Seattle Area Outage - Unions

[Ryan Schaecher]

How can you blame someone for potentially doing or not doing something?

I'll take this one....



As an Engineer, there are certain things that I have to keep in mind. Case in point:



-Charles DeGaulle airport, France. The roof and structure of part of a terminal collapses, killing several people. The engineer/engineering firm is found partially responcible for the collapse due to design. However, the construction was not done to specification. Doesn't matter. The design was flawed and the engineers should have known that (at least according to a legal ruling).



-A walkway at a Hyatt Regency collapses, killing 114 people. The origional design itself was sound. However, the contractor requested the design change, which was not substantial enough for the event that was held (a dance contest). The engineering firm that did the origional design was stripped of it's engineering licences and several of the engineers from the states were stripped of their PE certificates.



In both cases, the engineers and firms were blamed for not seeing the potential use of or potential for mis-construction of the designs. So your statement is misguided at best.



Potential is always a contributing factor. If I don't consider any potential abuse or misuse of my designs and don't appropriately compensate for these, I can be held legally and civially liable for any damage/injury/death that may occur. It's part of the job. My employer carries insurance for such an instance, however, that does not mitigate my responcibility to find any and all potential issues. Do we still miss some? Yes. Is there always the thought of "what can happen" if we miss them? Yes. I am dealing with two different issues right now (oddly, both of which are complaints brought on by Union operators, one in Canada and one here in the states). Are they issues and not just Unions bitching? Yes, they are issues. Are we taking them seriously? You betcha. Would they have been found without the Union Operators? Yep. So this is not about Unions. This is about me and my design team missing something. Just as the engineers at the airport and at the Hyatt did. The difference is that no one has been killed with my issues.



But I have to fix them since there is the potential.



That is life. What you do and don't do affect many people. Leaving for work 3 minutes later than normal may mean that you miss the 4 car pile-up on Main street. We all have potential. If we don't act on it, we can get blamed.

 

[Gavin Allan]

re: Seattle Area Outage - Unions by TJR,1/2/2007 08:19 CT



Gavin,



I find it interesting that you said YES.



Again, this means that you feel that no agency that is responsible for safeguarding, protecting, or delivering a service should be held accountable when they are negligent in their duties and people subsequently suffer.



So I guess in this case:



IF the electricians were drinking beer on the job, working two hours of an 8 hour day, spending the rest of the time leaning on a shovel or in a strip club, and their management knew about such abuses and did nothing...I guess you are saying if ALL OF THAT went on, and that caused an outage to be much longer than it should, and during the delayed outtage senior citizens froze to death in a nursing home, or otherwise unable people died because they couldn't take care of themselves, that ALL IS OKAY and the power company and those negligent should just go about their business as usual.



Sure, what I propose is an absurd example, but it is an example of the general case I asked, and you said that there should be not assumed accountability/penalty for those negligent.



I just don't see it. You once said things aren't black and white, yet your answer of YES says otherwise.



TJR

Where do you come up with this stuff? "Just because you said this means that...."



Nope, most things in this world are not black and white. If you want my true answer, don't limit me to a "yes" or "no".



Dogmatic thinking usually leads one to extremism and exclusionary beliefs regarding others. I am beginning to have dogmatic thoughts about the utility of having conversations with you.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Gavin asked:

Where do you come up with this stuff?

I never limited you to only YES or NO. I asked that you ANSWER the question, which is a YES or NO question, but encouraged you to then follow-up with any explanation you wish. I said, and I quote: "feel free to explain your answer, but only an answer of YES or NO is valid."



I asked a question of general principle and you answered it. Then I gave a specific case that fits that general principle and it seemed to not to align with your answer (thus you asking "where do I get this stuff?") Please don't shoot the messenger. I asked the question, you answered it, you just don't seem to like what that answer means given a specific case indicative of the general principle.



Remember, I asked:

Are you saying that if union members or their management willfully shirked their duty and showed negligence, and that negligence prolonged the outage, and during that prolonged outage people died (if even through their own fault), then you think that given those circumstances the union electricians or their management should NOT be penalized in any way?

To that you could have answered:

YES, I think there should be no penalty because I am the type of person that thinks only those things that are direct causes should count in cases of blame.

(to which you and I could have discussed a number of cases in the past where indirect actions have resulted in real blame and it would have helped us both to see each other's POV).



Or

NO, in general I am not saying that those responsibile shouldn't in such a circumstance should go unpenalized. However, in this specific case I don't see any evidence of negligence.

(to which I would have said that for the sake of argument and discussion Shek and I have been assuming the negligence and that negligence is not the point of discussion).



You ask where I come up with this stuff...well this entire debate and my questions has been an exercise of the "Socratic Method". I pose a question, you answer it, I pose a follow on, and so on.



You say that you want to give your "true" answer. Please do...



TJR

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

Nope, most things in this world are not black and white. If you want my true answer, don't limit me to a "yes" or "no".

Actually, most questions (especially on Ethics) are a true YES or NO question (though on Ethics we may answer differently, depending on our individual values). An explanation as to why you say Yes or No is where the grey area comes in.



1) Do you think it's right to steal from a grocier?

--No. Stealing is stealing and not only is it against the law, but it's against what God told us in the 10 Commandments.



2) Do you think it's right to steal from a grocier if it is the ONLY means of survival for your family?

--Yes. HOWEVER, a discussion with the manager/owner of the store may provide a better solution (ie work off the food necessary).



See, that's pretty simple. A simple YES or NO to start with, then explain yourself. It's basics of a debate (as anyone schooled in such a topic would know). Take a side, defend it. If you can't take a side, bail. A simple "I don't know" is better than dancing around and not answering the direct question. When you dance, not only do you prove that you don't have the answer but it also shows a lack of character (can't take a defeat) and confidence (don't have any data to back up your assurtions). I'm not trying to say that YOU have a lack in character, but keep that in mind.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Thanks Shek.



I tried to explain to Gavin that I never limited him to ONLY a YES or NO answer, but instead I encouraged an explaination along with his answer to my YES or NO question.



Yes, we are talking about ethics for the most part, and I was using the Socratic Method, but only Q seemed to really want to give it a try. My difficulty with Gavin was that I seemed to never be able to take him back to the general case, then step him through the logical follow-on questions. I think he felt that I was baiting him, thus the defensiveness and elusive nature. The Socratic method is about funding truths and creating a shared understanding. There is no right or wrong side.



The Wikipedia entry on the Socratic Method makes for an interesting read.



TJR