12 ms·

Or charge real fines that are impactful. The article mentions a $12M fine from US regulators - you might as not even levy a fine that's so small.

by xnyan 7y ago

jld 7y ago
Boeing's defense contracts make it too big to fail. Sure, huge fines might deflate its shares/exec's comp packages, but I don't think the risk of giant fines endangers Boeing the way they might other businesses.
- NowThenGoodBad 7y ago
  Execs comp packages won't hurt that much, they can just downsize and then go on a hiring glut when things look better.
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  This concept of 'too big to fail' is eventually going to come a cropper when something deemed as such, fails anyway and wipes out entire industrial sectors from the dependent country.
  - CamperBob2 7y ago
    The idea behind being too big to fail is that the full faith and credit of the US government will be used to prop you up if necessary. Failing anyway? Go back to step 1. That absolutely describes Boeing.
close04 7y ago
A real fine that targets the company is not a deterrent. All the damages get to trickle down to employees, customers, partners, etc. The punishment has to be applied to the individual who knowingly broke the law. Taking a bad business decision is one thing, hiding behind corporate accountability after you falsified records to get that bonus should be punished with both prison time and fines. Unfortunately part of that bonus probably went to "lobbying" so don't hold your breath for the moment when laws will be about actual justice.
- ghayes 7y ago
  When I hear this arguments, I just wonder, why does the argument always apply "to the executives," and not all of the employees down the line that signed off on a given decision. I think the reason we don't adopt more of these rules is that it's kind of naïve, in my opinion, to blame the problem on only part of the parties involved in a given decision. This would then have to be coupled with better whistle-blower protections, giving employees a right and duty to call out bad behavior.
  - save_ferris 7y ago
    > why does the argument always apply “to the executives” Because the power asymmetry between executives and workers is vast and continuously growing. Executives are phenomenally powerful powerful people within these industries, whose influence and interests make it possible for such scandals to take place. And they’re the ones truly incentivized to cut corners and break rules in order to meet deadlines, generate as much growth as possible, etc. Whistleblower rights, at least in the US, are completely insufficient to enable your vision of corporate oversight. Whistleblowers risk their careers, reputations and livelihoods, and often there’s no guarantee that blowing the whistle changes anything. Who makes such retribution not just possible, but inevitable? Executives.
  - close04 7y ago
    > why does the argument always apply "to the executives," and not all of the employees down the line that signed off on a given decision Because the executives are given a lot of power over those employees, they are paid accordingly, and they are privy to far more information to aid them in taking a decision. A CEO is paid over 300 times more than the average worker. [0] Multiply that by a factor to represent the authority of the position, and the acute awareness of what those actions represent and you should get the magnitude of the difference in accountability. > giving employees a right and duty to call out bad behavior. You already have this right. But you either do it to the authorities at great personal expense (in any way you can imagine) and with far higher burden of proof, or you do it internally in front of another executive. There is no incentive to take any action because the executive will always have the company as a shield in front of the law. [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/dianahembree/2018/05/22/ceo-pay-skyrockets-to-361-times-that-of-the-average-worker/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/dianahembree/2018/05/22/ceo-pay...

Or charge real fines that are impactful. The article mentions a $12M fine from US regulators - you might as not even levy a fine that's so small.

by xnyan 7y ago

Or charge real fines that are impactful. The article mentions a $12M fine from US regulators - you might as not even levy a fine that's so small.

jld 7y ago

Boeing's defense contracts make it too big to fail. Sure, huge fines might deflate its shares/exec's comp packages, but I don't think the risk of giant fines endangers Boeing the way they might other businesses.

NowThenGoodBad 7y ago
Execs comp packages won't hurt that much, they can just downsize and then go on a hiring glut when things look better.
inflatableDodo 7y ago
This concept of 'too big to fail' is eventually going to come a cropper when something deemed as such, fails anyway and wipes out entire industrial sectors from the dependent country.
- CamperBob2 7y ago
  The idea behind being too big to fail is that the full faith and credit of the US government will be used to prop you up if necessary. Failing anyway? Go back to step 1. That absolutely describes Boeing.

close04 7y ago

A real fine that targets the company is not a deterrent. All the damages get to trickle down to employees, customers, partners, etc. The punishment has to be applied to the individual who knowingly broke the law. Taking a bad business decision is one thing, hiding behind corporate accountability after you falsified records to get that bonus should be punished with both prison time and fines. Unfortunately part of that bonus probably went to "lobbying" so don't hold your breath for the moment when laws will be about actual justice.

ghayes 7y ago
When I hear this arguments, I just wonder, why does the argument always apply "to the executives," and not all of the employees down the line that signed off on a given decision. I think the reason we don't adopt more of these rules is that it's kind of naïve, in my opinion, to blame the problem on only part of the parties involved in a given decision. This would then have to be coupled with better whistle-blower protections, giving employees a right and duty to call out bad behavior.
- save_ferris 7y ago
  > why does the argument always apply “to the executives” Because the power asymmetry between executives and workers is vast and continuously growing. Executives are phenomenally powerful powerful people within these industries, whose influence and interests make it possible for such scandals to take place. And they’re the ones truly incentivized to cut corners and break rules in order to meet deadlines, generate as much growth as possible, etc. Whistleblower rights, at least in the US, are completely insufficient to enable your vision of corporate oversight. Whistleblowers risk their careers, reputations and livelihoods, and often there’s no guarantee that blowing the whistle changes anything. Who makes such retribution not just possible, but inevitable? Executives.
- close04 7y ago
  > why does the argument always apply "to the executives," and not all of the employees down the line that signed off on a given decision Because the executives are given a lot of power over those employees, they are paid accordingly, and they are privy to far more information to aid them in taking a decision. A CEO is paid over 300 times more than the average worker. [0] Multiply that by a factor to represent the authority of the position, and the acute awareness of what those actions represent and you should get the magnitude of the difference in accountability. > giving employees a right and duty to call out bad behavior. You already have this right. But you either do it to the authorities at great personal expense (in any way you can imagine) and with far higher burden of proof, or you do it internally in front of another executive. There is no incentive to take any action because the executive will always have the company as a shield in front of the law. [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/dianahembree/2018/05/22/ceo-pay-skyrockets-to-361-times-that-of-the-average-worker/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/dianahembree/2018/05/22/ceo-pay...