4 ms·

The employees responsible for the falsification should be jailed.

by Ice_cream_suit 7y ago

aaronbrethorst 7y ago
The executives who created and sustained the culture where this was considered acceptable should too.
- Ice_cream_suit 7y ago
  Should you be jailed for your employees crimes?
  - jchw 7y ago
    Higher pay grades equal higher responsibilities. Accountability for an incident cannot ever sit with a single individual in an organization, nor should it sit with no individuals. Why was this allowed to occur? What processes failed? If it’s an endemic issue, getting rid of employees at the bottom won’t prevent future issues and potentially future loss of life.
  - sb057 7y ago
    Yes.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    That's a simple question with a complex answer. The answer is 'it depends'. Yes, there definitely are cases where execs should be jailed for their employees crimes, and others where that definitely should not be the case. For instance, if an employee of a company embezzles a bunch of money from either a customer or the company itself then the execs should typically not be culpable. But, if the execs themselves were the ones that ordered the employee to do this, either directly or through the 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink' method of communications (and there is corroborating evidence that this indeed happened, for instance the issues not being limited to single employees but being institutionalized) then yes, they should definitely be punished as though they themselves were the ones doing it. It should not be possible for executives to use employees as a cut-out layer when crimes are committed.
    - tempguy9999 7y ago
      > But, if the execs themselves were the ones that ordered the employee to do this... or (and this often seems more likely) if the execs have not clearly instituted reasonably sufficient protocols to prevent X from happening... They are the buggers abundantly paid for good governance, after all.
      - jacquesm 7y ago
        Sure, but the more likely way in which these things go is: "Do what you have to do to make us pass those emissions tests" and "Get rid of that industrial waste" and so on. No clear command to do something illegal but the employee is left with two choices: do something illegal or end up not doing what they were told to do. Culpability is a thing that can be smeared out effectively across the layers of a large organization where each layer only sees the delta between the one above it and the one below it, the people that know the law and the consequences are safely (or so they think) insulated from the hands that commit the crimes and the hands that commit the crimes typically don't know the law. This situation has - as far as I know - never really been addressed explicitly in the law hence the institutionalization of 'the buck stops at the top'. Even if you don't know and even if you did not order it explicitly you are - and should - still be held responsible. The question at hand is if that should include criminal liability for all cases where the employees break the law and I think there are plenty of cases where employees breaking the law should not lead to culpability of management, for instance, those cases where employees gain an advantage for themselves at the expense of the company, the customers or the society they operate in. But in most other cases where the company gained an advantage the execs should be liable. That alone will get companies to behave like good (immortal) citizens.
        tempguy9999 7y ago
        My point is to exactly prevent this level of leeway being given to an employee. The execs must make it clear in writing how to do a significant task. If they do not, they are culpable for the outcome just as if they eg. forged the results themselves.
- crowbahr 7y ago
  They should be jailed for self reporting the cover up of other employees? Because that's what you're suggesting, and it sounds patently ridiculous.
  - NowThenGoodBad 7y ago
    So, you're suggesting that we should let those who perpetuate cultures like falsifying records to continue to exist in industry without punishment when they are directly responsible for the harm that happens? That sounds patently ridiculous. The culture comes from the top. It's super easy for them to allow people lower down to take the fall for something they pressured subordinates to do. Shoot, just look at Wells Fargo last year. The higher ups said that those lower needed to boost account signups, so, suddenly people found themselves signed up with accounts they had never signed up for. But we blame those lower for following an order, even if it's an implied order, because they were the ones who did the deed. It was so hard to link Al Capone to murder they had to get him for tax evasion. He called the shots, but others took the shots. So, when you say that it's ridiculous to target those execs who are setting the standards which are causing these problems, these deaths, you got some screw loose up there friend, because those execs are getting paid hundreds of thousands to hundreds of millions of dollars, while those doing what they are told so that they can keep their job are just trying to eat and pay rent.
    - dnadler 7y ago
      >those who perpetuate cultures Without any real knowledge of this situation, I'm pretty comfortable saying that anyone reporting this isn't perpetuating the culture. But, let's not jump to conclusions...
    - kortilla 7y ago
      Wow, this is even more pathetic than the “I was following orders” excuse. Now it’s “I was breaking the law because I got the vibe that I should”.
      - PavlovsCat 7y ago
- everybodyknows 7y ago
  I would look higher still: It's the board of directors that hold the CEO's feet to the fire to produce a smooth stream of rising profits. If they could take bad news e.g. revenue shipments will slip while bad designs get reworked, then more CEOs would deliver that bad news. The root of the problem is systemic, and the blame should go all the way up.
  - Ice_cream_suit 7y ago
    It is the shareholders who hold the board of directors responsible. Shall we jail every shareholder in Boeing?

The employees responsible for the falsification should be jailed.

aaronbrethorst 7y ago

The executives who created and sustained the culture where this was considered acceptable should too.

Ice_cream_suit 7y ago
Should you be jailed for your employees crimes?
- jchw 7y ago
  Higher pay grades equal higher responsibilities. Accountability for an incident cannot ever sit with a single individual in an organization, nor should it sit with no individuals. Why was this allowed to occur? What processes failed? If it’s an endemic issue, getting rid of employees at the bottom won’t prevent future issues and potentially future loss of life.
- sb057 7y ago
  Yes.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  That's a simple question with a complex answer. The answer is 'it depends'. Yes, there definitely are cases where execs should be jailed for their employees crimes, and others where that definitely should not be the case. For instance, if an employee of a company embezzles a bunch of money from either a customer or the company itself then the execs should typically not be culpable. But, if the execs themselves were the ones that ordered the employee to do this, either directly or through the 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink' method of communications (and there is corroborating evidence that this indeed happened, for instance the issues not being limited to single employees but being institutionalized) then yes, they should definitely be punished as though they themselves were the ones doing it. It should not be possible for executives to use employees as a cut-out layer when crimes are committed.
  - tempguy9999 7y ago
    > But, if the execs themselves were the ones that ordered the employee to do this... or (and this often seems more likely) if the execs have not clearly instituted reasonably sufficient protocols to prevent X from happening... They are the buggers abundantly paid for good governance, after all.
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      Sure, but the more likely way in which these things go is: "Do what you have to do to make us pass those emissions tests" and "Get rid of that industrial waste" and so on. No clear command to do something illegal but the employee is left with two choices: do something illegal or end up not doing what they were told to do. Culpability is a thing that can be smeared out effectively across the layers of a large organization where each layer only sees the delta between the one above it and the one below it, the people that know the law and the consequences are safely (or so they think) insulated from the hands that commit the crimes and the hands that commit the crimes typically don't know the law. This situation has - as far as I know - never really been addressed explicitly in the law hence the institutionalization of 'the buck stops at the top'. Even if you don't know and even if you did not order it explicitly you are - and should - still be held responsible. The question at hand is if that should include criminal liability for all cases where the employees break the law and I think there are plenty of cases where employees breaking the law should not lead to culpability of management, for instance, those cases where employees gain an advantage for themselves at the expense of the company, the customers or the society they operate in. But in most other cases where the company gained an advantage the execs should be liable. That alone will get companies to behave like good (immortal) citizens.
      - tempguy9999 7y ago
        My point is to exactly prevent this level of leeway being given to an employee. The execs must make it clear in writing how to do a significant task. If they do not, they are culpable for the outcome just as if they eg. forged the results themselves.
crowbahr 7y ago
They should be jailed for self reporting the cover up of other employees? Because that's what you're suggesting, and it sounds patently ridiculous.
- NowThenGoodBad 7y ago
  So, you're suggesting that we should let those who perpetuate cultures like falsifying records to continue to exist in industry without punishment when they are directly responsible for the harm that happens? That sounds patently ridiculous. The culture comes from the top. It's super easy for them to allow people lower down to take the fall for something they pressured subordinates to do. Shoot, just look at Wells Fargo last year. The higher ups said that those lower needed to boost account signups, so, suddenly people found themselves signed up with accounts they had never signed up for. But we blame those lower for following an order, even if it's an implied order, because they were the ones who did the deed. It was so hard to link Al Capone to murder they had to get him for tax evasion. He called the shots, but others took the shots. So, when you say that it's ridiculous to target those execs who are setting the standards which are causing these problems, these deaths, you got some screw loose up there friend, because those execs are getting paid hundreds of thousands to hundreds of millions of dollars, while those doing what they are told so that they can keep their job are just trying to eat and pay rent.
  - dnadler 7y ago
    >those who perpetuate cultures Without any real knowledge of this situation, I'm pretty comfortable saying that anyone reporting this isn't perpetuating the culture. But, let's not jump to conclusions...
  - kortilla 7y ago
    Wow, this is even more pathetic than the “I was following orders” excuse. Now it’s “I was breaking the law because I got the vibe that I should”.
    - PavlovsCat 7y ago
everybodyknows 7y ago
I would look higher still: It's the board of directors that hold the CEO's feet to the fire to produce a smooth stream of rising profits. If they could take bad news e.g. revenue shipments will slip while bad designs get reworked, then more CEOs would deliver that bad news. The root of the problem is systemic, and the blame should go all the way up.
- Ice_cream_suit 7y ago
  It is the shareholders who hold the board of directors responsible. Shall we jail every shareholder in Boeing?