On professionalism (1 - 2 min. read)

Further to my previous post, can we have professionalism without security of tenure? 

There is emphasis in a good public service on providing free and frank advice, and sometimes professionals need to tell a client something cannot be done - e.g., the ground conditions are unsafe, or the client doesn't have the resources to operate a proposed facility. 

We're not like the legal profession - we're not just the next taxi off the rank and have to do whatever the client wants: we have a broader ethical code that obliges us to avoid doing harmful things, and act for the community's benefit. 

There are arguments about where the cut off is, but those engineers who designed the gas chambers of the nazi regime were acting unethically, and, from a professional point of view (as well as humanitarian, human rights, moral, ethical, legal, etc), should not have done that. 

(Professional errors or incompetence is another matter.) 

Judges in the legal profession have security of tenure to reduce their ability to swayed by employer (which is the government) pressure, good salaries to reduce the chance, and selection criteria - which many other professions have in some way or another (and such should be advised before people start courses at Uni).

Should professionals have more protection to make them less vulnerable to influence and thus more likely to give free and frank advice?

Despite what some IPOCs say (especially the economic ones), losing one's job has ALWAYS been devastating and scary, as support is inadequate (completely lacking in some nations), and finding another job is NOT assured - no matter good one is technically, as companies make decisions based on profit.

I genuinely do not have a firm position on this. I can see the advantages, but I can also see the practical hurdles. 

Anyway, food for thought.