3 ms·

"and the law allows companies to make recommendations about the compensation of F.A.A. employees." What? :)

by megous 7y ago

ahartmetz 7y ago
I can hardly process how brazenly corrupt and stupid that is.
ensignavenger 7y ago
The US Constitution allows companies (and anyone else) to make recommendations as to the salaries of government employees. No law needed to "allow" them to.
- ahartmetz 7y ago
  However if it was spelled out explicitly, it could be used to argue that it should actually happen. Every part of a legal text has some effect, even a preamble - it provides context for interpretation when something unclear needs to be resolved. So when somebody from Boeing says "About those salaries..."
- salawat 7y ago
  You're missing the nuance. Your contention amounts to basic civics. The legislation mandates an executive implemented direct feedback loop which can be used by industry to essentially attempt to crack down on problematic regulators. While the intent is that it should remain neutral, and only used for purposes of streamlining and "making things more efficient", providing a means through which industry could say "this works" vs. "this doesn't", it won't end up being used that way.
Majromax 7y ago
> What? :) If everyone involved were honest actors, then it would make sense. One problem with any regulatory agency is that the same skillset that makes for a good regulator also makes for a good product designer or engineer. If FAA employees are paid more poorly than their private-sector equivalents, then the regulator will find itself unable to hire competent staff. Of course, if the companies aren't acting out of good faith, they could recommend inappropriate compensation rates to ensure that the above "problem" is in fact the outcome.
- ahartmetz 7y ago
  Right - effective regulation needs to be somewhat antagonistic and distrustful even when it's not necessary, because otherwise it will become necessary.

"and the law allows companies to make recommendations about the compensation of F.A.A. employees." What? :)

by megous 7y ago

"and the law allows companies to make recommendations about the compensation of F.A.A. employees." What? :)

ahartmetz 7y ago

I can hardly process how brazenly corrupt and stupid that is.

ensignavenger 7y ago

The US Constitution allows companies (and anyone else) to make recommendations as to the salaries of government employees. No law needed to "allow" them to.

ahartmetz 7y ago
However if it was spelled out explicitly, it could be used to argue that it should actually happen. Every part of a legal text has some effect, even a preamble - it provides context for interpretation when something unclear needs to be resolved. So when somebody from Boeing says "About those salaries..."
salawat 7y ago
You're missing the nuance. Your contention amounts to basic civics. The legislation mandates an executive implemented direct feedback loop which can be used by industry to essentially attempt to crack down on problematic regulators. While the intent is that it should remain neutral, and only used for purposes of streamlining and "making things more efficient", providing a means through which industry could say "this works" vs. "this doesn't", it won't end up being used that way.

Majromax 7y ago

> What? :) If everyone involved were honest actors, then it would make sense. One problem with any regulatory agency is that the same skillset that makes for a good regulator also makes for a good product designer or engineer. If FAA employees are paid more poorly than their private-sector equivalents, then the regulator will find itself unable to hire competent staff. Of course, if the companies aren't acting out of good faith, they could recommend inappropriate compensation rates to ensure that the above "problem" is in fact the outcome.

ahartmetz 7y ago
Right - effective regulation needs to be somewhat antagonistic and distrustful even when it's not necessary, because otherwise it will become necessary.