Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
I ain’t here to doen play their roles but from organizational perspective ain’t they essentially tell daddy boss best way to do it then daddy boss tells them to get fucked and it will be done this way or a highway generally due to corruption/politics.
Under this fact pattern while engineers are responsible to protest, I would posit the ultimate discioson maker should be held criminally liable first then we can talk about engineers proffesional responsibilities.
The way that it works is that the plans for every construction project like this must be stamped by a licensed engineer, or else they cannot legally be built. Then, the construction itself must be supervised by another licensed engineer, to ensure that the as-built condition conforms to the plans or that changes are properly vetted for safety.
Under this fact pattern while engineers are responsible to protest, I would posit the ultimate discioson maker should be held criminally liable first then we can talk about engineers proffesional responsibilities.
That “fact pattern” is false. The ultimate decision maker, the person who should be held criminally liable, is the principal engineer who stamped the plans.
Yet again: the way it’s supposed to work is that retaliating against the engineer would be pointless because every possible replacement would stand on principle just the same.
Do engineers make these decisions though?
I ain’t here to doen play their roles but from organizational perspective ain’t they essentially tell daddy boss best way to do it then daddy boss tells them to get fucked and it will be done this way or a highway generally due to corruption/politics.
Under this fact pattern while engineers are responsible to protest, I would posit the ultimate discioson maker should be held criminally liable first then we can talk about engineers proffesional responsibilities.
Yes.
The way that it works is that the plans for every construction project like this must be stamped by a licensed engineer, or else they cannot legally be built. Then, the construction itself must be supervised by another licensed engineer, to ensure that the as-built condition conforms to the plans or that changes are properly vetted for safety.
That “fact pattern” is false. The ultimate decision maker, the person who should be held criminally liable, is the principal engineer who stamped the plans.
This is what licensing engineers is for!
Fair but practically how would such refusal would play out?
Firing or some shiti office transfer?
Yet again: the way it’s supposed to work is that retaliating against the engineer would be pointless because every possible replacement would stand on principle just the same.