//****************************************************************************//
//********** Management and Whistleblowing - October 28th, 2019 *************//
//**************************************************************************//

- Jake's descent into madness, part 2: 28 hours without sleep
    - I have to deal with SOFO again. That's already that start of madness. The insomnia is just a blanket bun around the hot dog center of the mess.
- Now, onto our textbook, Chapter 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Alright, we're gonna talk about engineers and their relationship to management!
    - Earlier versions of this textbook waffled over whether engineers were or weren't "professionals," since many engineers aren't officially licensed, etc.
        - This version, though, leans heavily towards saying we ARE professionals, so hurray! We're kinda dignified!
    - This means that engineers are expected to defer to their bosses if they work in a company
        - But what if you disagree with your business-type, non-technical boss? What should you do?
            - "This book basically takes a dump on management in a productive way for this whole chapter; it alleges that management is disinterested in ethics unless it helps the company, and talks on and on about the problems managers cause, how they only care about the company and try to shift blame"
            - Most managers aren't engineers (leading to communication issues), and even former engineers can get out of touch
                - The book suggests that engineers and managers will naturally come into conflict; they have a different set of priorities and tasks
                    - Managers need to worry about a BUNCH of different things, and so they're concerned about the deadline and the budget and those shareholders who're hounding the company, while you as the engineer are concerned about safety standards and "doing things right"
    
- What advice does the book give for dealing with this kind of structure? Surprisingly for our reserved, wishy-washy textbook, it gives some kind of edgy advice
    - Advice like...
        - Report any bad news that happens and be "suspicious" of in-house ethics officers
        - Be "critically loyal;" be loyal, but not unreasonably so if your company is doing shady stuff
        - Focus on issues, not personalities ("don't talk about what your boss is doing wrong, but what the COMPANY is doing wrong, so people don't accuse you of squabbling")
        - Keep an official paper record of what's going on! Save your emails and all!
        - Keep any complaints you make confidential ("don't just complain around the office in an unprofessional way")
        - If necessary, seek neutral people outside the company
            - "...I think this means lawyer up"
        - Move quickly; if something's up, don't wait forever so that people think you don't take it seriously

- Now, the book also talks about whistleblowing - what's that?
    - This is where you reveal information your company doesn't want to be shared through an outside "unapproved channel" (usually the government or the media)
        - If the crucial safety thing hasn't been done and you're worried people are gonna actually get hurt, and your bosses are blowing you off an saying "it's fine, don't worry, etc.", this might be the only way to get your company to stop
            - This is an EXTREME thing to do, okay? It's not a normal thing to whistleblow, and it shouldn't come up in normal work...but there's a chance, in extreme situations, when this might be appropriate
            - This can also end your career if you're wrong, or even if you're right; be aware of what you're doing, to your company and to yourself
        - You might also work for a company that doesn't have strong whistleblower protections; just because one person "blew the whistle" and it went fine for them doesn't mean it'll end in roses for you
    - When is it acceptable to do this extreme thing and accuse your company of "serious stuff?" The textbook quotes a philosopher who argues whistleblowing is permissible when it can "prevent harm"
        - (...missed this, but Chapter 4)
        - Whistleblowing is OBLIGATORY if:
            - There's clear, documented evidence that would convince a neutral party the company's wrong
            - There's strong evidence that revealing this information can prevent serious harm
                - i.e. you've got an actual chance at stopping this thing
    - "...I don't know if I agree with this next dude completely"
        - Another guy named Michael Davis argues from a complicity view, saying you should whistleblow if:
            - The hidden information is about YOUR company
            - You're a volunteer member
            - You believe your company is doing serious wrong and you believe your work is contributing somehow
            - The above are justified and true
        - So, Davis argues that even if you can't STOP the bad things, you should still reveal what's going on

- "I hope you go back and look at the stuff in this chapter; it has some important stuff to say"
    - "...and I guess that's my last slide, so we're ending early?"

- For Wednesday, DON'T FORGET your recitation assignment, and read the rest of chapter 4! Goodbye!