I had the misfortune of reading a laughably bad report on a case by the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) Board of Ethical Review about engineer membership in labor unions. Granted, the source was published in 1962, but when I Googled “civil engineering unions” it is the second result that comes up, so it seems to likely still hold some sway today. And even on their own website, when searching “union,” it is the second result, with the first one being less directly applicable, and still very critical of engineer union membership.
Let’s look at some gems from the case:
Standing alone, it is clear that the Canons and Rules are opposed to the basic concept and approach of unions for engineers who have a professional responsibility. Experience has demonstrated, beyond any reasonable doubt, that an engineer with a union-minded attitude cannot and does not regard his relations with his employer as that of a faithful agent or trustee. And it is likewise clear that such an attitude entails misunderstanding of the engineering profession by the public and is in conflict with the engineer's duty to maintain the highest standards of the profession and regard the public welfare as paramount to his own.
“Experience has demonstrated” is just fancy speak for “some people are saying.” It’s unsubstantiated nonsense, and professional engineers should know better than relying on subjective, unsubstantiated, unverifiable heresy. All this talk about the necessity of an employee being a faithful agent or trustee of their employer, but I thought they said that their paramount duty is to the public welfare?
The engineer who engages in coercive union tactics divides the engineering profession into hostile camps those who seek to continue their duties together with those in supervisory capacities, versus those who engage in coercive tactics. Coercive conduct of this nature identifies the engineer (and the engineering profession) as “labor.” The entire effort and purpose of the engineering profession has been to achieve recognition and status as a profession, which can be earned only by devotion to public service and the placing of the public welfare above the interests of the individual.
Oh boy. So now engineering isn’t labor? The effort that engineers do is to “achieve recognition and status.” This is just the professional version of “we can’t pay you for your photography, but we’ll pay you in recognition and exposure,” written over 60 years ago now. And is public welfare really placed above the interests of the individual when there’s so much emphasis on doing what’s best for the employer? A large group of engineers is apparently an “individual” but a small group of business owners isn’t? And do the business owners, who are themselves often also professional engineers, not also have a duty to place the public interest above their own needs and profits? The employee engineer has a duty to sacrifice their basic wellbeing to appease the employer engineer so that the public can be served, but the employer engineer has no obligation to sacrifice some trivial portion of their wealth to help provide for the basic needs of their engineer employees so that the public can be served?
What we have said in this opinion does not preclude engineers from seeking through professional means the advancement of their economic and profession al status. This can be and is being accomplished through various programs in collaboration with the professional engineering societies on the basis of cooperative relations with employers.
Oh, so engineers shouldn’t join unions to advance their economic status, and they should instead give their money, time, and other resources to professional societies like this one that actively advocate against basic worker rights and for the furthering of employer power and wealth. Brilliant idea.
It is his duty to practice his profession according to these Canons Ethics. “As the keystone of professional conduct is integrity, the engineer will discharge his duties with fidelity to the public, his employers and clients, and with fairness and impartiality to all It is his duty to interest himself in public welfare and to be ready to apply his special knowledge for the benefit of mankind. He should uphold the honor and dignity of his profession and avoid association with any enterprise of questionable character. In his dealings with fellow engineers he should be fair and tolerant.”
So employee engineers have a duty to their employer, and employer engineers have a duty to their clients, but the employer engineer has no duty to his employee engineers?
Sources: