4 ms·

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

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.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

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.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]