Whistle blowing define as a person working within an organization who reports that organization misconduct. The misconduct be a genuine concern about crime, criminal office and danger to health and safety and of the environment. Whistle blowing also define as alerting person to some moral corruption. Whistle blowing is the disclosure by organization members of illegal, immoral practices under the control of their employee. The person can be a current or past employee. The misconduct can be a past act, ongoing, in the planning stages. Whistle blowing occur when a worker disclose to public body, usually the police that worker is partaking in unlawful practice. Besides that whistle blower also is an employee who raises a concern about a wrongdoing
…show more content…
Based on the case study 2, Carl Houston was a welding supervisor for a nuclear power facility in Varginia for Stone and Weber. In the factory he saw the improper welding procedure, use wrong material, welder were not trained properly and the situation in factory was dangerous. After that, he report this to the Stone and Weber manager but the manager ignore him. Then, he threated to write to Stone and Weber Headquarter and then he was fired on trumped. Last he write to Senator Howard Baker and Albert Gore and the Senator prompted the Atomic Energy. Finally, commission to investigate, which confirmed his allegation. Based on the code of engineering ethic, engineers should hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. So, if engineer judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall notify their employer. For example for this case study, the facility is improper welding procedure and the situation in facility was dangerous. This is danger the health and safety of the employee in the facilities. Besides that, engineers should not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering by a person or firm. For the engineers need having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code. Based on the case study Carl Houston had done the correct and ethical thing. He worry about the safety and welfare of the …show more content…
Based on the case, the issue is the wrongdoing of the company and the action take to Carl Houston. The manager, even the headquarters of the Stone & Weber company had ignored the problems that reported by Houston. The Headquarter of Stone and Weber fired Carl Houston after he write this problem to them. As a manager or engineer, they need conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession. Next, is the situation of the facility was danger. The employer of organization has a duty to consult all staff about health and safety issues in the workplace. So, they need to take action to change the situation of the facility not fired the Carl Houston. Next is the action that took by the Senators Howard’s Baker and Albert Gore. Both of them had implement the fairness and take action on this case. Carl Houston write to Senator Howard Baker and Albert Gore and the Senator prompted the Atomic Energy. Finally, commission to investigate, which confirmed his allegation. This showed that Senator Howard’s Baker and Albert Gore had follow the code of ethnic for an engineer as they corrected the wrongdoing of the company and taking action
Based on the case study 2, Carl Houston was a welding supervisor for a nuclear power facility in Varginia for Stone and Weber. In the factory he saw the improper welding procedure, use wrong material, welder were not trained properly and the situation in factory was dangerous. After that, he report this to the Stone and Weber manager but the manager ignore him. Then, he threated to write to Stone and Weber Headquarter and then he was fired on trumped. Last he write to Senator Howard Baker and Albert Gore and the Senator prompted the Atomic Energy. Finally, commission to investigate, which confirmed his allegation. Based on the code of engineering ethic, engineers should hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. So, if engineer judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall notify their employer. For example for this case study, the facility is improper welding procedure and the situation in facility was dangerous. This is danger the health and safety of the employee in the facilities. Besides that, engineers should not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering by a person or firm. For the engineers need having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code. Based on the case study Carl Houston had done the correct and ethical thing. He worry about the safety and welfare of the …show more content…
Based on the case, the issue is the wrongdoing of the company and the action take to Carl Houston. The manager, even the headquarters of the Stone & Weber company had ignored the problems that reported by Houston. The Headquarter of Stone and Weber fired Carl Houston after he write this problem to them. As a manager or engineer, they need conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession. Next, is the situation of the facility was danger. The employer of organization has a duty to consult all staff about health and safety issues in the workplace. So, they need to take action to change the situation of the facility not fired the Carl Houston. Next is the action that took by the Senators Howard’s Baker and Albert Gore. Both of them had implement the fairness and take action on this case. Carl Houston write to Senator Howard Baker and Albert Gore and the Senator prompted the Atomic Energy. Finally, commission to investigate, which confirmed his allegation. This showed that Senator Howard’s Baker and Albert Gore had follow the code of ethnic for an engineer as they corrected the wrongdoing of the company and taking action