Benjamin M GradskyECE 402 Senior Design

Dr. Knopp10/1/10

Unscrupulous Williams: Ethics Violations in The Truesteel Affair

As stated in the opening to the Preamble to the Code of Ethics for Engineers of the

National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE), engineering is an important and learned

profession. In order to ensure a level of professional reliability and integrity, this Code of Ethics

was created to guide engineers toward the right path whenever certain situations arise that would

possibly put into question an engineer’s ethical standing. Following the Code of Ethics would

allow an engineer to perform their duties with honesty, impartiality, fairness and equity while

ensuring that public health, safety and welfare are protected as well. This standard of behavior

set forth for an engineer calls for the observance of ethical conduct throughout an engineer’s

career. As seen in The Truesteel Affair, Robert Williams, a structural engineer working for a

company contracted to create trusses for a shopping center, encounters several ethical dilemmas

which call into question his ethical fortitude. I will discuss several points of the movie at which

Mr. Williams failed to observe the fundamental canons of the Code of Ethics, and I will also

make a few suggestions as to how he could have better handled these ethical quandaries.

The first violation I noted was a breach of Section II.1.a, which states “If an engineers’

judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall notify their

employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate.” When Mr. Williams

discovered that his order to re-weld the outgoing trusses was overturned, it became his

responsibility to notify the builder as well as his professional organization of the incident. By

failing to act in a timely manner, he definitely put lives at risk.

The second violation I saw violated Section II.1.e, “Engineers shall not aid or abet the

unlawful practice of engineering by a person or firm.” Again, when Mr. Williams discovered the

underhanded actions of his employer, he should have been willing to terminate his relationship

with Truesteel immediately. Instead, under threat of unemployment, Mr. Williams delayed any

action to counteract the shipment of the faulty trusses.

The third violation breached Section II.1.f, “Engineers having knowledge of any alleged

violation of this Code shall report thereon to appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant,

also to public authorities, and cooperate with the proper authorities in furnishing such

information or assistance as may be required.” This violation falls not onto Mr. Williams

himself, but onto the colleague that he discussed the situation with at a local bar. Once his

colleague became aware that such a violation could possibly be taking place in Mr. Williams’

firm, the colleague should have reported the matter to their professional organization. By not

acting on such information, despite being approached under the guise of friendship and

confidentiality, the colleague endangered his own career by not alerting the proper authorities.

The fourth violation in the movie was of Section II.4.a, “Engineers shall disclose all

known or potential conflicts of interest that could influence or appear to influence their judgment

or the quality of their services.” This matter refers to the employment situation of Mr. Williams.

When his employer threatened him with unemployment if Mr. Williams alerted the authorities of

Truesteel’s misdeeds, an immediate conflict of interest arose between Mr. Williams’ career and

his following the Code of Ethics. Such a situation merits immediate disclosure to one’s

professional organization at the very least.

The fifth violation I noticed was of Section III.1.a, “Engineers shall acknowledge their

errors and shall not distort or alter the facts.” By masking the errors made in the welding of the

trusses to be used in the construction of the shopping mall, Mr. Williams clearly engaged in an

act of deception. Such behavior is definitely against the spirit of the Code of Ethics.

The sixth violation I saw was of Section III.5, “Engineers shall not be influenced in their

professional duties by conflicting interests.” While being a similar violation as the fourth, I

believe this should be emphasized for its importance. Mr. Williams also weighed the future of

the firm, including the employment of the many welders, designers, drivers and others, against

reporting the mis-welded trusses. While it can be considered a noble thing to worry about his

fellow workers, Mr. Williams’ obligation to ensure public welfare should definitely have

overcome any other courses of action he decided on taking.

The seventh violation that I noted in The Truesteel Affair was of Section III.7, “Engineers

who believe others are guilty of unethical or illegal practice shall present such information to the

proper authority for action.” When Mr. Williams discovered that the mis-welded trusses were

being shipped to the construction site against his orders, he should have immediately reported the

actions to his professional authorities. Such misconduct is intolerable and displays a lack of

moral and ethical standing. Instead, Mr. Williams allowed himself to be talked out of taking

action and was subsequently punished for his actions.

The eighth violation that I saw was of Section III.8.b, “Engineers shall not use

association with a nonengineer, a corporation, or partnership as a “cloak” for unethical acts.”

This final violation is slightly more vague that the others. I believe that Mr. Williams, by virtue

of his continued employment with Truesteel, effectively blindfolded himself to the unethical

practices of his employer. Believing himself to still be within the bounds of the Code of Ethics,

he continued to work for an unscrupulous firm with a questionable history.

In summary, the actions of Mr. Williams left much to be desired in terms of ethical

conduct. As a result of his questionable behavior, he received a term of probation and

suspension of his engineering license. Even more detrimental, Mr. Williams’ engineering career

suffered due to widespread knowledge of the incident which was distributed as an article in his

professional journal. It is clear from watching this movie that even the smallest infraction of the

fundamental canons of the Code of Ethics can haunt an engineer’s career for a very long period,

as these breaches can be easily disclosed to colleagues and professional associates through

various forms of media such as simple word-of-mouth up to publication in a professional journal.

Clearly the ramifications of unethical decisions outweigh the immediate consequences of making

the ethical choices when an engineer’s career is in question, and that should always be at the

forefront in the mind of an ethical engineer.