4 ms·

I doubt it. Losing a job is not an excuse to do illegal tasks, especially when you have a senior well payed job and are not exactly scraping by. In some cases

by 21 9y ago

I doubt it. Losing a job is not an excuse to do illegal tasks, especially when you have a senior well payed job and are not exactly scraping by. In some cases you might even be required to report such illegal requests to some authority.

yourapostasy 9y ago
> In some cases you might even be required to report such illegal requests to some authority. That's absurdly naive of the laws. At this level of management and up, these requests are not passed along in a traceable, litigable form, unless you have spectacularly unaware executives performing the demands. Look how far out of hand it had to get at Wells Fargo before there was action, and how long it took at VW before there was any sort of action. Also, anyone with mediocre Internet searching skills can see the egregiously poor track record of whistleblowers' treatment everywhere. Unless you already are set up with your FU money, you'll die of starvation before seeing any justice in most cases. Legislators and prosecutors need lessons in how these policies are enacted and implemented in the real world to actually catch this form of malfeasance. They need to catch the equivalent of Frank Abagnale who performs these kinds of misdeeds, gets caught, and teaches law enforcement and legislators how to actually nab others like him. Until then, they're just blind pigs accidentally stumbling upon truffles while going to take a piss. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Abagnale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Abagnale
- icebraining 9y ago
  That's absurdly naive of the laws. Is it? The report triggers the investigation, which can then compel the reporter to provide those lessons. It doesn't have to end at the report. Of course, knowing that, the person is less likely to report - which is why these laws exist.
  - yourapostasy 9y ago
    > ...the person is less likely to report - which is why these laws exist. It doesn't work like that in the real world. These laws only nab the lower-rung staff in the unfortunate position of unavoidably leaving tracks while implementing the directives from higher management. Directives are given in abstracted form, and clarifications are passed out in untraceable means, typically verbal conversations, and even then the clarification is very rarely spelled out in black and white, and more often expressed as a gruff "do whatever it takes" command. A soft, low-level form of how this plays out in the US that many can relate to: salaried employees officially are supposed to only work 40 hours a week. It is commonplace for many organizations to abuse that, but nowhere in official, litigable forms will you ever see a manager telling an employee they must work more than 40 hours. Finally, above a certain level, employees who try to play CYA games with emails and/or written letters will find themselves frozen out by management. It isn't like this everywhere, but it is common enough that I see it happen in some of my client accounts where I consult at; fortunately, I'm not the adversely-affected party, but I feel for the many permanent staff who I see subjected to this anti-pattern. If you really want to put a dent in this, then lobbying for allowing single-party recording to bring evidence of malfeasance to law enforcement might be a start.

by 21 9y ago

yourapostasy 9y ago

> In some cases you might even be required to report such illegal requests to some authority. That's absurdly naive of the laws. At this level of management and up, these requests are not passed along in a traceable, litigable form, unless you have spectacularly unaware executives performing the demands. Look how far out of hand it had to get at Wells Fargo before there was action, and how long it took at VW before there was any sort of action. Also, anyone with mediocre Internet searching skills can see the egregiously poor track record of whistleblowers' treatment everywhere. Unless you already are set up with your FU money, you'll die of starvation before seeing any justice in most cases. Legislators and prosecutors need lessons in how these policies are enacted and implemented in the real world to actually catch this form of malfeasance. They need to catch the equivalent of Frank Abagnale who performs these kinds of misdeeds, gets caught, and teaches law enforcement and legislators how to actually nab others like him. Until then, they're just blind pigs accidentally stumbling upon truffles while going to take a piss. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Abagnale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Abagnale

icebraining 9y ago
That's absurdly naive of the laws. Is it? The report triggers the investigation, which can then compel the reporter to provide those lessons. It doesn't have to end at the report. Of course, knowing that, the person is less likely to report - which is why these laws exist.
- yourapostasy 9y ago
  > ...the person is less likely to report - which is why these laws exist. It doesn't work like that in the real world. These laws only nab the lower-rung staff in the unfortunate position of unavoidably leaving tracks while implementing the directives from higher management. Directives are given in abstracted form, and clarifications are passed out in untraceable means, typically verbal conversations, and even then the clarification is very rarely spelled out in black and white, and more often expressed as a gruff "do whatever it takes" command. A soft, low-level form of how this plays out in the US that many can relate to: salaried employees officially are supposed to only work 40 hours a week. It is commonplace for many organizations to abuse that, but nowhere in official, litigable forms will you ever see a manager telling an employee they must work more than 40 hours. Finally, above a certain level, employees who try to play CYA games with emails and/or written letters will find themselves frozen out by management. It isn't like this everywhere, but it is common enough that I see it happen in some of my client accounts where I consult at; fortunately, I'm not the adversely-affected party, but I feel for the many permanent staff who I see subjected to this anti-pattern. If you really want to put a dent in this, then lobbying for allowing single-party recording to bring evidence of malfeasance to law enforcement might be a start.