New houses should not have to meet high BER requirements

[The Horseman]

I'm not tarring them with anything. I'm pointing out that people are the same in every walk of life and take up one job rather than another doesn't confer some sort of ethical purity on that cohort of people.
I agree that there are regulated industries and sectors and that's a good thing but we've a long history of regulatory failure n this country.

I did not say nor imply that people in professions are above reproach you did. There are bad eggs in all walks of life as there are also good ones. It was you who initially raised that people in the professions you listed did not have to undergo any ethical tests which another poster has shown you they do (I am one of them).

 

[Purple]

You keep shifting the goalposts.

No, I keep making the same point and you keep answering a different one.

Your original claim was "As far as I know there's no ethics test required to become a QS, Engineer, solicitor, accountant or any other professional involved in the construction industry."

Correct.

That, in respect of solicitors and accountants, is as I have said, utter nonsense. I've sent you multiple links which confirm that, if only you'd bother reading them.

You're linked to ethical standards that solicitors and accountants have to follow. You haven't linked to any ethics tests that they have to do to become a solicitor or accountant.

Now you're going on about ethics tests ensuring that people are "more ethical or honest than the rest of the population" - which isn't the function of an ethics test.

No, it's the same point I've been making from the start.
The point was made in the context of the failure to apply regulations to the construction sector during the boom. People being people some of them took advantage of that. My contention is that their job or educational standard didn't make them any more or less likely to do the wrong thing.

 

[Purple]

I did not say nor imply that people in professions are above reproach you did.

Where did I do that?

There are bad eggs in all walks of life as there are also good ones.

Yes, that's the point I was making. The people within one sector are not intrinsically better or worse than those in any other.

It was you who initially raised that people in the professions you listed did not have to undergo any ethical tests which another poster has shown you they do (I am one of them).

What ethical test was done on you before you were allowed to qualify and work in your chosen sector?
I know that there are regulatory standards, also called ethical standards, that you must work within. I never said otherwise.

I've asked what ethical test, if any, people have to pass in order to work at particular jobs. That is entirely different from the rules they are required to work within after they qualify.

I work in medical device manufacturing. Everything we do is controlled, inspected and audited. It is a heavily regulated sector. There are absolutely no ethical tests that anyone in my sector has to pass before they are allowed to working in it.

 

[The Horseman]

I've asked what ethical test, if any, people have to pass in order to work at particular jobs. That is entirely different from the rules they are required to work within after they qualify.

Before you qualify you must pass an ethical exam.

 

[Purple]

Before you qualify you must pass an ethical exam.

That's a exam to show that you know what you should do. It's not a test to filter out people who won't do what they are supposed to do.
My contention is simply that people are no more or less intrinsically honest or ethical based on the job they do. Some sectors are certainly policed more heavily than others but that's not the same thing. I think you agree with me on that point.

 

[The Horseman]

That's a exam to show that you know what you should do. It's not a test to filter out people who won't do what they are supposed to do.
My contention is simply that people are no more or less intrinsically honest or ethical based on the job they do. Some sectors are certainly policed more heavily than others but that's not the same thing. I think you agree with me on that point.

I don't agree with your point. In order to become a member and remain a member of an accredited profession you must continually hold yourself to high ethical standards. There are complaints procedures that those who receive the services of professionals can complain to. The consequences of from a professional perspective is to be removed from the register of members. This in itself prevents you from providing services in this profession.

Accountants are required to constantly undertake CIPD to retain membership. It has been pointed out to you by another poster that you initial assertion was incorrect and you have refused to accept that this is the case despite the fact that two professionals in one of the sectors you referenced have shown you exactly what the requirements are. You as somebody outside these professions are actually telling those inside the profession that they are wrong.

Do you not see anything wrong in this?

 

[Purple]

I don't agree with your point. In order to become a member and remain a member of an accredited profession you must continually hold yourself to high ethical standards. There are complaints procedures that those who receive the services of professionals can complain to. The consequences of from a professional perspective is to be removed from the register of members. This in itself prevents you from providing services in this profession.

Accountants are required to constantly undertake CIPD to retain membership. It has been pointed out to you by another poster that you initial assertion was incorrect and you have refused to accept that this is the case despite the fact that two professionals in one of the sectors you referenced have shown you exactly what the requirements are. You as somebody outside these professions are actually telling those inside the profession that they are wrong.

Do you not see anything wrong in this?

You seem to be saying that they are required to operate to high standards due to the regulations in place and the enforcement of those regulations. If that's the case I agree and I have never suggested otherwise.

For clarity, are you contending that people within those professions are intrinsically more ethical those those who are not?
If so how is that the case?
For it to be so it would require that the intake of people seeking to work in those sectors are intrinsically more honest and ethical.

I have asked if there is a mechanism by which that it determined and all I have been presented with is the rules and the training which is undertaken to understand those rules once the people in question are already working within the sector. That is not a selection process.

Is it just a happy coincidence that ethical people are drawn to become accountants and solicitors?

In the absence of a selection process are you contending that the CPD training and rules within the sector somehow make people more honest and ethical? Does it fundamentally alter their character?
Do accountants and solicitors become more honest and ethical the longer they are exposed to this form of behavioural osmosis? Is it similar to attaining a Zen state?

 

[_OkGo_]

I have to side with @Purple on this one. Ethics & compliance are frequently used interchangeably when they have very different meanings. Most professions have some level of regulation that must be maintained. It doesn't imply that the rules are ethical or the people abiding by those rules are ethical.

And it is also telling that in the LSOI Code of Conduct that the word "ethics" only appears once in context. The other 6 are in relation to the name of a committee and a footnote. The LSOI have the common sense not to tie themselves up in ethical knots

https://www.lawsociety.ie/globalassets/documents/committees/conduct-guide.pdf

Code of Conduct - Law Library

The Code of Conduct for the Bar of Ireland sets out the rules by which barristers perform their work and operate within the courts and outside. It covers a multitude of details from relationships between parties, to duties in a criminal case, to registration of foreign lawyers and are the...

www.lawlibrary.ie

 

[The Horseman]

You seem to be saying that they are required to operate to high standards due to the regulations in place and the enforcement of those regulations. If that's the case I agree and I have never suggested otherwise.

For clarity, are you contending that people within those professions are intrinsically more ethical those those who are not?
If so how is that the case?
For it to be so it would require that the intake of people seeking to work in those sectors are intrinsically more honest and ethical.

I have asked if there is a mechanism by which that it determined and all I have been presented with is the rules and the training which is undertaken to understand those rules once the people in question are already working within the sector. That is not a selection process.

Is it just a happy coincidence that ethical people are drawn to become accountants and solicitors?

In the absence of a selection process are you contending that the CPD training and rules within the sector somehow make people more honest and ethical? Does it fundamentally alter their character?
Do accountants and solicitors become more honest and ethical the longer they are exposed to this form of behavioural osmosis? Is it similar to attaining a Zen state?

Professional bodies will remove members from their bodies which remove the ability to operate in these professions eg legal people being debarred, doctors being struck from the medical register.

Your tone regarding "happy coincidence ethical people are drawn to accountants .... is actually not worth responding to as it was a childish dig.

if your source of income is removed by losing membership from accredited bodies then the majority of people will act with honesty and integrity.

 

[Purple]

Professional bodies will remove members from their bodies which remove the ability to operate in these professions eg legal people being debarred, doctors being struck from the medical register.

Agreed. Now talk to an accountant who does the books for GP's and ask them about how much cash they generally take off the top.

Your tone regarding "happy coincidence ethical people are drawn to accountants .... is actually not worth responding to as it was a childish dig.

Well I'm trying to understand how a cohort of people can come to be more ethical than another by virtue of the job they choose to do.

if your source of income is removed by losing membership from accredited bodies then the majority of people will act with honesty and integrity.

That's fear of the consequences of acting outside the rules.

Integrity is the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles, it is doing the right thing even if their are no consequences of doing otherwise.

Ethics, in the context of this discussion, is the moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity.

 

[The Horseman]

Agreed. Now talk to an accountant who does the books for GP's and ask them about how much cash they generally take off the top.

Well I'm trying to understand how a cohort of people can come to be more ethical than another by virtue of the job they choose to do.

That's fear of the consequences of acting outside the rules.

Integrity is the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles, it is doing the right thing even if their are no consequences of doing otherwise.

Ethics, in the context of this discussion, is the moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity.

You are now comparing apples with oranges. A Dr is struck off for malpratice or doing something medically wrong. An accountant can only deal with the details he is given (which is why the Dr in your example wants cash as its untraceable).

I never said one cohort was more ethical than another that is your belief. Rules are there for a reason as are consquences of going outside those rules. if as you appear to think every professional are ethically and morally bankrupt then I think that says more about you than the members of those professions.

The vast majority of people in all walks of life are ethical and morally just. I don't understand why you seem to hone in on the small minority of those who aren't expecting everyone to ethical and of high morals.

Maybe its you who think the world and everyone in it should as you referenced be in a "Zen state".

 

[Leo]

I don't agree with your point. In order to become a member and remain a member of an accredited profession you must continually hold yourself to high ethical standards.

For many years I was a member of the Institute of Engineers of Ireland, now Engineers Ireland. In order to join and renew membership each year I had to sign up to upholding their Code of Ethics. Once I paid my money they were happy to have me as a member, at no point did they ever assess my work to ascertain whether I was upholding those standards.

For ethical standards to be truly 'in-force' there would need to be significant ongoing assessment of every member. I'm not aware of any professional body who do that, most rely on third party reports that lead to very occasional investigations for the most egregious contraventions.

 

[The Horseman]

For many years I was a member of the Institute of Engineers of Ireland, now Engineers Ireland. In order to join and renew membership each year I had to sign up to upholding their Code of Ethics. Once I paid my money they were happy to have me as a member, at no point did they ever assess my work to ascertain whether I was upholding those standards.

For ethical standards to be truly 'in-force' there would need to be significant ongoing assessment of every member. I'm not aware of any professional body who do that, most rely on third party reports that lead to very occasional investigations for the most egregious contraventions.

Professionals by their nature are expected to be ethical and professional. Membership of most if not all professional bodies follows a lengthy process of exams, work experience, and a sign off by an existing member of the body.

There is an inherent understanding that members will behave appropriately. No system is 100% perfect which is why there are ethical boards in those bodies who investigate alleged breaches of the code of ethics.

 

[T McGibney]

I have to side with @Purple on this one. Ethics & compliance are frequently used interchangeably when they have very different meanings. Most professions have some level of regulation that must be maintained. It doesn't imply that the rules are ethical or the people abiding by those rules are ethical.

And it is also telling that in the LSOI Code of Conduct that the word "ethics" only appears once in context. The other 6 are in relation to the name of a committee and a footnote. The LSOI have the common sense not to tie themselves up in ethical knots

I'm not even a solicitor and have no interest whatsoever in advocating either for them or for the body that regulates them, but if what you say is true, then why is the Law Society forever disciplining solicitors for even technical ethics breaches?

 

[T McGibney]

For many years I was a member of the Institute of Engineers of Ireland, now Engineers Ireland. In order to join and renew membership each year I had to sign up to upholding their Code of Ethics. Once I paid my money they were happy to have me as a member, at no point did they ever assess my work to ascertain whether I was upholding those standards.

For ethical standards to be truly 'in-force' there would need to be significant ongoing assessment of every member. I'm not aware of any professional body who do that, most rely on third party reports that lead to very occasional investigations for the most egregious contraventions.

Engineers Ireland appears from their website to be a purely representative/networking body, with no apparent regulatory function nor role in oversight of its members. So why or how would it police its members' work?

Engineers Ireland membership provides access to the latest engineering news and insights, upskilling and CPD training, exclusive networking events such as our annual conference, career advice and much more.
Connect with over 25,000 professionals from every discipline of engineering

Membership | Engineers Ireland

Like Engineers Ireland, the GAA also has a code of ethics for members, yet any suggestion that the GAA has any business snooping on members' private activities etc would be met with justifiable laughter. But if someone breaks its code of ethics by say abusing a child, they'll be turfed out.

 

[T McGibney]

You seem to be saying that they are required to operate to high standards due to the regulations in place and the enforcement of those regulations. If that's the case I agree and I have never suggested otherwise.

For clarity, are you contending that people within those professions are intrinsically more ethical those those who are not?
If so how is that the case?
For it to be so it would require that the intake of people seeking to work in those sectors are intrinsically more honest and ethical.

I have asked if there is a mechanism by which that it determined and all I have been presented with is the rules and the training which is undertaken to understand those rules once the people in question are already working within the sector. That is not a selection process.

Is it just a happy coincidence that ethical people are drawn to become accountants and solicitors?

In the absence of a selection process are you contending that the CPD training and rules within the sector somehow make people more honest and ethical? Does it fundamentally alter their character?
Do accountants and solicitors become more honest and ethical the longer they are exposed to this form of behavioural osmosis? Is it similar to attaining a Zen state?

There is no basis for any assumption that the intake of people entering accountancy as a career are any more honest or ethical than anyone else, but the training and career progression path that they will follow will certainly weed out, sooner or later, those who are dishonest or unethical.

No employer, agency or customer will want to touch an accountant or bookkeeper whose career has been previously tainted by involvement in fraud, pilferage or other dishonesty, and those who become thus tainted invariably find their career options narrowing dramatically.

Nobody minds a wideboy plumber or engineer, but they will steer a mile away from a wideboy accountant.

And by and large the same goes for solicitors.

 

[_OkGo_]

I'm not even a solicitor and have no interest whatsoever in advocating either for them or for the body that regulates them, but if what you say is true, then why is the Law Society forever disciplining solicitors for even technical ethics breaches?

Its not something I see or hear regularly but I can't say that I follow it that closely. Any disciplinary action that has been newsworthy is typically IMO for non compliance with regulation as opposed to unethical behaviour.

You are now comparing apples with oranges. A Dr is struck off for malpratice or doing something medically wrong. An accountant can only deal with the details he is given (which is why the Dr in your example wants cash as its untraceable

That's hilarious, I don't want to pick on accountants but I can easily find one to do a cash job for a simple individuals tax return. Is that unethical?

And as for the "an accountant can only deal with the details he is given" , that could be an auditors epitah. It is a get out clause to remain compliant with regulation or a code of conduct. It is unethical not to ask for more information where there is a suspicion of wrongdoing. But many won't ask and rely on the "we only had what was put in front of us" to remain compliant with their own standards.

Again I'm only using accountants because you have gotten hung up on defending them but the same is true for many professions including my own. The professional qualifications or affiliations don't make people more or less ethical.

Professionals by their nature are expected to be ethical and professional. Membership of most if not all professional bodies follows a lengthy process of exams, work experience, and a sign off by an existing member of the body.

That is exactly the opposite of what @Purple is trying to argue. Professionals Exams and work experience build knowledge of a subject matter allowing you to work in a specific industry. They do not make you behave ethically

 

[Purple]

Professionals by their nature are expected to be ethical and professional

They are expected to follow the rules as laid down by their professional bodies, following from legislation. Behaving well because you are bound by rules and fear losing your livelihood if you break them is not the same as being ethical.

. Membership of most if not all professional bodies follows a lengthy process of exams, work experience, and a sign off by an existing member of the body.

Yes, do you think that makes them intrinsically more ethical people than the general populace?
I don’t think it makes them better or worse. I don’t think their training will alter their fundamental character. Maybe I’m missing something and their training is akin to the training young Vulcans get in Star Trek and somehow inculcates with the ability to resist normal human frailties, but I doubt it.

There is an inherent understanding that members will behave appropriately.

More than any other job? If so why is that?

 

[T McGibney]

Any disciplinary action that has been newsworthy is typically IMO for non compliance with regulation as opposed to unethical behaviour.

There should rarely be much difference. Any decently-formulated set of regulations will seek to specifically prohibit the most common forms of unethical behaviour, as this reduces the chances of later disputes over interpretation of regulations and also facilitates the mandating of specific penalties to match stated offences.

That's hilarious, I don't want to pick on accountants but I can easily find one to do a cash job for a simple individuals tax return.

How does this accountant register you with Revenue as their client without including in their own books any income from the work they have completed for you? Genuine question.

 

[The Horseman]

Accountants battle rising pressure to act unethically

More than one in four professional accountants say they have been put under pressure or felt under pressure to act in an unethical way over the past three years, new research has found.

www.icaew.com

I am going to remove myself from this thread as it has gone way off tangent and despite the evidence provided by a number of posters some contributors refuse to accept what has been provided.

But sure hey feel free to have your unsubstantiated viewpoint.