Who owns your knowledge?

Ken is a process engineer for Stardust Chemical Corp., and he has signed a secrecy agreement with the firm that prohibits his divulging information that the company considers proprietary. 

Stardust has developed an adaptation of a standard piece of equipment that makes it highly efficient for cooling a viscous plastics slurry. (Stardust decides not to patent the idea but to keep it as a trade secret.) 

Eventually, Ken leaves Stardust and goes to work for a candy-processing company that is not in any way in competition. He soon realises that a modification similar to Stardust's trade secret could be applied to a different machine used for cooling fudge and, at once, has the change made.

Has Ken acted unethically?


In this case, it is obvious that Ken's act was unethical. Since the improvement adapted by Stardust was not either developed or patented by Ken, he had no right of sharing this development  with any other company without the permission of Stardust. Even though he should find solutions to the problems found in the new job, however he is legally committed by the secrecy agreement undertaken by himself

On 24 April 2013 an 8-storey commercial building collapsed in Savar, a sub-district of the Greater Dhaka area, the capital of Bangladesh. Casualties: 1,129 dead, 2,515 injured. It has been called the deadliest accidental structural failure in modern human history.

The building contained clothing factories, a bank, apartments a& several other shops. The shops & the bank on the lower floors immediately closed after cracks were discovered in the building. Warnings to avoid using the building after cracks appeared the day before were ignored. Garment  workers were ordered to return & the building collapsed during the morning rush-hour

Description the collapse of the building

The garment factory at Rana Plaza building which is located in the suburb of Savar in Dhaka in Bangladesh collapsed on April 24, 2013. The story of the collapse was due to the use of  sub-standard material in constructing the factory and to the use of heavy machineries, equipments and generators to operate the factory. On the day before the occurrence of the collapse, the workers in the factory felt shakes and cracks in the building. They ran away out of the building because they felt that the building was going to collapse.  The owner and manager of the factory brought an engineer to check the building, the engineer warned them that the building was not safe and it might collapse at any time. The manager and the owners didn’t pay attention to the report of the engineer and they asked the workers to continue their work. On the day of the collapse, the workers arrived at the factory and they started to operate the various machinery and the generators. The vibrations of the generators an of other machinery affected seriously on the structure of the building and it collapsed. A lot of workers died in this collapse. It is estimated that the number of death cases reached 1127.  The collapse was one of the serious crises that garment industry faced in the history of Bangladesh. The owner, the manager and the engineers involved in building the factory were caught and put into prison.

Who were blamed for the building collapse?

Many people were blamed for the factory collapse. The owner of the factory was the first person to be blamed for the collapse. At the beginning of establishing the factory, the owner chose a weak area where he could establish the factory. The owner also built 3 extra floors on the top of the five floors that he was allowed to. Additionally, the owner was told about the possibility of the factory collapse one day before the incident and he asked the workers to complete their work.

The engineers who designed and constructed the factory were also blamed for the collapse. The engineers were aware of the use of under standard materials. They also were aware that the base of building is weak to carry extra three floors. The engineers from the municipality falsify their report when they were asked to inspect the building.

The manager of the factory and his assistance were also blamed of the collapse. The manager knew that using of heavy machinery and a number of vibrating generators would increase the heaviness of the roof and it may collapse.

 The Bangladeshi government was also blamed for the collapse. The government did not play role in inspecting the materials of building. The government also did not intervene to stop the owner from building extra three illegal floors.

Ethical issues involved in the case

The manager of the factory was involved in unethical behavior. He did not pay care to the health and safety of workplace.  When he knew about the possibility of the building collapse, he did not pay any attention.  The manager was only seeking the satisfaction of the owner and to be in his position.  The manager was looking only for his benefits even this led to the loss of the life in the workers around him.

The owner of the factory was involved in a lot of unethical behaviors. He did not make strong base for the factory. He built illegal extra floors. He implemented heavy machinery and generators in the building. The owners did all this unethical behavior to gain much profit and income.

The engineers who built the factory and who inspected its structure were also involved in a lot of unethical behavior. They used under standard material which made the building more weak.  The engineers also reported that the building is safe after inspecting it. The engineers might come across using the personal position for inappropriate gain. The engineers seemed to exploit their positions to achieve personal gain instead of protecting the life of people.

Conclusion

The collapse of garment factory happened because of the unethical behavior of the engineers who participated in building and testing the factory and the greedy owner who was only concerned with saving costs and increasing profits.  The engineers left the engineering code of honor, integrity, and dignity of the engineering profession to achieve personal gains.

References

·         Ahmed, F. & Watkins, T.   (May 4, 2013), Report: Heavy machinery blamed for Bangladesh collapse, Retrieved March 14, 2014 from: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/03/world/asia/bangladesh-building-collapse/

·         Bangladesh factory collapse toll passes 1,000, (May 10, 2013), Retrieved March 16, 2014 from:  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-22476774

·          Neate, R. ( February 24, 2014),  Bangladesh factory collapse: big brands urged to pay into help fund, Retrieved March 13, 2014 from: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/24/bangladesh-factory-collapse-big-brands-urged-pay-help-fund

·         Than, K. (April 25, 2013), Bangladesh Building Collapse Due to Shoddy Construction, Retrieved March 15, 2014 from:  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130425-bangladesh-dhaka-building-collapse-world/

Human rights

Human rights

The American Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, thatall men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau:

"Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains" That was the first sentence of Rousseau's "The Social Contract."

This was the concept of ‘the noble savage’.

Thomas Hobbes:

"In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, not culture of the earth, no navigation, nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

Design, production & ethical issues

Design, production & ethical issues

Aluminium cans

Approximately 1 billion are produced in the USA each year. The first can was designed in 1958 by Kaiser Aluminium. This metal proved ideal as it was a lightweight, flexible material that allowed manufacturing of the bottom & sides of the can from a single sheet, leaving the top to be added after the can was filled.

The first cans were opened with a separate opener but this was inconvenient so Ermal Fraze designed a small lever attached to the can which was removed as the can was opened.

The design was workable but after a while it created an ethical dilemma:
The dilema was partly human and partly environmental although both are linked

So in 1976 Daniel F. Cudzik invented a simple, stay-attached opener of the sort familiar today.

As improvements were made in the design & production of aluminium cans, various  ethical problems arose concerning:

a.      Human safety: 

Bisphenol A

Bisphenol A, more commonly known as BPA, is a chemical used in some hard plastics and the lining of some aluminum beverage cans, and the government is trying to determine whether BPA poses any health risks. In 2008, the FDA reported that food-related materials on the market that contained BPA were safe, but the Department of Health and Human Services is conducting additional tests to better evaluate any potential health risks from exposure to BPA.

Alzheimer's Disease

There's a myth that exposure to aluminum might increase your risk of developing Alzheimer's disease. Some people have worried over the years about using aluminum cans, pots and pans, and antacids and antiperspirants with aluminum. The theory developed in the 1960s and 1970s, but the Alzheimer's Association reports that there have been no studies since then to suggest that aluminum can cause Alzheimer's.

b.     Environmental pollution: From an environmental point of view, using aluminum cans instead of other materials can contribute to a safer environment because they are easily recycled. The Aluminum Association reports that in a world concerned about sustainability, "no other package can match aluminum's 60-day turnaround from used beverage container to new can." The industry group calls the aluminum can the "world's most sustainable package."

c.      Convenience:Drinks cans are a practical form of packaging, offering a durable and infinitely recyclable way for brands to store their products. But as the drinks can has evolved, it has become much more than this. Cans are now 360-degree billboards offering a direct way to promote a brand’s messaging to customers with eye-catching designs.

d.     Money:

• The aluminum can is the most valuable container to recycle and highest consumer recycling rate in the U.S.
• Each year, the aluminum industry pays out more than $800 million dollars for empty aluminum cans — that’s a lot of money that can go to organizations like Habitat for Humanity, the Boy or Girl Scouts of America or even a local school. Money earned from recycling cans helps people help themselves and their communities. Recycling helps build new homes, pays for a group trip, supports a project or buys a lunch!
• Today it is cheaper, faster and more energy-efficient to recycle aluminum than ever before. The aluminum can is 100 percent recyclable and can be recycled indefinitely. The can remains the most recyclable of all materials.
• Other types of aluminum, such as siding, gutters, car components, storm window frames and lawn furniture can also be recycled.
• Aluminum has a high market value and continues to provide an economic incentive to recycle. When aluminum cans are recycled curbside, they help pay for community services.

Ethical grey areas are those cases in which white and black are not clear any more and there is no absolute right thing to do in these cases. Ethical decisions are not always clear cut. Examples of those cases are many. For example, killing a human is always wrong in terms of humanity; however, if this person had murdered another one, people would still dispute the issue weather to execute the murderer which is also killing a human or to jail him a life time. What if we say that the murderer had a daughter who was raped by the murdered person; in this case, is it really a crime to kill the rapist out of pure jealousy and rage of doing such a thing to a small girl? Or is the murderer justified to the cause? Who is right and who is wrong? 

In these cases I think that everyone would decide what to be done with the murderer based on his or her education, religion, life experience, laws and even their personal feelings. Personal feeling plays a major role in this case. for those who say that the murderer should not have killed the rapist, what if this was your own daughter: how would you react?. Understanding those feelings might also help make a fair decision.