Conservation DistList Archives [Date] [Subject] [Author] [SEARCH]

Subject: AIC Code of Ethics revision

AIC Code of Ethics revision

From: Peter Graham <psgraham>
Date: Monday, July 12, 1993
Jack Thompson says, i.a.,
staff and I were classified as commercial photographers; one of the
cheapest workmans compensation rates in the state.  I did not appeal.
But I did begin to think about the Code of Ethics, and what it means."<

There are two logical blanks in the paragraph this is taken from, from
my viewpoint.  First, there is a non sequitur; maybe he thinks the
connection is evident, but it isn't to me--why did he "think about" the
code of ethics in connection with this workman's comp judgement?

Maybe it's related to my second blank:  he seems to think the workman's
comp classification was inappropriate.  Why?  "commercial photographer"
may not be precise from his point of view, but what does the injured
worker or the state agency care, as long as the insurance rate works out
appropriately--and it sounds as if it did:  no power tools, not much
injury likelihood.  As an anti-government-bureaucrat myself, I see no
need for a special classification to be created for his unique business
just to give satisfaction.

But back to ethics.  Ethics discussions, when formalized, usually gore


Peter Graham
Rutgers University Libraries
169 College Avenue,
New Brunswick, NJ 08903

                  Conservation DistList Instance 7:11
                  Distributed: Tuesday, July 13, 1993
                        Message Id: cdl-7-11-002
Received on Monday, 12 July, 1993

[Search all CoOL documents]