4 ms·

This may sound strange - but I don't think what the CEO of United did should be a crime or is at all unethical - the unethical conduct was the demand of what am

by Aloha 9y ago

This may sound strange - but I don't think what the CEO of United did should be a crime or is at all unethical - the unethical conduct was the demand of what amounts to a defacto bribe by the head of the Port Authority. Even then - 50 years ago it was commonplace to use cross-subsidization to fund routes like this - the ICC would do it - "Okay, so you want to offer a route from Newark to Los Angeles? Sure, we'll grant it, but you have to offer service between Los Angeles and Tuscon, Santa Fe and Flagstaff as well." Now admittedly, this doesn't pass the smell test - because the demanded service was probably not in the public interest - but this kind of thinking was used in the transportation industry for quite some time.

barrkel 9y ago
In order to establish a set of norms in a community, it's not enough to punish people who violate the norms; you need to punish people who don't punish people who violate the norms. In other words, you need to watch the watchers. To reframe that principle in this context, it's not enough to punish people who ask for bribes. You need to punish people who answer those asks, rather than reporting them.
- coredog64 9y ago
  What we really want is to create incentives against corruption. If a public servant asks you for a bribe, it should be legal to pay it. You are then in the clear to turn around and report them. But making both parties equally guilty leads to the initiator having power over the other. When that happens, neither want to disclose except as part of mutual assured destruction.
Spooky23 9y ago
That's pretty obviously unethical. He did something that damaged the company to personally benefit a public official. If you're a CEO of a public company and cannot sniff that out, you're screwed. The example you gave is not at all analogous. The FAA or its predecessor was regulating airlines in the public interest. Towards that objective, they allocated routes with high and low profitability.
- valuearb 9y ago
  If he hadn't agreed to keep the unprofitable route, United would have lost important and far more valuable access to Newark. How did that damage United? Clearly he put the interests of the company and it's shareholders first, if I was a board member I'd have trouble punishing him too. There is a huge difference between willingly committing a crime and being extorted to commit one.
  - nrp 9y ago
    I understand where you're coming from, but that is effectively the basis of corruption. For each corrupt transaction, both parties technically benefit as you are framing it. If you get stopped at a roadblock by a corrupt police officer in Angola, you're better served paying than turning around and going back where you came from. However, you and the greater good are served by the roadblock not existing in the first place. The intent of cracking down on corruption from both ends of it is to disincentivize and dismantle the roadblocks.
  - Spooky23 9y ago
    We're talking about a story where the CEO of a Fortune 100 company was party to a felony and paid $30M to leave. I'm sure the US Attorney showed up and was sniffing around United's books as well. I'd say that taint is worth more than the hanger. And frankly, the guy wasn't some unwitting stooge. He could of picked up the phone, spoke to the governor of NJ or NY and made it go away. It requires a moderate act of courage and integrity.
    - valuearb 9y ago
      He was not charged or convicted, of a felony, or a misdemeanor, or anything. He wasn't paid $30M to leave. He was forced to step down and paid what he was owed due to his contract, he was getting that $30M regardless. The man who extorted him was a potentially valuable political ally for the Governor of NJ, calling the governor to complain might have caused United even more problems. Calling the Governor of NY about a New Jersey problem would have been even more damn ineffectual. And lastly, the fact you think a CEO can just call governors to "work out" problems being extorted by politicians is one of the most naive things I've yet read on this site. You are basically saying he should have offered campaign donations to get Chris Christie or Andrew Cuomo in order to get them to crack down on one of the heads of their Ports Authority. Because otherwise they don't pick up the phone, so essentially you think he should have paid a second bribe to get out of paying the first.

by Aloha 9y ago

barrkel 9y ago

In order to establish a set of norms in a community, it's not enough to punish people who violate the norms; you need to punish people who don't punish people who violate the norms. In other words, you need to watch the watchers. To reframe that principle in this context, it's not enough to punish people who ask for bribes. You need to punish people who answer those asks, rather than reporting them.

coredog64 9y ago
What we really want is to create incentives against corruption. If a public servant asks you for a bribe, it should be legal to pay it. You are then in the clear to turn around and report them. But making both parties equally guilty leads to the initiator having power over the other. When that happens, neither want to disclose except as part of mutual assured destruction.

Spooky23 9y ago

That's pretty obviously unethical. He did something that damaged the company to personally benefit a public official. If you're a CEO of a public company and cannot sniff that out, you're screwed. The example you gave is not at all analogous. The FAA or its predecessor was regulating airlines in the public interest. Towards that objective, they allocated routes with high and low profitability.

valuearb 9y ago
If he hadn't agreed to keep the unprofitable route, United would have lost important and far more valuable access to Newark. How did that damage United? Clearly he put the interests of the company and it's shareholders first, if I was a board member I'd have trouble punishing him too. There is a huge difference between willingly committing a crime and being extorted to commit one.
- nrp 9y ago
  I understand where you're coming from, but that is effectively the basis of corruption. For each corrupt transaction, both parties technically benefit as you are framing it. If you get stopped at a roadblock by a corrupt police officer in Angola, you're better served paying than turning around and going back where you came from. However, you and the greater good are served by the roadblock not existing in the first place. The intent of cracking down on corruption from both ends of it is to disincentivize and dismantle the roadblocks.
- Spooky23 9y ago
  We're talking about a story where the CEO of a Fortune 100 company was party to a felony and paid $30M to leave. I'm sure the US Attorney showed up and was sniffing around United's books as well. I'd say that taint is worth more than the hanger. And frankly, the guy wasn't some unwitting stooge. He could of picked up the phone, spoke to the governor of NJ or NY and made it go away. It requires a moderate act of courage and integrity.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    He was not charged or convicted, of a felony, or a misdemeanor, or anything. He wasn't paid $30M to leave. He was forced to step down and paid what he was owed due to his contract, he was getting that $30M regardless. The man who extorted him was a potentially valuable political ally for the Governor of NJ, calling the governor to complain might have caused United even more problems. Calling the Governor of NY about a New Jersey problem would have been even more damn ineffectual. And lastly, the fact you think a CEO can just call governors to "work out" problems being extorted by politicians is one of the most naive things I've yet read on this site. You are basically saying he should have offered campaign donations to get Chris Christie or Andrew Cuomo in order to get them to crack down on one of the heads of their Ports Authority. Because otherwise they don't pick up the phone, so essentially you think he should have paid a second bribe to get out of paying the first.