Thread regarding Chevron Corp. layoffs

@J9d594E-7tmi "Ethics" is not an attribute of a company, but a personal characteristic. You do not simply absorb it from the ambient atmosphere. After reading your comment it is obvious that your reply is no - you have none.

People work with something long enough, pretty soon they subconsciously ascribe greater intellectual ownership in that thing to themselves. Ego and desire for self-promotion also play a role.

The Ethics Question has no bearing for Chevron. They say the company has ethics, but really it doesn't have much of any.

Clearly some wrong has been done here. While I'm Glad you have some faith in person A, not holding some accountability there is naive. Person A knows best who worked on the project and what they contributed. If person A now works for person E, that can be enough to change person A's prospective on intellectual contributions of persons B,C,D. Immune new hires are only immune for so long... And patents take a long time. Person A is fundamentally most concerned with person A. If hold person A accountable for recognizing my contribution.

Given the population is 50% female, my guess is White males have been a minority all along...they are just starting to realize it. Get use to it.

@1qvj, it seems like the White male is quickly becoming the ethnic minority in this country.

Which one is the ethnic minority?

-1eaa "Stupid post is stupid." ... very informative and elegantly stated, NOT.

Stupid post is stupid.

They should all get the patent and all authors should get credit. I have no time for stepping on others backs and will always discredit those that want the personal limelight. Sorry but that's me. And it would never happen when I was there. Sorry.

It would appear that Chevron's external engagement and publication review process is in need of greater rigor to ensure that the type of "steamrolling" described does not take place.

My head hurts

Hello person D

OP. Seems you know the answer, so why ask? Just to vent I guess. Ok, yup, life is not fair. Next question!

Person F is deadwood that needs to be cut.

Regarding professionalism, you (troll) obviously don't know me... I know 90% of the others in my field and fortunately this particular one is the only one in my career to ever stoop so low... I understand the corporate world more than you know, but that still doesn't make me waiver from my own principles and ethics... Even in my new job, they have been recognized and already promoted me for them... No, I don't make my previous salary and bonus, but my work is appreciated and I actually enjoy the increased opportunities and global exposure I've been given since.

Trolling make you feel better? Micro pause over... Get back to work

Naive enough to know I have options if the professional community is willing to act appropriately and ethically...

It's even worse.. Person E wasn't a supervisor at the time the work was performed... Only after reorganization from ROM1... Person A was an immune new hire and I know they wouldn't stoop this low... I have attempted to contact Person E with no success. I know there are still ethical people out there...

Sounds like a typical Chevron situation - your question of ethics is a good one.

There aren't any.

If the work is presented in a public scientific setting (such as a conference or professional society), then the work is being represented as a scientific investigation and is therefore subject to the widely accepted scientific norms and behavioral ethics.

Based on the information in your post, it appears that you and the other principal contributors are not being properly acknowledged as co-authors.

I can't say I am surprised. I have seen so many cases at Chevron of managers and team leaders in particular taking credit for work done by others.

This is not the Chevron Way, and is actually very bad for the company image as well as for the moral of the employees.

How many years has gone by since the intern (A) first worked on the project to when he was presenting it with E? If it is longer than say 3 years, then I think it is fine as long as he is acknowledging the other people. If it is shorter, then you have to evaluate, how much original contribution from A? If it is less than 50%, then you can bring up the ethics issue. Irrespective of this logic this happens often, particularly in the BU-ETC interface. I had a serious disagreement with a BU TL once when I pointed out that he needs to give credit to the ETC specialist who did the work for us. He pointed out that the BU/JV partners paid for the work and have complete ownership and so he doesn't need to acknowledge anyone. I can see his point.

While C was a software jockey, D provided technical workflows that extracted geologically relevant data to provide specific answers for key teams and BU's. Person A did not know this going into the internship as these insights were part of D's experience to know what to look for... D is no longer providing OC to Chevron.

B is only sponsor and C and D are just software jockeys. Not clear what E did. I give all credit to A, who deservedly was hired. I don't care what academia thinks. If you have a problem with it, take it up with the intern yourself. If you want credit, quit being just a software jockey and come up with your own ideas and publish them.

In response to whom the audience will be, the answer is academia...

Person A and Person E know what they did, and people who knew B, C, and D know that A&E are not and were not capable of pulling it off on their own. So it is Chevron, and while A&E get the glory, a lot of people will know that they took ethical shortcuts. It is something they will have to live with. Maybe it bothers them, maybe it doesn't. In my opinion, it is a pretty chickenshit thing to do. So you could call me a schmuck. too.

Yes you could have simplified the question and still held on to the meat. First off, as a matter of academic ethics all the authors should have been included and in the order of their contributions...so if E ready did not contribute then off the list. My first question, however, would be where was it "presented" and for what reason. Within Chevron, to Chevron's partners, or in any other venue in which chevron has direct interest the materials should be presented in such a way as to maximize Chevron's value/profits (we all pre-sold our work in that sense). At an academic meeting, then academic ethics generally apply (but obviously permission to present, or not, remains in the control of Chevron). The grey starts in that Chevron is really make up of people ... so is it unethical, for example, to add authors to grease the wheels for permission to present? The other academic grey zone comes in that few of us do research from scratch. I might do some cool innovative bit on a new petrophysics well log to seismic transform... but obviously did not drill the well, cut the core, make the thin sections, design the seismic survey, process the raw seismic ... and on and on ... All required before I could start my analysis. Where does the authorship list stop? I assume your young, because as one ages these slights become less keen. I can only say one generally stays happier with thick skin, what comes around generally goes around longer term, and generosity in these matters is commonly repaid several fold (your mileage may vary). At any rate, look at it this way, if this your biggest worry you obviously still have a job... so party on;-).

This happens all the time. Especially at ETC BU interfaces. Get used to it. If you complain and they are better connected prepare to get pigeon holed.

This is how the Dog-Eat-Dog World works, my friend. It is ingrained in the natural Capitalist way of things. I don't see anything wrong with it. If you want to succeed in business, position yourself astutely to be in the "Person A" spot always and don't set yourself up to be the shumuck. This lesson easily translates to many jobs in Chevron.

Did I lose you at C, D or E... Troll

Is this one of those, "how are they related puzzles?"