Pico PCs has decided to begin manufacturing tiny processors for use in the manufacture of wearable technology.
During manufacture, 64 gold wired, each much finer than a human hair, must be soldered from the chip to the pins of the processor. Robots were trialled for the soldering, but the error rate was unacceptable high. One single mistake in positioning a wire or soldering it, ruined the chip. The robots were also not only prohibitively expensive. But required frequent and expensive calibration.
Kushlani, the IT Production Manager was asked to carry out trials using human technicians for the work. The trials clearly demonstrated that humans had a much lower error rate and were less expensive than robots, but the technicians complained that constantly staring through a microscope at a brightly illuminated object gave them headaches and was harmful to their eyes.
She reported back to management that she believed the trial had failed.
The CEO was very disappointed, because he thought that the solution was good, and ‘worth a few headaches’. He asked Kushlani to get a professional medical opinion.
PE_Assignment1_Set A – Jan 2017
Kushlani discussed the issue with two senior doctors, who confirmed that this work could permanently damage a person’s eyesight in as little as 5 months, and could lead to blindness in as little as 18 months.
The company’s legal advisors confirmed that this was clearly in breach of the Work Health and Safety Act in Australia, so they could not go ahead. The CEO was really angry.
Next morning the CEO called Kushlani into his office. Kushlani was surprised to find him quite cheerful. The CEO said that he had discovered that there was an Island in the Pacific that does not have health and safety laws, and so it would be quite legal for people of that island to solder the processors. And, better still, they were willing to work for one tenth of the wages of Australians. He said that this was a ‘win win’.
What do you think that Kushlani should do?
PE_Assignment1_Set A – Jan 2017
From what you have learned during Week s 3 and 4 of your Professional Environments Course, discuss ethical, professional and legal issues which you consider arise from this scenario. Make some recommendations of actions which could be taken to resolve the situation and/or to minimise the chance the scenario may recur. Support your answers with relevant references (as well as the Codes and Laws).
Things to Consider in Your Assignment:
You should list at least 3 values from the ACS Code of Ethics and up to 5 clauses from the ACS Code of Professional Conduct, you think are specifically relevant in deciding how to resolve the situation. Make sure that you refer to the most up to date ACS Codes which are available on the ACS website – www.acs.org.au.
You should also list any relevant Australian legislation that you think applies to this scenario.
Your analysis, discussion and recommendations should use the framework you selected in Week 3 – Solving an Ethical Dilemma.
Your assignment should be 400 -500 words in length (excluding your code lists, legislation list and references).
You may need to undertake a small amount of research, however, most information you will need is available via the seminars and their references. Also,
• use in‐text referencing,
• use complete Harvard Notation, submit in “Word” format or equivalent format that can be readily opened in MS Word, keep your formatting simple: Arial 11pt, 10pt after paragraph, single line spacing, headings in bold, maximum 2 indent levels/bullet levels. Do not use page borders, word art, page backgrounds or similar extraneous decoration
• Your uploaded file name should identify you as part of its name – e.g. PE_Assignment1_William_Smith.
Marks will be awarded using the following guidelines.
• 15% meeting the procedural requirements, including, spelling, grammar, number of words, document formatting,
• 30% how logically and thoroughly you identified and described professional ,ethical and legal issues arising in the scenario,
• 30% how well you developed your recommendations and supported them with relevant, correct referencing,
• 20% how well you convinced the reader that you understood the issues,
• 5% did the material generate interest in the reader?