<< Chapter < Page Chapter >> Page >
Criminal suit timeline
1991-1993 United States of America v. Hughes Aircraft Co., and Donald LaRue
December 13, 1991 After a lengthy investigation, the U.S. Department of Defense charges Hughes and Donald A. LaRue with a 51-count indictment accusing it of falsifying tests of microelectronic circuits (criminal suit).
June 15, 1992 Hughes found guilty of conspiring to defraud the U.S. Government in crminal case, co-defendent LaRUE acquitted following 4-week trial. Goodearl/Aldred called as witnesses in trial. Hughes appeals.
Oct. 29, 1992 Hughes fined 3.5 million in criminal trial decision.
December 2, 1993 Appellate court upholds 1992 criminal conviction and sentence. Hughes appeals.

Hughes case socio technical system

Hughes socio technical system
Hardware/Software Physical Surroundings People, Roles, Structures Procedures Laws and Regulations Data and Data Structures
Description Hybrid Chips (circuitry hermetically sealed in metal or ceramic packages in inert gas atmosphere Battle conditions under which chips might be used Hughes Microelectric Circuit Division Chip Testing: Temperature Cycle, Constant Acceleration, Mechanical Shock, Hermeticity (Fine and Gross Leak), P.I.N.D. Legally Mandated Tests Lot Travelors to document chips
Analogue to Digital Conversion Chips E-1000 at Hughes (Clean Room) Department of Defense (Office of Inspector General) Hughes Human Resources Procedures for Complaints Whistle Blower Protection Legislation
Radar and Missile Guidance Systems Hughes Quality Control Dissenting Professional Opinions Qui Tam Lawsuit, Civil Suit, Criminal Suit
Individuals: Reismueller, Temple, Saia, LaRue, Goodearl, Ibarra/Aldren

Responsible dissent

    Sources

  • Computing Cases is the primary source for the material below on responsible dissent. It is based on the materials for responsibly carrying out dissent and disagreement that was formerly posted at the IEEE website. The IEEE has since taken this material down.
  • The Online Ethics Center has also posted the IEEE material on responsible dissent. The origin of this material as well as a thorough discussion of its content can be found in Carolyn Whitbek, Ethics in Engineering Practice and Research: 2nd Edition , Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Chapter 7, "Workplace Rights and Responsibilities, pp. 227-269.
  • Much of this material (IEEE Guidelines and a discussion of Dissenting Professional Opinion Guidelines) can be found in Chapter 7 ("Averting the Conflict at the Source")in the following: Stephen H., Unger, Controlling Technology: Ethics and the Responsible Engineer: 2nd Edition , New York: John Wiley and Sons, INC.

    Generic forms of dissent

  • Gather more information
  • Nolo Contendere (Don't fight it. Go along.)
  • Oppose diplomatically . Offer your supervisor alternatives to the wrong he or she has ordered.
  • Oppose by confronting . Threaten to go over your supervisor's head or threaten to blow the whistle.
  • Distance yourself . Ask to be transferred to another section to avoid being implicated in the wrongdoing.
  • Exit . Quit and do nothing or quit and blow the whistle.
  • Document your position if your company has a Dissenting Professional Opinion process. If it doesn't, work to have one implemented. By establishing your opposition, you distance yourself morally from the wrong you have documented.
  • Which one is right? Use your tests. Which does the best job of satisfying the three ethics tests of reversibility, harm, and publicity? Which does the best job with the ADEM values: justice, responsibility, respect, trust, and integrity?

Get Jobilize Job Search Mobile App in your pocket Now!

Get it on Google Play Download on the App Store Now




Source:  OpenStax, Business ethics. OpenStax CNX. Sep 04, 2013 Download for free at http://legacy.cnx.org/content/col10491/1.11
Google Play and the Google Play logo are trademarks of Google Inc.

Notification Switch

Would you like to follow the 'Business ethics' conversation and receive update notifications?

Ask