successful in over 50 crash tests that Ford used it in its Experimental Safety Vehicle, which withstood rear-end impacts of 60 mph. So why wasn’t the Capri tank used in the Pinto? Or, why wasn’t that plastic baffle placed between the tank and the axle – something that would have saved the life’s hundreds of people. President Semon “Bunky” Knudsen, whom Henry Ford II had hired away from General Motors, and Lee Iacocca, a spunky Young Turk who had risen fast within the company on the enormous success of the Mustang. Iacocca saying was that the Japanese were going to capture the entire American subcompact market unless Ford put out its own alternative to the VW Beetle. Bunky Knudsen said let them have the small-car market, but he lost the battle and later resigned. Iacocca became president and almost immediately began a rush program to produce the Pinto. Lee Iococca wanted that little car in the showrooms of America with the 1971 models. So he ordered his engineering vice president, Bob Alexander, to oversee what was probably the shortest production planning period in modern automotive history. The normal time span from conception to production of a new car model is about 43 months. The Pinto schedule was set at just under 25.
When it was discovered the gas tank was unsafe, did anyone go to Iacocca and tell him? “Hell no,” replied an engineer who worked on the Pinto, a high company official for many years, who, unlike several others at Ford, maintains a necessarily clandestine concern for safety. “That person would have been fired. Safety wasn’t a popular subject around Ford in those days. Whenever a problem was raised that meant a delay on the Pinto, Lee would chomp on his cigar, look out the window and say ‘Read the

NSPE Code of Ethics Case Study (Stacking Hoist)

/0 Comments/in , /by
Introduction The Lakewood Company, a fairly large manufacturing firm, has designed, manufactured and sold hundreds of self-contained storage/retrieval systems which are used for storing heavy parts such as dies, which must intermittently be taken from storage and used elsewhere in the plant. The system consists of two large sets of storage racks, facing each other, with an integral crane that runs between them on 2 bridge crane girders on the top back edges of the storage racks (see Figure 1).
The crane has fork-lift appendages that can slip under a pallet on any of the several levels of the storage racks, retrieve a pallet off the shelf, retract the pallet into the aisle, rotate it parallel to the aisle, and move it to the end of the storage racks. The pallet is subsequently placed at the end of the aisle on the ground for pickup by a wheeled fork lift and transportation to its final destination. The Buchannan company, a large construction vehicle manufacturer, purchased one of these Lakewood “Hi-Stak” units and was using it extensively until one of their employees, West Michaels, had an accident and was seriously injured while operating the crane. (See the appended accident report written by Buchanan.) According to eye witnesses, West had retrieved a 1,460 pound die from the top shelf, and was pulling it to the end of the aisle. The load was well within the crane’s advertised limit of 2,000 pounds. The next thing West knew, as stated in the accident report, he was thrown about 20 feet. His next recollection was awakening in the hospital bed. The accident caused the crane wheels on the back side of the pallet to be pulled free of the lower flange of the A588 steel W6X12 girder on the left side. (See Figures 2 and 3).

NSPE Code of Ethics Case Study (Taking Over Clients of Former Employer)

/0 Comments/in /by
Facts:
Engineer A was employed by Engineer B, a consulting engineer, and was assigned as the project engineer in charge of several projects. During the course of work on these projects Engineer B decided that he would terminate his general consulting practice in order to specialize in another field of engineering in another location. Engineer B asked Engineer A if he would be willing to enter into an arrangement whereby Engineer A would complete the work on the projects on the basis of a division of the profits on those projects, and thereafter Engineer A would continue the general practice on his own behalf and responsibility under the continuing firm name of Engineer B with a division of profits for future work. Following discussions between Engineers A and B over the details of the proposed arrangement, the parties were not able to reach agreement on a number of details, such as the division of profits on the existing or future projects, assumption of potential liability on those projects, and the transfer of equipment and facilities of Engineer B. Upon the breakdown of those negotiations, Engineer A then proposed that if Engineer B did in fact close his office, abandon the local projects, and open an office in another location for a different type of practice that he (Engineer A) would open an office in his own name and offer his services to the clients to complete the projects. Engineer B questions whether Engineer A may ethically assume the completion of the projects without his concurrence.
Questions:
1. Would it be ethical for Engineer B to abandon the projects under way?
2. Would it be ethical for Engineer A to offer his services to complete the projects under his own responsibility and risk without the concurrence of Engineer B?