New houses should not have to meet high BER requirements

[Purple]

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.

All I’ve done is question the notion that Professionals are more ethical than the general population. I don’t think they are any better or worse.
I do think that our professions (the legal, medicine and accountancy ones) are quite well regulated and so that generally produces good outcomes. That’s a different thing though.

 

[Purple]

"You accept that..." is at best doing both.

No it’s not. It’s a conversation.

Sure we all knew that from day one. What an utter and dispiriting waste of time this has all been.

Therefore people in all walks of life are of similar ethical standards. So why have you been arguing the contrary?

 

[T McGibney]

Therefore people in all walks of life are of similar ethical standards. So why have you been arguing the contrary?

Where have I done that?

 

[Purple]

Where have I done that?

The last 4 pages

 

[T McGibney]

The last 4 pages

2 examples will suffice.

What happened was that you made a reasonable point but complicated it with axe-grinding guff about accountants' ethical standards and some nonsense about how come dodgy accountants can't be screened out before they joined the profession.

And it somehow managed to go downhill from there.

 

[_OkGo_]

So your primary motivation here is to get one over on another poster? Wow.

Quite the opposite actually, I used that profession as an example because you and horseman jumped on it when purple arbitrarily listed it amongst a series of professions. And if you continued to read the rest of my sentence you quoted it should be clear that my point has nothing to do with getting one over on another poster

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.

But I find it funny that that is what you think I was trying to do when you have literally pulled countless threads off topic in some odd "one-up" battle with purple so I'll leave you to it

 

[AlbacoreA]

What we are going is deciding that high standards are more important than actually housing people.

Meanwhile people who have lived their entire lives content in what are now "uninhabitable" housing are wondering why they need pretty much a mini mortgage to make savings that will take decades to recover in energy saving. That's assuming any of us can afford energy considering world events. We might be back to candles and aran jumpers before long.

 

[AlbacoreA]

We also have one of the largest concrete businesses here in the world, determined to keep our house building methods at somewhere around 1885.

The Romans used concrete.

Concrete can be used in low energy housing. But we don't check or enforce standards anyway regardless of materials.

'I nearly fell off my chair': Dublin apartment owners face €68,000 fire defects bill

As many as 100,000 homes across the country may be impacted by fire safety or water ingress issues.

www.thejournal.ie

 

[AlbacoreA]

As a nation our governance of many industries and professional bodies is less than ideal. We are known for it internationally.

“Wild West of European finance”

 

[T McGibney]

As a nation our governance of many industries and professional bodies is less than ideal. We are known for it internationally.

“Wild West of European finance”

100%. And our politics is rotten too.

But anyone who dares question whether our independence 100 years ago was a terrible and ghastly mistake gets savaged, and if they say it to the wrong people, sometimes murdered.

 

[The Horseman]

Quite the opposite actually, I used that profession as an example because you and horseman jumped on it when purple arbitrarily listed it amongst a series of professions. And if you continued to read the rest of my sentence you quoted it should be clear that my point has nothing to do with getting one over on another poster



But I find it funny that that is what you think I was trying to do when you have literally pulled countless threads off topic in some odd "one-up" battle with purple so I'll leave you to it

One post said that there were no ethical tests as part of a professional body by somebody outside of that body.

It was highlighted that there is an actual ethical test required before the granting of membership to that same accredited profession.

Subsequently evidence was provided how the majority of members of that profession who responded to the questionnaire had suffered in a number of ways due to the pressure exerted on them to act in an unethical manner.

This alone proves that the majority (I am not saying every member) of that profession is and continues to act in an ethical manner.

Ethics is doing what's right not what's easy. People are either ethical or they are not but membership to a professional body certainly requires it as a fundamental basic. Those who use this service expect it as to not do so is a breach of trust.

The attachment I supplied proved this fact. But rather than accept that the initial claim was incorrect the thrust of the discussion was then changed.

I am all for healthy discussion but then some of the comments became troll like.

I find it funny that you contend stating the actual requirements of membership to a professional body is "one upmanship" it is correcting a misunderstanding of the facts.

 

[Purple]

One post said that there were no ethical tests as part of a professional body by somebody outside of that body.

You misread my initial post on the topic and charged off from there.
I said that there was no test for any profession that determined if the individual was ethical.
I’ve never suggested that there aren’t tests to check if the members of a profession knew the rules and standards they had to operate to and within. Those are the tests you linked to.

Most people operate within the rules because it is the right thing to do. Some people do it because they fear the consequences of being caught. Maybe for most of us there’s a small element of the latter in there too.

In the context of the small proportion of buildings built during the last boom which are seriously in breach of standards that required unethical people from all areas of the construction sector, including professionals, to be complicit.

Opportunity makes the sinner and all that so most of them were just going along with the herd.
The people doing cash jobs and nixers and giving grinds for cash and putting in bogus travel expenses and fiddling the welfare and all the other things we do shouldn’t get too judgemental about it as it was just another manifestation of a part of our society.

 

[AlbacoreA]

".....In the context of the small proportion of buildings built during the last boom which are seriously in breach of standards that required unethical people from all areas of the construction sector, including professionals, to be complicit..."

 I think this might be vastly underestimating the scale of the problem. In my opinion it's an unregulated industry that has the facade of being regulated. But that regulation and enforcement is only skin deep.

https://passivehouseplus.ie/news/pa...rds-of-new-homes-fail-energy-efficiency-rules

We can build "schools" that have problems with pyrite and fire regulations. That's indicative of systemic failure. Not a handful of rogue operators.

https://www.thejournal.ie/school-closures-list-4303701-Oct2018/

That's before you get into other issues with private dwellings.

https://www.thejournal.ie/fire-defects-parkwest-5844179-Aug2022/

Then there's the whole issue of buying the most expensive thing most people will ever buy and there is no warranty no cover, no protection. A kettle has better consumer protection. Look at the shambles with homebond. Look at the housing crisis.

It's an entire sector and governance that's not fit for purpose. In my opinion. It can't deliver what is needed.

 

[AlbacoreA]

The construction sector is not the only sector with systemic problems as the handbags argument in this thread demonstrates. You can can find endless examples of enforcement being an almost toothless mechanism across many sectors.

 

[losttheplot]

As a nation, we have no problem with rules being set. We can solve everything with legislation and rules. When it comes to rules being enforced, we're a bit fuzzy.
We complain about speed checks being placed where they can catch people speeding. Banks enforcing mortgage contracts.
Tradesmen telling you that to do it properly, would cost a fortune so this is the best they can do and suddenly remembering VAT if you want to pay by cheque.

 

[_OkGo_]

It was highlighted that there is an actual ethical test required before the granting of membership to that same accredited profession.

Where? The only links I've seen pointed to code of conduct documents. The legal profession don't confuse code of conduct and ethics but the accountancy body does. What test are you specifically refering to ? I hope it's not the FAE's because that is a test of knowledge within the subject matter, not your ethical behaviour.

Subsequently evidence was provided how the majority of members of that profession who responded to the questionnaire had suffered in a number of ways due to the pressure exerted on them to act in an unethical manner.

This alone proves that the majority (I am not saying every member) of that profession is and continues to act in an ethical manner.

Yes most will act ethically because it is human nature, not because of their profession.

Ethics is doing what's right not what's easy. People are either ethical or they are not but membership to a professional body certainly requires it as a fundamental basic. Those who use this service expect it as to not do so is a breach of trust.

The attachment I supplied proved this fact. But rather than accept that the initial claim was incorrect the thrust of the discussion was then changed.

I'm sorry but your link proves the exact opposite. Your professional accreditation has no bearing whatsoever on your ethical behaviour. To believe that it is a fundamental basic of membership is wrong. Of course most people will act ethically, it is human nature.

From your link: "A majority of respondents who reported feeling under pressure to act unethically said pressure came from internal sources such as line managers or those in senior director-level roles including the CFO or CEO."

So if the pressure is coming internally from senior management , are these not members of the same professional body who are more than willing to act unethically? They had no problems qualifying and progressing their careers despite their ethical behaviour. So how is it a fundamental basic for membership?

 

[The Horseman]

Ok this is the last time I am going to engage on this topic. There is an ethics module which must be passed in order to gain membership to an accredited professional body.

My link showed that members of my profession have suffered pressure to act unethical. If people risk losing their positions due to the pressure from above then that in itself shows ethical behaviour.

For the majority of accountants in business their superiors are not from the same professional and most likely are business people who are not part of any professional body. There maybe a small minority of cfo's exerting pressure but in the main it is not.

For those members in practice their future earning potential rests on their reputation. This is why they will refuse work when they feel either their is a potential conflict of interest or they are being asked to do something that is wrong (not allowing their position of trust be used for something wrong).

 

[Purple]

For those members in practice their future earning potential rests on their reputation. This is why they will refuse work when they feel either their is a potential conflict of interest or they are being asked to do something that is wrong

So they do the right thing because there are severe negative consequences of doing otherwise.
That is not an expression of acting ethically. It is following the rules because their livelihood is at stake if they break them.
Ethical behaviour is not that which you are compelled to do.

 

[T McGibney]

So they do the right thing because there are severe negative consequences of doing otherwise.
That is not an expression of acting ethically. It is following the rules because their livelihood is at stake if they break them.
Ethical behaviour is not that which you are compelled to do.

Is it impossible for you to be nice on this forum? You must have repeated that point a dozen times already and apart from the boredom of circular argument, I'm frankly sick of you obsessively attributing collective ulterior motive to I and other professionals who voluntarily contribute to this and other public forums.

 

[Purple]

Is it impossible for you to be nice on this forum?

Well that’s a leading question. Should I try it after I stop beating my wife?

You must have repeated that point a dozen times already and apart from the boredom of circular argument, I'm frankly sick of you obsessively attributing collective ulterior motive to I and other professionals who voluntarily contribute to this and other public forums.

I have never attributed any ulterior motive to any group, professional or otherwise, collectively or otherwise, on this forum or any other. If that is what you are taking from my comments then that says a lot more about you than me.

The only point I have made is that career choice is not a factor in determining the personal ethics of an individual. That’s all. You may think there’s some other motive but if so then you are wrong.

We are all bound by our evolutionary imprint. There is no evidence of correlation between either intelligence and occupation and our predisposition towards ethical or unethical behaviour. That should be self evidently obvious.

Countering such an obvious point with some variation of “yes, but we have rules to follow and we get exams to make sure we know the rules” requires an answer that is some variation of “so what? That’s an entirely different thing”.

The only thing making the argument circular is the unwillingness or inability of some posters to understand or accept that.