4 ms·

While I agree, if seems to me that the proper remediation for this situation would be robust whistleblower protections and swift retribution from authorities wh

by Arrath 4y ago

While I agree, if seems to me that the proper remediation for this situation would be robust whistleblower protections and swift retribution from authorities when a worker says "FUCK THAT" after being told to waive safety inspections or ignore issues and run a train anyway. Including hefty fines against the companies and criminal penalties against not only the managers pushing such approaches, but the executives complicit in it as well.

Spartan-S63 4y ago
What if whistleblower protections require the accused company – if the complaint has merit – put in escrow enough money to pay the employee's current salary tacked to inflation or CoL until they reach Social Security retirement age? It would ensure that a legitimate whistleblower would continue to collect a paycheck if they find themselves blacklisted by similar companies.
- Arrath 4y ago
  Gotta say, I don't hate this idea.
- whamlastxmas 4y ago
  I mean the lack of escrow isn't the bigger problem here - governments take assets (e.g. taxes) all the time with the threat of literally murdering you if you try to stop them. They will get their money from the company one way or another. The problem is actual accountability and real actions.
  - ledauphin 4y ago
    yes and no. companies find ways to weasel out of laws 5 years down the road all the time. the money would need to be put in escrow at the time of the whistle being blown, or the worker would risk bankruptcy or other legal shenanigans putting it beyond their reach.
    - justinclift 4y ago
      > ... or the worker would risk bankruptcy or other legal shenanigans putting it beyond their reach. Seems like that would happen anyway? eg it sounds like these companies are mostly going to do their utmost to fight against the legal proceedings. play every legal/bastard tactic they can, discredit the whistleblower, likely hire 3rd parties to disrupt things, etc. Having the money in escrow doesn't seem like a guarantee the whistleblower would end up getting it either.
- kcplate 4y ago
  > If the complaint has merit What defines this? And what level of whistleblowing would be realistic to invoke the penalty? My “employer mishandles their MSDS sheets” is a bit different in a small machine shop than “rail workers are told to fudge safety reports” in a national rail carrier that transports hazardous materials.
  - ashwagary 4y ago
    No need for UBI, atleast not to solve this specific kind of problem. This only requires a solution similar to what the EPA has for illegal refrigerant release, a massive penalty in the 10s or 100s of thousands which gets shared with the whistleblower. The various definitions and fines can be defined by the regulatory body.
    - kcplate 4y ago
      That’s highly specific which is good, and a provides a financial incentive if you blow the whistle, it doesn’t create a “whistleblowing market” that I think the original commenter’s idea does. I’m skeptical of any law that defines itself in generalities and motivates a “report on your neighbors, company, etc… behavior by creating a financial incentive to do it. That is a law that would be ripe for abuse.

by Arrath 4y ago

Spartan-S63 4y ago

What if whistleblower protections require the accused company – if the complaint has merit – put in escrow enough money to pay the employee's current salary tacked to inflation or CoL until they reach Social Security retirement age? It would ensure that a legitimate whistleblower would continue to collect a paycheck if they find themselves blacklisted by similar companies.

Arrath 4y ago
Gotta say, I don't hate this idea.
whamlastxmas 4y ago
I mean the lack of escrow isn't the bigger problem here - governments take assets (e.g. taxes) all the time with the threat of literally murdering you if you try to stop them. They will get their money from the company one way or another. The problem is actual accountability and real actions.
- ledauphin 4y ago
  yes and no. companies find ways to weasel out of laws 5 years down the road all the time. the money would need to be put in escrow at the time of the whistle being blown, or the worker would risk bankruptcy or other legal shenanigans putting it beyond their reach.
  - justinclift 4y ago
    > ... or the worker would risk bankruptcy or other legal shenanigans putting it beyond their reach. Seems like that would happen anyway? eg it sounds like these companies are mostly going to do their utmost to fight against the legal proceedings. play every legal/bastard tactic they can, discredit the whistleblower, likely hire 3rd parties to disrupt things, etc. Having the money in escrow doesn't seem like a guarantee the whistleblower would end up getting it either.
kcplate 4y ago
> If the complaint has merit What defines this? And what level of whistleblowing would be realistic to invoke the penalty? My “employer mishandles their MSDS sheets” is a bit different in a small machine shop than “rail workers are told to fudge safety reports” in a national rail carrier that transports hazardous materials.
- ashwagary 4y ago
  No need for UBI, atleast not to solve this specific kind of problem. This only requires a solution similar to what the EPA has for illegal refrigerant release, a massive penalty in the 10s or 100s of thousands which gets shared with the whistleblower. The various definitions and fines can be defined by the regulatory body.
  - kcplate 4y ago
    That’s highly specific which is good, and a provides a financial incentive if you blow the whistle, it doesn’t create a “whistleblowing market” that I think the original commenter’s idea does. I’m skeptical of any law that defines itself in generalities and motivates a “report on your neighbors, company, etc… behavior by creating a financial incentive to do it. That is a law that would be ripe for abuse.