Ralph,
I am having trouble finding "...never take a job unless the firm before me got paid..." In the NSPS canons. Does NY have something different?
http://www.nspsmo.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=526
> Ralph,
>
> I am having trouble finding "...never take a job unless the firm before me got paid..." In the NSPS canons. Does NY have something different?
>
>> http://www.nspsmo.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=526br >
Hi Richard,
I remember it from Andrew Harbin's book.
I can't find the 3rd edition in which he discusses it but here's what he said in this one.
looks like he didn't include that in this edition, if anybody has the third edition of the Surveyor's Reference Guide, let me know if it's in there because I've been operating under this tenet.
Ralph
> Ralph,
>
> I am having trouble finding "...never take a job unless the firm before me got paid..." In the NSPS canons. Does NY have something different?
>
>> http://www.nspsmo.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=526br >
See Section 29.3(a)1 of the NY Rules of Boards of Regents.... in part that section reads...
... being associated in a professional capacity with any project or practice known to the licensee to be fraudulent or dishonest in character,...
I think failing to pay the previous firm falls into the category of fraudulent or dishonest.
Is it possible there was a simple accounting error and the other firm will get paid very soon? Sure. But you explain the circumstances instead of offering a 50% retainer to have the surveyor look the other way. That too is an indicator of fraudulent or dishonest.
Larry P
Or, from the clients' perspective, it could be a restraint of trade collaboration between two surveyors.
I believe that is why you will no longer find that passage in any ethical canons.
Thank You Larry,
The first paragraph says it all,
"Surveyors should try to protect the Surveying profession as a whole, to strengthen it, and to enhance its public stature."
By accepting the job I undermine the previous guy who did nothing wrong and wound up floating 4 months of payroll. If the client wasn't satisfied he should have notified the surveyor and ended the agreement, not string him along. Furthermore, if I accept the job I'm enabling the client to continue this practice as if it had no repercussions. Gaining something at the expense of somebody elses' hardship is unethical in and off itself.
You're only as strong as your weakest link.
I still remember Harbin discussing it in earlier editions. Mr. Harbin is now deceased and I think the 3rd edition was the last one he oversaw.
Ralph
> Or, from the clients' perspective, it could be a restraint of trade collaboration between two surveyors.
>
> I believe that is why you will no longer find that passage in any ethical canons.
Good point, what if I wouldn't have known??
Ralph
I believe you could do the work with out regard.
> I believe you could do the work with out regard.
Maybe, but I have to live with me. If somebody took on the work and were in over their head and needed to be relieved, I would have no problem with it. Particularly since they would be acting unethically by taking on work they weren't qualified to do. In this case, taking the job would have been the wrong thing to do.
Ralph
> Saw an add were Topcon has put a mobile scanner in the hands of a surveying equipment dealer to provide mobile scanning services to the public. Wouldnt they need to be a registered Surveying or engineering Company ...
IMO, this is unlicensed practice. BUT, no board will address the matter unless they get a complaint. Potential clients of this unlicensed practice are likely to be public agencies who have staff engineers of their own, who are culpable themselves and unlikely to make a complaint. Ma and Pa don't buy this sort of service. The equipment dealer will get some registrant to rubber stamp their product, under the guise of training the potential buyer of the new technology. That stamper will cash the check keep quiet. Other surveyors will gripe and do nothing. So who will make the complaint?
What is more, anybody who actually purchases scanning equipment from this dealer will find themselves writing a big check to the very same unlicensed practitioner they are now in direct competition with.
> Or, from the clients' perspective, it could be a restraint of trade collaboration between two surveyors.
>
> I believe that is why you will no longer find that passage in any ethical canons.
I have read the ethics codes from most states. A passage similar to the one from New York is in all of them. The same thing is in the NCEES Example Code.
As for the client seeing this as a restraint of trade, the clients participating in dishonest or fraudulent practices can think anything they want. I do not care.
Larry P
Larry
You may find the word supplant on this link and find its use interesting.
http://www.ncarb.org/~/media/Files/PDF/Mini-Monographs/EthicsConductMM.pdf
Here is another, somewhat dated, citation.
http://www.profsurv.com/magazine/article.aspx?i=429
On the other side of the coin, there have been issues that have been addressed by the NSPE Code where NSPE was required as a matter of law to modify the Code to comply with the law. During the 1970s, the codes of ethics of several professions were challenged by the federal government as constituting an "agreement in restraint of trade" and therefore violative of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Following litigation national architectural and engineering groups including NSPE, the NSPE Code as well as the codes of other groups were modified to remove provisions (1) prohibiting competitive bidding for engineering services and (2) supplanting of one engineer by another. In addition, NSPE agreed with federal antitrust officials to eliminate provisions from the NSPE Code that made it unethical to engage in certain types of promotional advertising.
http://www.njspe.org/news/091105.html
According to surveyors around here, Google Map runs around
here and takes pictures to rectify.
It is in West Virginia
Google Street View: Capturing the World at Street Level
The word "survey" does not appear in the article. Is it Surveying?
What Surveyors are renting the developing the equipment? Using the equipment? or even renting the equipment that started this thread?
Sure, but doesn't everyone have to learn the new technology from the manufacturer or their representatives? Some of whom are not surveyors I'm sure. I just don't think it's possible to regulate the use of measurement technology even if it were a good idea. That doen't mean I don't believe implementation of it and analysis of the results will be the same by those with no general measurement expertise.
As to contracts. I would want to know why the non-payment and sort things out. May or may not take the project. I think it would be unethical if you were helping someone avoid payment of a legitimate invoice.
> Sure, but doesn't everyone have to learn the new technology from the manufacturer or their representatives? Some of whom are not surveyors I'm sure. I just don't think it's possible to regulate the use of measurement technology even if it were a good idea. That doen't mean I don't believe implementation of it and analysis of the results will be the same by those with no general measurement expertise.
>
They still needed the work to be confirmed by a Licensed Surveyor.
Ralph
I agree that it is not my place to worry about contractual issues between others. As long as I am not trying to supplant someone who is currently working on a job, then I believe it is ok. What if the surveyor had made a large blunder and was not owning up to it? Maybe he didnt have the insurance required under the contract and refused to get it. Maybe he performed shoddy work. Thats why they have courts.
> I agree that it is not my place to worry about contractual issues between others. As long as I am not trying to supplant someone who is currently working on a job, then I believe it is ok. What if the surveyor had made a large blunder and was not owning up to it? Maybe he didnt have the insurance required under the contract and refused to get it. Maybe he performed shoddy work. Thats why they have courts.
In any of the scenarios in bold. I would have taken the job no question. You must remember the circumstances, this isn't Ms. McGillicuddy's home I'm doing a title job for. This was a high profile situation which was under a great deal of scrutiny just like everything else that happens at this particular site.
It's hard to explain if you're not from here, but the Survey community is very small and tight knit (like it ought to be). We're not gonna let anybody run rampant on us. Sounds collusionary but it's not, because it goes with out saying. If someone did their job and fulfilled their end of the deal and didn't get paid you just don't wander in there and finish it. If the guy got fired or thrown off the job or didn't live up to his/her end, that's a different story.
Ralph
Sounds like common courtesy to me. If I get a client call saying that another surveyor was working on the project and they want us to now do the job, my very first call is to the other surveyor to make sure there are not any outstanding issues. I would expect the same courtesy extended to us from other surveyors as well. We have a code of ethics to live by while the common Joe Public does not.
> I agree that it is not my place to worry about contractual issues between others. As long as I am not trying to supplant someone who is currently working on a job, then I believe it is ok. What if the surveyor had made a large blunder and was not owning up to it? Maybe he didnt have the insurance required under the contract and refused to get it. Maybe he performed shoddy work. Thats why they have courts.
Missing among your "what-if's"and "maybe's" is the actual scenario that Ralph posted....a simple non-payment. Having worked at many large sites, including one that sounds a lot like the one Ralph mentions, believe me, my firm knows about late payments and non-payments. It happens all the time, and on sites with union personnel where people have worked everywhere and know everyone, word travels fast.
I'm guessing that if that was the case and the shoe was on the other foot, you'd be hopping mad.
Courts are really great for this type of thing, if you have three or four years to wait around for your money.