6 ms·

I understand your defensiveness, but the article did not even imply that the CEO was directly implicated. That said, I think it is still at some level their res

I understand your defensiveness, but the article did not even imply that the CEO was directly implicated. That said, I think it is still at some level their responsibility if this fraud turns out to be true; “the person whose P&L was directly tied to these resales” still had ever stricter OKR’s they had to answer for, and apparently no double-checking or auditing was done because that person’s boss didn’t want to know. They were rewarded for numbers going up and to the right, as was their boss, as was their boss, up to the CEO. Sorry, I just tire of narratives where when a corporation does something morally wrong, it’s the fault of nebulous capitalist hyper-optimization and no individuals are held accountable.

koheripbal 3y ago
We need to make evidence based judgements, not accusation based judgements. I'm tired of the outage-clickbait. I'm here to learn, not to be emotionally manipulated.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  There's evidence from one side in the lawsuits, while the defendants have so far declined to submit any for scrutiny. In any case, the title of this submission says that Fedex is 'accused' of fraud rather than having been found guilty of it, so you knew what you were getting before you clicked; you could have just ignored it.
  - singleshot_ 3y ago
    When someone files a complaint against you with a court of appropriate jurisdiction to start a lawsuit, your only sane option is to file an answer. The complaint lists their allegations point by point. The answer either admits or denies each allegation, point by point. It is not surprising that FedEx has declined to submit evidence for scrutiny. It’s not time for that yet. They will be required to do so in discovery and they better hope they can at trial but right now we should not expect to hear anything from them other than “admit, deny, insufficient basis to form a belief and therefore deny.” It’s just too early for an evidence based discussion. This is the nature of the civil action.
    - anigbrowl 3y ago
      There's absolutely nothing preventing them asserting their version of events and following up with evidentiary filings within a reasonable timeframe. Just like there's nothing preventing corporations from admitting liability and apologizing, but they generally prefer to settle instead and never ever admit fault, thanks to the pernicious doctrine of maximizing shareholder value.
      - sokoloff 3y ago
        There’s no value in presenting your evidence in the court of public opinion and intrigue. Argue your position in an actual court, where and when it matters. If a bunch of impatient people over-react to hearing only one side’s argument, so be it; you’ll exhaust yourself trying to convince them anyway and, in general, their opinion isn’t worth swaying.
        anigbrowl 3y ago
        Of course there is, perception matters or companies wouldn't have PR departments. They shove their brands in the public's face 24/7 with messages about how great they are but when they look bad they put on an air of injured dignity and cite platitudes about the legal system. The reality is that corporations usually just hope to exhaust plaintiffs in the legal system instead. I went to law school and am married to someone who works in litigation at a top 10 law firm, I understand very well how the legal process works both technically and in economic/strategic terms.
        sokoloff 3y ago
        Would companies prefer to have their PR departments talking about positive things the company is doing or refreshing and giving voice to an accusation of odometer rollbacks? I read nothing into FedEx’s silence on the topic, other than they are being run by adults taking competent advice.
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
- AlexandrB 3y ago
  Isn't this an example of an "accusation based judgement"? > This is taken from a complaint in a class action lawsuit. Class action lawyers are very similar to patent trolls whereby they can spin almost any story they want. And journalists go for clicks, so they amplify the sensationalism. It doesn't mean this is one of those, but a class action complaint should not just blindly be trusted. This amounts to "class action lawyers and journalists are bad so we can ignore what they're saying".
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    I don’t think you have to conclude that was shared for that reason. It could be shared simply as “this is what a plaintiff alleges, and we don’t have any data or anything further to verify that these claims are true.”
nine_zeros 3y ago
This is really the crux of the failure of organizations. The execs might not want fraud (or other problems) to happen. But, upper and middle management don't care about the company as much as the execs. They would much rather show the numbers, earn their comp and fuck off, than worry about long term sustainability of the company or of their reports. Has anyone really complained about middle management yet?
- salawat 3y ago
  The only thing a frustrated middle manager can do to deal with sociopathic upper management that turns a blind eye to departmental suffering is to candidly look at the bullshit you have to put up with, then make the decision on whether you've got the life left for this bullshit. Unironically, earn the comp, and fuck off to let the next person up the totem pole deal with the consequences of their decisions. Shit may roll downhill, but sometimes, nothing changes til the guy at the top gets a swift boot to the ass in the form of a dose of Real Life (TM).
  - nine_zeros 3y ago
    Yes, a decent middle manager doesn't have too many choices either. It is getting clearer to everyone (from execs to ICs) that the command structure with layers and layers of management gives rise to pathological behaviors in the organization. Perhaps this round of recession will bring some change to organization structures - ideally with less middle management.
    - jkaplowitz 3y ago
      A flatter hierarchy isn't a great solution to an excess middle management when it means that one manager has 15-20 direct reports, as opposed to a healthier target number of 6-8 or maybe 10-12 at maximum. It is important that each manager has adequate time to manage each of their people in a way that enables the kind of proper relationship that supports their team members when they need it. The current round of recession will probably temporarily shrink some companies or cut off some lines of business, thereby flattening the hierarchy in a less harmful way than what I described. But overworking managers is a different bad thing. Maybe you're advocating for a smaller maximum company size overall, so that a relatively flat hierarchy doesn't overwhelm those managers who do remain? Or for some right of participation by non-executive managers in collective worker action, as exists in Germany and as acted in the original version of the US National Labor Relations Act before the Taft-Hartley amendments, so that some kinds of large-company pathologies can be addressed better?

koheripbal 3y ago

We need to make evidence based judgements, not accusation based judgements. I'm tired of the outage-clickbait. I'm here to learn, not to be emotionally manipulated.

anigbrowl 3y ago
There's evidence from one side in the lawsuits, while the defendants have so far declined to submit any for scrutiny. In any case, the title of this submission says that Fedex is 'accused' of fraud rather than having been found guilty of it, so you knew what you were getting before you clicked; you could have just ignored it.
- singleshot_ 3y ago
  When someone files a complaint against you with a court of appropriate jurisdiction to start a lawsuit, your only sane option is to file an answer. The complaint lists their allegations point by point. The answer either admits or denies each allegation, point by point. It is not surprising that FedEx has declined to submit evidence for scrutiny. It’s not time for that yet. They will be required to do so in discovery and they better hope they can at trial but right now we should not expect to hear anything from them other than “admit, deny, insufficient basis to form a belief and therefore deny.” It’s just too early for an evidence based discussion. This is the nature of the civil action.
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    There's absolutely nothing preventing them asserting their version of events and following up with evidentiary filings within a reasonable timeframe. Just like there's nothing preventing corporations from admitting liability and apologizing, but they generally prefer to settle instead and never ever admit fault, thanks to the pernicious doctrine of maximizing shareholder value.
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      There’s no value in presenting your evidence in the court of public opinion and intrigue. Argue your position in an actual court, where and when it matters. If a bunch of impatient people over-react to hearing only one side’s argument, so be it; you’ll exhaust yourself trying to convince them anyway and, in general, their opinion isn’t worth swaying.
      - anigbrowl 3y ago
        Of course there is, perception matters or companies wouldn't have PR departments. They shove their brands in the public's face 24/7 with messages about how great they are but when they look bad they put on an air of injured dignity and cite platitudes about the legal system. The reality is that corporations usually just hope to exhaust plaintiffs in the legal system instead. I went to law school and am married to someone who works in litigation at a top 10 law firm, I understand very well how the legal process works both technically and in economic/strategic terms.
        sokoloff 3y ago
        Would companies prefer to have their PR departments talking about positive things the company is doing or refreshing and giving voice to an accusation of odometer rollbacks? I read nothing into FedEx’s silence on the topic, other than they are being run by adults taking competent advice.
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
AlexandrB 3y ago
Isn't this an example of an "accusation based judgement"? > This is taken from a complaint in a class action lawsuit. Class action lawyers are very similar to patent trolls whereby they can spin almost any story they want. And journalists go for clicks, so they amplify the sensationalism. It doesn't mean this is one of those, but a class action complaint should not just blindly be trusted. This amounts to "class action lawyers and journalists are bad so we can ignore what they're saying".
- sokoloff 3y ago
  I don’t think you have to conclude that was shared for that reason. It could be shared simply as “this is what a plaintiff alleges, and we don’t have any data or anything further to verify that these claims are true.”

nine_zeros 3y ago

This is really the crux of the failure of organizations. The execs might not want fraud (or other problems) to happen. But, upper and middle management don't care about the company as much as the execs. They would much rather show the numbers, earn their comp and fuck off, than worry about long term sustainability of the company or of their reports. Has anyone really complained about middle management yet?

salawat 3y ago
The only thing a frustrated middle manager can do to deal with sociopathic upper management that turns a blind eye to departmental suffering is to candidly look at the bullshit you have to put up with, then make the decision on whether you've got the life left for this bullshit. Unironically, earn the comp, and fuck off to let the next person up the totem pole deal with the consequences of their decisions. Shit may roll downhill, but sometimes, nothing changes til the guy at the top gets a swift boot to the ass in the form of a dose of Real Life (TM).
- nine_zeros 3y ago
  Yes, a decent middle manager doesn't have too many choices either. It is getting clearer to everyone (from execs to ICs) that the command structure with layers and layers of management gives rise to pathological behaviors in the organization. Perhaps this round of recession will bring some change to organization structures - ideally with less middle management.
  - jkaplowitz 3y ago
    A flatter hierarchy isn't a great solution to an excess middle management when it means that one manager has 15-20 direct reports, as opposed to a healthier target number of 6-8 or maybe 10-12 at maximum. It is important that each manager has adequate time to manage each of their people in a way that enables the kind of proper relationship that supports their team members when they need it. The current round of recession will probably temporarily shrink some companies or cut off some lines of business, thereby flattening the hierarchy in a less harmful way than what I described. But overworking managers is a different bad thing. Maybe you're advocating for a smaller maximum company size overall, so that a relatively flat hierarchy doesn't overwhelm those managers who do remain? Or for some right of participation by non-executive managers in collective worker action, as exists in Germany and as acted in the original version of the US National Labor Relations Act before the Taft-Hartley amendments, so that some kinds of large-company pathologies can be addressed better?