9 ms·

Safety inspector fired for finding 'too many defects'

241 points by guessmyname 3y ago

alistairSH 3y ago
When the end result is fines that are absorbed as a cost of business, why would we expect anything different? It’s high time to hold the leaders of misbehaving companies to account.
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  Well also the derailments and accidents. That can't be cheap. Do they just convince themselves it won't happen?
  - passwordoops 3y ago
    They convince themselves that with their market power, they'll be able to absorb the cost of any settlement... which has been the case for a while now
    - Nevermark 3y ago
      Today, corporate leaders are fundamentally, and therefore rationally, aligned toward optimizing short term results. Their personal risk is short term profit shortfalls, while shareholders and the corporation as a whole carry the longer term risks. Even more misaligned, is the case of public companies. The shorter term someone holds shares, the more impact they have (buying & selling) on current share price, while demanding shorter term results. Without actual personal accountability from company leaders, criminal & civil, no amount of long term corporate risk, will change their rational response to incentives. There is a good reason that dynamic companies “over compensate” their leaders with eye watering stock grants. It isn’t well earned compensation. It is a tool to align interests, benefitting everyone. But for slower growing companies, that is too costly. So for all companies, liability protection for shareholders should be matched by liability acceptance not just from the corporation as a whole, but when it comes to malfeasance, individuals responsible for the malfeasance.
      - gruez 3y ago
        >but when it comes to malfeasance, individuals responsible for the malfeasance. How would that work? Individuals actors within corporations are already responsible for malfeasance. If you took it upon yourself to commit some crimes to boost your KPIs so you get a bigger bonus (eg. threatening employees with violence), being in a corporation isn't going to protect you. Even if you're the boss and you're telling your direct reports to commit crimes, that's still a crime.
        Nevermark 3y ago
        Malfeasance in the regulatory violations and culpability for irresponsibility sense. Not just criminal. If the corporation is found culpable, or pleads no contest to culpability to reduce their fines or other repercussions, then executive, management or individual culpability would be determined (if any) by an outside party chosen by the board, acting in the interest of shareholders. Details, are not the point I am making, but that is one model. Whatever the process, it would be set in the corporate bylaws, and a minimum process required by stock exchanges to maintain listing. And possibly by law regarding corporate requirements - given law is what defines the balance of shareholder liability vs. corporate liability. This would add corporate employee liability to that balance.
        gruez 3y ago
        >then executive, management or individual culpability would be determined (if any) by an outside party chosen by the board, acting in the interest of shareholders. What makes you think that "the big fish" will end up being punished, rather than the low level employees?
        Nevermark 3y ago
        The devil is always in the details. I can see this improving things simply because the possibility/process of accountability is likely to result in more responsible behavior from everyone. But I can see your point too.
  - taberiand 3y ago
    They probably convince themselves they'll have moved on to something else before then, or otherwise get a hefty golden parachute when shtf and they bail out
  - wredue 3y ago
    No silly. They just complain to the feds when it happens, and get a nice big fat day of “getting away Scott free” while tax payers foot the majority of the cleanup cost. The saying is “privatize profits, socialize losses” for a reason.
    - gruez 3y ago
      >while tax payers foot the majority of the cleanup cost. source?
    - kortilla 3y ago
      > The saying is “privatize profits, socialize losses” for a reason. It’s a saying because it’s a catchy socialist rallying cry, not because it has any relevance to the event in question.
      - hughesjj 3y ago
        It's also a saying because it's trueeee (See: Superfund sites, this event in question, climate change, highways and car based infrastructure, etc...)
        gruez 3y ago
        >highways and car based infrastructure, etc...) If you follow this line of logic, it quickly gets absurd. The whole point of government is to do things that benefit society as a whole, but aren't feasible to do on a for profit basis (eg. roads, police, schools, etc.). Private companies and individuals are inevitably going to reap benefits as a result. If that constitutes "privatize profits, socialize losses", then you're just describing a properly functioning government. Going back to the initial point, what are governments supposed to do? Not build highways? Not have the police because that would "privatize profits" because private business no longer have to fund their own security?
        doctor_eval 3y ago
        > The whole point of government is to do things that benefit society as a whole, but aren't feasible to do on a for profit basis Err.. that’s a very unique definition, and certainly not one that’s universally accepted. > If that constitutes "privatize profits, socialize losses", then you're just describing a properly functioning government. One of the many roles of legitimate government is to protect the safety of citizens, aka voters. But corporations are incentivised to reduce costs. When these principles come into conflict, unfortunately the corporates tend to win (at least in the short term), at the expense of everyone else. A “properly functioning” government would balance these conflicts such that the cost of doing business was not socialised, for example by preventing companies from “cheating” by externalising costs that their competitors do not.
- Firmwarrior 3y ago
  Man, this type of stuff is so infuriating and so ubiquitous I wish every single person in the management chain over Don Sanders was in prison right now
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    This sort of thing nets more severe consequences in other parts of the world, and maybe they're on to something.
  - kortilla 3y ago
    Including the shareholders? That type of knee jerk reaction kinda fails to any actual scrutiny because the minute prison is on the table, Don Sanders will no longer be reporting to anyone. He’ll just be an independent contractor paid for an assessment.
    - verve_rat 3y ago
      In NZ we have health and safety legislation that includes personal fines and prison time as options for officers of a company. It doesn't matter if the individuals involved are contractors, or volunteers, or the general public. The officers have a duty of care and if they breach it they can be personally liable. But on the other hand, I don't think I've heard of anyone going to jail for that sort of thing. Which either means we have no major health and safety problems (seems unlikely) or the courts are out of step with parliament, which does seem to happen a lot.
    - aperrien 3y ago
      Not punishing shareholders directly makes sense, at that level some sort of fine is probably best. But perhaps we should punish the board of directors for creating an environment where their subordinates need to look the other way when it comes to safety? They are the one who set the day to day policies and operations of the company. If enough of that happens, then maybe the board won't be as fast to push things without considering the consequences.
      - 3y ago
- austin-cheney 3y ago
  How? Software has the same problems. Usually the core of the problem is the perception that training costs too much and so problems from bad practice are encouraged until there is a class action lawsuit. I have seen this occur many times in my career whether it’s due to missing security, accessibility, or reporting.
  - jabroni_salad 3y ago
    literally just put c-levels in jail until they figure it out, just like we do for fraud. Isn't the level of responsibility the reason for the high compensation?
    - austin-cheney 3y ago
      No, this is stupid. Blame the technicians who know better but intentionally disregard the necessary controls because they want to earn a bonus. Imagine if software developers could be individually sued for writing discriminatory, privacy violating, or insecure software. Then the fraud you speak of would naturally separate away from unintentional defects and software would be less defective overall. Then the C-levels are directly responsible when they tolerate their technicians committing the fraud you speak of.
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  What I don't get is this obsession with making corporations people, except for the criminal part. Why can't a company be "thrown in jail" by cutting its heads off a jailing them. They want control but they don't want liabillity/responsibillity, they want rewards but no punishment, wins/gains but not losses. No matter what they do, they still win somehow and we continue this cultural narrative of meritocracy and equitable treatment under the law, but also unlimited campaign financing
  - StressedDev 3y ago
    There is no obsession with making companies a legal person. It's done because it works, it's convenient, and it allows us to create giant organizations. The thing you have to think about is what does it mean when someone says a company is a legal person? It means a couple of things: - It allows companies to create contracts between themselves and real people. - It allows companies to own property (real estate, money, equipment, etc.) - It allows companies and individuals to sue other companies and individuals. - It protects companies from arbitrary or unjust government intervention. Companies also have another very good feature. Investors can limit their liability. For example, if I own 10 shares of a company and the company goes bankrupt, I am not liable for the company's debts. This good because it encourages people to invest, and it also protects people from being wiped out because of a bad investment. Note, companies are not the only legal person. Governments are also legal people. My question for you is how would you do things differently? What are the advantages of these changes?
    - Obscurity4340 3y ago
      I'm more concerned with their unequal treatment when it comes to the law vs ordinary people. There should not be parallel systems of punishment for corporations where they can receive any treatment not also available to the regular human defendant (with the same plain stipulations). I'm particularly concerned by their abillity to often "settle" criminal charges with a fine and no admission of wrong-doing. Who is actually allowed to pull that crap besides companies?
      - 3y ago
drbwaa 3y ago
His supervisor was given a $20k bonus with a performance review that specifically cited that "Don Sanders is no longer working for BNSF." Insane that there are no criminal penalties for this nonsense, just penny fines absorbed by the company.
- Accujack 3y ago
  The railroad companies that merged to create what's left of the rail industry in the US are the ultimate evolution of "too big to fail" corporations. They've been kept alive/subsidized for almost 200 years now, and they've had time to tilt the playing field to their advantage just like e.g. Amazon, except they've had a lot longer to pull shady stuff. If you look into what privileges the railroads have, it's insane. In some places they have eminent domain ability, and immunity from eminent domain. Since most of the railroad regulations are Federal, they override state law as in this case in Ohio: https://www.courtnewsohio.gov/cases/2022/SCO/0817/200608.asp https://www.courtnewsohio.gov/cases/2022/SCO/0817/200608.asp Basically... they're entrenched, and they've had 200 years to dig in.
  - mindslight 3y ago
    Every time I see some analysis of an unprotected level crossing crash putting fault on a driver it blows my mind that the standard is still that trains have the right to just blow through intersections, everybody else be damned - especially given how infrequently utilized most tracks are. That kind of priority should require a crossing gate with positive verification that the gates are down and intersection is clear before giving the train signal to proceed. And I say this as someone who likes trains. (And yes, I get the physics involved. Similar physics applies to cars versus people, yet outside of some very narrow and high utilization contexts like controlled access highways, cars' speeds are limited by having an implicit responsibility to stop to avoid collisions)
    - Incipient 3y ago
      A car can typically stop within 5-10m at most city speeds (reaction time notwithstanding) and not really waste much energy in the process. A freight train probably takes about a month to stop, at the cost of a lot of energy/fuel. It absolutely makes sense they have right of way.
dylan604 3y ago
"Just quit testing, and the numbers go down" will forever be my meme like response to these kinds of idiotic situations. It's right up there with "You're holding it wrong".
- carbocation 3y ago
  Laws of the House of God #10: If you don't take a temperature, you can't find a fever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_House_of_God https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_House_of_God
  - adhesive_wombat 3y ago
    My favourite one is "The delivery of good medical care is to do as much nothing as possible" which reminds me strongly of "the best software is no software at all".
chriscappuccio 3y ago
The question is, are the defects serious? Is this guy going in with meaningful stuff?
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  the answer is, yes, according to a qualified safety inspector, who is the judge of seriousness here
oblib 3y ago
I watch the "Virtual Railfan" youtube channel now and then and some (quite a few) of those trains have cars with wheel bearings just screaming from being worn out. There are also videos of trains derailing where you can see those failing and cars piling up and tipping over. I grew up in the 60s-70s with railroad tracks less than 200ft from our home and rarely ever heard wheel bearings screeching like that.
aurizon 3y ago
As the level of corruption grows, the organisation starts to stumble and eventually gets sued to dust. An interesting youtube on Russian corruption grew to such huge levels thatover 80% of the budget was diverted. Soldiers stole engines/tires/optics/fuel and so on and the invasion of Kiev failed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz59GWeTIik https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz59GWeTIik https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9i47sgi-V4&t=2189s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9i47sgi-V4&t=2189s
smitty1e 3y ago
I like to say that I "got caught telling the truth" for why I did poorly after commissioning in the Navy.
- StressedDev 3y ago
  I am sorry. It is always very very very hard when a manager or organization punishes people for telling the truth or trying to do the right thing.
  - smitty1e 3y ago
    Oh, don't get me wrong. Decades on, I realized that I transitioned poorly from "doing the do" to "managing the do". Needed someone senior to give me a noogie.
croes 3y ago
Reminds me of the case, where tax investigator were diagnosed with a clear "paranoid-querulatory development" or an adjustment disorder in almost identical expert opinions because they were too successful in finding tax evasion money. They brought the state about 1 billion euros in back taxes from rich tax evaders from Lichtenstein accounts, including from a foundation of the Hessian CDU. The chronic course and the incurability made the tax investigators unfit for service for all times, also in the sense of partial incapacity, follow-up examinations were presented as pointless.
- StressedDev 3y ago
  This is a very good comment because it shows how pervasive the problem is. In this case, the tax investigator was punished for doing a very good job.
kryogen1c 3y ago
I'm surprised everyone is jumping on the worker's side and assuming the supervisor is wrong. You folks have never worked with some anal retentive person being as annoying as possible inside the rules? Back in the navy we used to call this malicious compliance. > Sanders’ supervisor berates him for calling the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). > “Why in the world would we ever call the FRA about anything? Unless I’m absolutely blatantly telling you to break the rules,” This sounds like a reasonable position. You expect anyone you work with to go straight to HR, or your boss, or an auditing agency? Without talking to you first? > “All I can say is I need your help right now to keep my ass from getting fired,” Sanders’ boss told him on the call. > “I need to just look the other way?” Sanders asks, referring to the reporting of defects. > “No. We just need to have a conversation,” his boss said. So when asked if he's supposed to falsify reports, his boss says no. > “Why can’t we just fix the (expletive) defects?” This is a great sound bite, but doesn't have much bearing on reality. Complex systems have complex solutions. There's liability and lifecycle budgeting, impact analysis, ERP, etc etc etc ad nauseum. All in all, it seems like the boss was somewhat shady, but its hard to tell - Nothing is black and white. I'm just surprised everyone is willing to take this implication and turn it into a witch burning.
- joshuanapoli 3y ago
  Well, there’s a place for software to help here. If the inspection findings were well documented in a transparent system, then there’s a place to discuss the severity level. Then there’s less room for a cover-up. If an individual inspector is not grading things correctly, then it will also be apparent and amply documented.
- Buttons840 3y ago
  If someone is following the rules and that's a problem, then you update the rules. This probably doesn't happen because whenever the railroad faces scrutiny they want to point to the rules and say, "look how strict our rules are, what more could we have done?", and then in reality they wink and nod at each other and ignore the rules. The honest thing to do is to set the appropriate rules and then follow and enforce them as thoroughly and exactly as possible.
- 3y ago
StressedDev 3y ago
This is general problem anytime there is a person or organization which looks for problems. When a problem is found, an organization has two basic approaches: 1) Acknowledge the problem, prioritize fixing it, and then fix the problems in priority order. 2) Punish the person who reports the problem. This is a very bad idea but it is common. I once worked with a very good QA person. He was pushed out of the QA organization because he found too many bugs. In particular, there was one developer who complained because it took "too long" to test his changes. The reason it took a long time was the QA person was thorough, the software was complex, and the developer wrote buggy code. More recently, I was punished because I reported web service had no authentication and could be used to access customer PII. My manger's manager screamed at me for reporting this and claimed it was not a problem. Punishing people who report problems is destructive, and it has been happening for millennia. That is why we have the phrase "shooting the messenger". I am not sure how you fix this problem. My guess is organizations have to adopt a culture where reporting problems is valued, and also where covering up problems is punished. Even then, organizations always have bad people who try to take the destructive path. I do not think there is an easy way to remove all dishonest, incompetent, destructive, and dysfunctional people from any organization. The best we can do is be vigilant, speak up, and accept we will sometimes be punished for trying to do the right thing.
- drekipus 3y ago
  This is the root cause of tofu dreg projects in China, if anyone wants to see what happens in a larger scale
  - StressedDev 3y ago
    What is a tofu dregs project?
    - mikrotikker 3y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/shorts/q8D1UqQdf4A https://www.youtube.com/shorts/q8D1UqQdf4A
NonEUCitizen 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BNSF_Railway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BNSF_Railway The BNSF Railway Company is the principal operating subsidiary of parent company Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC. Headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, the railroad's parent company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., of Omaha, Nebraska.
rekabis 3y ago
Nationalize anything “too big to fail.” If it’s too big to fail, it’s too big to be outside of the public interest and public control.
ftxbro 3y ago
maybe he was being difficult
jihadjihad 3y ago
Cheap recycled article--the original local story can be found here: https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/a-track-inspector-claimed-he-was-fired-for-reporting-too-many-defects-his-secret-recordings-may-cost-bnsf-millions/ https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/a-track-inspector-claime...
- dang 3y ago
  Thanks! We've changed to that from https://jalopnik.com/safety-inspector-fired-for-finding-too-many-defects-cou-1850817520 https://jalopnik.com/safety-inspector-fired-for-finding-too-.... Submitters: "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - gumby 3y ago
    This has nothing to to with trains, but: I sometimes submit an article about a scientific paper because the paper itself may be too dense for people without specific domain expertise. Is this the wrong thing to do?
    - dang 3y ago
      It's exactly the right thing to do! https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20article%20paper%20popular%20article&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... Occasionally we make an exception (in fact I just did: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37441718 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37441718), but for the most part you should post the best popular article and link to the specialized paper in the comments. The one domain where this rule doesn't apply is computing, since enough of the audience here understands that domain.
kennethrc 3y ago
> In a previous statement, a spokesperson said [BNSF] “does not retaliate against employees.” Oh! Well then, case closed
- gruez 3y ago
  I get you're being sarcastic, but what are they expected to say? "Yep, we're guilty?". Nobody seriously thinks that they should be acquitted on the basis of their denial.
  - metadat 3y ago
    Perps always think and feel they "should" be acquitted on the basis of denial. Nobody else does, though. (Sorry for being pedantic, I strongly agree with what seems to be your core assertion) Edit: @mcpackieh: Good point.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      > Perps always think and feel they "should" be acquitted on the basis of denial. Isn't that tautological? Innocent people, not being perpetrators, think and feel they "should" be acquitted on the basis of their innocence, not on the basis of denial. It's only on the basis of denial if they actually did the thing.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        you swapped in "innocent people" for "people", but it's worth noting that guilty people and companies often feel the same way so no, the original, un-word-swapped quote isn't tautological
        mcpackieh 3y ago
        metadat said perps, as in perpetrators. Between perpetrators and innocent people that covers all people. What am I missing? Maybe you read perps as peeps?

241 points by guessmyname 3y ago

When the end result is fines that are absorbed as a cost of business, why would we expect anything different? It’s high time to hold the leaders of misbehaving companies to account.

SoftTalker 3y ago
Well also the derailments and accidents. That can't be cheap. Do they just convince themselves it won't happen?
- passwordoops 3y ago
  They convince themselves that with their market power, they'll be able to absorb the cost of any settlement... which has been the case for a while now
  - Nevermark 3y ago
    Today, corporate leaders are fundamentally, and therefore rationally, aligned toward optimizing short term results. Their personal risk is short term profit shortfalls, while shareholders and the corporation as a whole carry the longer term risks. Even more misaligned, is the case of public companies. The shorter term someone holds shares, the more impact they have (buying & selling) on current share price, while demanding shorter term results. Without actual personal accountability from company leaders, criminal & civil, no amount of long term corporate risk, will change their rational response to incentives. There is a good reason that dynamic companies “over compensate” their leaders with eye watering stock grants. It isn’t well earned compensation. It is a tool to align interests, benefitting everyone. But for slower growing companies, that is too costly. So for all companies, liability protection for shareholders should be matched by liability acceptance not just from the corporation as a whole, but when it comes to malfeasance, individuals responsible for the malfeasance.
    - gruez 3y ago
      >but when it comes to malfeasance, individuals responsible for the malfeasance. How would that work? Individuals actors within corporations are already responsible for malfeasance. If you took it upon yourself to commit some crimes to boost your KPIs so you get a bigger bonus (eg. threatening employees with violence), being in a corporation isn't going to protect you. Even if you're the boss and you're telling your direct reports to commit crimes, that's still a crime.
      - Nevermark 3y ago
        Malfeasance in the regulatory violations and culpability for irresponsibility sense. Not just criminal. If the corporation is found culpable, or pleads no contest to culpability to reduce their fines or other repercussions, then executive, management or individual culpability would be determined (if any) by an outside party chosen by the board, acting in the interest of shareholders. Details, are not the point I am making, but that is one model. Whatever the process, it would be set in the corporate bylaws, and a minimum process required by stock exchanges to maintain listing. And possibly by law regarding corporate requirements - given law is what defines the balance of shareholder liability vs. corporate liability. This would add corporate employee liability to that balance.
        gruez 3y ago
        >then executive, management or individual culpability would be determined (if any) by an outside party chosen by the board, acting in the interest of shareholders. What makes you think that "the big fish" will end up being punished, rather than the low level employees?
        Nevermark 3y ago
        The devil is always in the details. I can see this improving things simply because the possibility/process of accountability is likely to result in more responsible behavior from everyone. But I can see your point too.
- taberiand 3y ago
  They probably convince themselves they'll have moved on to something else before then, or otherwise get a hefty golden parachute when shtf and they bail out
- wredue 3y ago
  No silly. They just complain to the feds when it happens, and get a nice big fat day of “getting away Scott free” while tax payers foot the majority of the cleanup cost. The saying is “privatize profits, socialize losses” for a reason.
  - gruez 3y ago
    >while tax payers foot the majority of the cleanup cost. source?
  - kortilla 3y ago
    > The saying is “privatize profits, socialize losses” for a reason. It’s a saying because it’s a catchy socialist rallying cry, not because it has any relevance to the event in question.
    - hughesjj 3y ago
      It's also a saying because it's trueeee (See: Superfund sites, this event in question, climate change, highways and car based infrastructure, etc...)
      - gruez 3y ago
        >highways and car based infrastructure, etc...) If you follow this line of logic, it quickly gets absurd. The whole point of government is to do things that benefit society as a whole, but aren't feasible to do on a for profit basis (eg. roads, police, schools, etc.). Private companies and individuals are inevitably going to reap benefits as a result. If that constitutes "privatize profits, socialize losses", then you're just describing a properly functioning government. Going back to the initial point, what are governments supposed to do? Not build highways? Not have the police because that would "privatize profits" because private business no longer have to fund their own security?
        doctor_eval 3y ago
        > The whole point of government is to do things that benefit society as a whole, but aren't feasible to do on a for profit basis Err.. that’s a very unique definition, and certainly not one that’s universally accepted. > If that constitutes "privatize profits, socialize losses", then you're just describing a properly functioning government. One of the many roles of legitimate government is to protect the safety of citizens, aka voters. But corporations are incentivised to reduce costs. When these principles come into conflict, unfortunately the corporates tend to win (at least in the short term), at the expense of everyone else. A “properly functioning” government would balance these conflicts such that the cost of doing business was not socialised, for example by preventing companies from “cheating” by externalising costs that their competitors do not.
Firmwarrior 3y ago
Man, this type of stuff is so infuriating and so ubiquitous I wish every single person in the management chain over Don Sanders was in prison right now
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  This sort of thing nets more severe consequences in other parts of the world, and maybe they're on to something.
- kortilla 3y ago
  Including the shareholders? That type of knee jerk reaction kinda fails to any actual scrutiny because the minute prison is on the table, Don Sanders will no longer be reporting to anyone. He’ll just be an independent contractor paid for an assessment.
  - verve_rat 3y ago
    In NZ we have health and safety legislation that includes personal fines and prison time as options for officers of a company. It doesn't matter if the individuals involved are contractors, or volunteers, or the general public. The officers have a duty of care and if they breach it they can be personally liable. But on the other hand, I don't think I've heard of anyone going to jail for that sort of thing. Which either means we have no major health and safety problems (seems unlikely) or the courts are out of step with parliament, which does seem to happen a lot.
  - aperrien 3y ago
    Not punishing shareholders directly makes sense, at that level some sort of fine is probably best. But perhaps we should punish the board of directors for creating an environment where their subordinates need to look the other way when it comes to safety? They are the one who set the day to day policies and operations of the company. If enough of that happens, then maybe the board won't be as fast to push things without considering the consequences.
    - 3y ago
austin-cheney 3y ago
How? Software has the same problems. Usually the core of the problem is the perception that training costs too much and so problems from bad practice are encouraged until there is a class action lawsuit. I have seen this occur many times in my career whether it’s due to missing security, accessibility, or reporting.
- jabroni_salad 3y ago
  literally just put c-levels in jail until they figure it out, just like we do for fraud. Isn't the level of responsibility the reason for the high compensation?
  - austin-cheney 3y ago
    No, this is stupid. Blame the technicians who know better but intentionally disregard the necessary controls because they want to earn a bonus. Imagine if software developers could be individually sued for writing discriminatory, privacy violating, or insecure software. Then the fraud you speak of would naturally separate away from unintentional defects and software would be less defective overall. Then the C-levels are directly responsible when they tolerate their technicians committing the fraud you speak of.
Obscurity4340 3y ago
What I don't get is this obsession with making corporations people, except for the criminal part. Why can't a company be "thrown in jail" by cutting its heads off a jailing them. They want control but they don't want liabillity/responsibillity, they want rewards but no punishment, wins/gains but not losses. No matter what they do, they still win somehow and we continue this cultural narrative of meritocracy and equitable treatment under the law, but also unlimited campaign financing
- StressedDev 3y ago
  There is no obsession with making companies a legal person. It's done because it works, it's convenient, and it allows us to create giant organizations. The thing you have to think about is what does it mean when someone says a company is a legal person? It means a couple of things: - It allows companies to create contracts between themselves and real people. - It allows companies to own property (real estate, money, equipment, etc.) - It allows companies and individuals to sue other companies and individuals. - It protects companies from arbitrary or unjust government intervention. Companies also have another very good feature. Investors can limit their liability. For example, if I own 10 shares of a company and the company goes bankrupt, I am not liable for the company's debts. This good because it encourages people to invest, and it also protects people from being wiped out because of a bad investment. Note, companies are not the only legal person. Governments are also legal people. My question for you is how would you do things differently? What are the advantages of these changes?
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    I'm more concerned with their unequal treatment when it comes to the law vs ordinary people. There should not be parallel systems of punishment for corporations where they can receive any treatment not also available to the regular human defendant (with the same plain stipulations). I'm particularly concerned by their abillity to often "settle" criminal charges with a fine and no admission of wrong-doing. Who is actually allowed to pull that crap besides companies?
    - 3y ago

drbwaa 3y ago

His supervisor was given a $20k bonus with a performance review that specifically cited that "Don Sanders is no longer working for BNSF." Insane that there are no criminal penalties for this nonsense, just penny fines absorbed by the company.

Accujack 3y ago
The railroad companies that merged to create what's left of the rail industry in the US are the ultimate evolution of "too big to fail" corporations. They've been kept alive/subsidized for almost 200 years now, and they've had time to tilt the playing field to their advantage just like e.g. Amazon, except they've had a lot longer to pull shady stuff. If you look into what privileges the railroads have, it's insane. In some places they have eminent domain ability, and immunity from eminent domain. Since most of the railroad regulations are Federal, they override state law as in this case in Ohio: https://www.courtnewsohio.gov/cases/2022/SCO/0817/200608.asp https://www.courtnewsohio.gov/cases/2022/SCO/0817/200608.asp Basically... they're entrenched, and they've had 200 years to dig in.
- mindslight 3y ago
  Every time I see some analysis of an unprotected level crossing crash putting fault on a driver it blows my mind that the standard is still that trains have the right to just blow through intersections, everybody else be damned - especially given how infrequently utilized most tracks are. That kind of priority should require a crossing gate with positive verification that the gates are down and intersection is clear before giving the train signal to proceed. And I say this as someone who likes trains. (And yes, I get the physics involved. Similar physics applies to cars versus people, yet outside of some very narrow and high utilization contexts like controlled access highways, cars' speeds are limited by having an implicit responsibility to stop to avoid collisions)
  - Incipient 3y ago
    A car can typically stop within 5-10m at most city speeds (reaction time notwithstanding) and not really waste much energy in the process. A freight train probably takes about a month to stop, at the cost of a lot of energy/fuel. It absolutely makes sense they have right of way.

dylan604 3y ago

"Just quit testing, and the numbers go down" will forever be my meme like response to these kinds of idiotic situations. It's right up there with "You're holding it wrong".

carbocation 3y ago
Laws of the House of God #10: If you don't take a temperature, you can't find a fever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_House_of_God https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_House_of_God
- adhesive_wombat 3y ago
  My favourite one is "The delivery of good medical care is to do as much nothing as possible" which reminds me strongly of "the best software is no software at all".

chriscappuccio 3y ago

The question is, are the defects serious? Is this guy going in with meaningful stuff?

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
the answer is, yes, according to a qualified safety inspector, who is the judge of seriousness here

oblib 3y ago

I watch the "Virtual Railfan" youtube channel now and then and some (quite a few) of those trains have cars with wheel bearings just screaming from being worn out. There are also videos of trains derailing where you can see those failing and cars piling up and tipping over. I grew up in the 60s-70s with railroad tracks less than 200ft from our home and rarely ever heard wheel bearings screeching like that.

aurizon 3y ago

As the level of corruption grows, the organisation starts to stumble and eventually gets sued to dust. An interesting youtube on Russian corruption grew to such huge levels thatover 80% of the budget was diverted. Soldiers stole engines/tires/optics/fuel and so on and the invasion of Kiev failed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz59GWeTIik https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz59GWeTIik https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9i47sgi-V4&t=2189s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9i47sgi-V4&t=2189s

smitty1e 3y ago

I like to say that I "got caught telling the truth" for why I did poorly after commissioning in the Navy.

StressedDev 3y ago
I am sorry. It is always very very very hard when a manager or organization punishes people for telling the truth or trying to do the right thing.
- smitty1e 3y ago
  Oh, don't get me wrong. Decades on, I realized that I transitioned poorly from "doing the do" to "managing the do". Needed someone senior to give me a noogie.

croes 3y ago

Reminds me of the case, where tax investigator were diagnosed with a clear "paranoid-querulatory development" or an adjustment disorder in almost identical expert opinions because they were too successful in finding tax evasion money. They brought the state about 1 billion euros in back taxes from rich tax evaders from Lichtenstein accounts, including from a foundation of the Hessian CDU. The chronic course and the incurability made the tax investigators unfit for service for all times, also in the sense of partial incapacity, follow-up examinations were presented as pointless.

StressedDev 3y ago
This is a very good comment because it shows how pervasive the problem is. In this case, the tax investigator was punished for doing a very good job.

kryogen1c 3y ago

I'm surprised everyone is jumping on the worker's side and assuming the supervisor is wrong. You folks have never worked with some anal retentive person being as annoying as possible inside the rules? Back in the navy we used to call this malicious compliance. > Sanders’ supervisor berates him for calling the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). > “Why in the world would we ever call the FRA about anything? Unless I’m absolutely blatantly telling you to break the rules,” This sounds like a reasonable position. You expect anyone you work with to go straight to HR, or your boss, or an auditing agency? Without talking to you first? > “All I can say is I need your help right now to keep my ass from getting fired,” Sanders’ boss told him on the call. > “I need to just look the other way?” Sanders asks, referring to the reporting of defects. > “No. We just need to have a conversation,” his boss said. So when asked if he's supposed to falsify reports, his boss says no. > “Why can’t we just fix the (expletive) defects?” This is a great sound bite, but doesn't have much bearing on reality. Complex systems have complex solutions. There's liability and lifecycle budgeting, impact analysis, ERP, etc etc etc ad nauseum. All in all, it seems like the boss was somewhat shady, but its hard to tell - Nothing is black and white. I'm just surprised everyone is willing to take this implication and turn it into a witch burning.

joshuanapoli 3y ago
Well, there’s a place for software to help here. If the inspection findings were well documented in a transparent system, then there’s a place to discuss the severity level. Then there’s less room for a cover-up. If an individual inspector is not grading things correctly, then it will also be apparent and amply documented.
Buttons840 3y ago
If someone is following the rules and that's a problem, then you update the rules. This probably doesn't happen because whenever the railroad faces scrutiny they want to point to the rules and say, "look how strict our rules are, what more could we have done?", and then in reality they wink and nod at each other and ignore the rules. The honest thing to do is to set the appropriate rules and then follow and enforce them as thoroughly and exactly as possible.
3y ago

StressedDev 3y ago

This is general problem anytime there is a person or organization which looks for problems. When a problem is found, an organization has two basic approaches: 1) Acknowledge the problem, prioritize fixing it, and then fix the problems in priority order. 2) Punish the person who reports the problem. This is a very bad idea but it is common. I once worked with a very good QA person. He was pushed out of the QA organization because he found too many bugs. In particular, there was one developer who complained because it took "too long" to test his changes. The reason it took a long time was the QA person was thorough, the software was complex, and the developer wrote buggy code. More recently, I was punished because I reported web service had no authentication and could be used to access customer PII. My manger's manager screamed at me for reporting this and claimed it was not a problem. Punishing people who report problems is destructive, and it has been happening for millennia. That is why we have the phrase "shooting the messenger". I am not sure how you fix this problem. My guess is organizations have to adopt a culture where reporting problems is valued, and also where covering up problems is punished. Even then, organizations always have bad people who try to take the destructive path. I do not think there is an easy way to remove all dishonest, incompetent, destructive, and dysfunctional people from any organization. The best we can do is be vigilant, speak up, and accept we will sometimes be punished for trying to do the right thing.

drekipus 3y ago
This is the root cause of tofu dreg projects in China, if anyone wants to see what happens in a larger scale
- StressedDev 3y ago
  What is a tofu dregs project?
  - mikrotikker 3y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/q8D1UqQdf4A https://www.youtube.com/shorts/q8D1UqQdf4A

NonEUCitizen 3y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BNSF_Railway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BNSF_Railway The BNSF Railway Company is the principal operating subsidiary of parent company Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC. Headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, the railroad's parent company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., of Omaha, Nebraska.

rekabis 3y ago

Nationalize anything “too big to fail.” If it’s too big to fail, it’s too big to be outside of the public interest and public control.

ftxbro 3y ago

maybe he was being difficult

jihadjihad 3y ago

Cheap recycled article--the original local story can be found here: https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/a-track-inspector-claimed-he-was-fired-for-reporting-too-many-defects-his-secret-recordings-may-cost-bnsf-millions/ https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/a-track-inspector-claime...

dang 3y ago
Thanks! We've changed to that from https://jalopnik.com/safety-inspector-fired-for-finding-too-many-defects-cou-1850817520 https://jalopnik.com/safety-inspector-fired-for-finding-too-.... Submitters: "Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- gumby 3y ago
  This has nothing to to with trains, but: I sometimes submit an article about a scientific paper because the paper itself may be too dense for people without specific domain expertise. Is this the wrong thing to do?
  - dang 3y ago
    It's exactly the right thing to do! https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20article%20paper%20popular%20article&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... Occasionally we make an exception (in fact I just did: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37441718 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37441718), but for the most part you should post the best popular article and link to the specialized paper in the comments. The one domain where this rule doesn't apply is computing, since enough of the audience here understands that domain.

kennethrc 3y ago

> In a previous statement, a spokesperson said [BNSF] “does not retaliate against employees.” Oh! Well then, case closed

gruez 3y ago
I get you're being sarcastic, but what are they expected to say? "Yep, we're guilty?". Nobody seriously thinks that they should be acquitted on the basis of their denial.
- metadat 3y ago
  Perps always think and feel they "should" be acquitted on the basis of denial. Nobody else does, though. (Sorry for being pedantic, I strongly agree with what seems to be your core assertion) Edit: @mcpackieh: Good point.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    > Perps always think and feel they "should" be acquitted on the basis of denial. Isn't that tautological? Innocent people, not being perpetrators, think and feel they "should" be acquitted on the basis of their innocence, not on the basis of denial. It's only on the basis of denial if they actually did the thing.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      you swapped in "innocent people" for "people", but it's worth noting that guilty people and companies often feel the same way so no, the original, un-word-swapped quote isn't tautological
      - mcpackieh 3y ago
        metadat said perps, as in perpetrators. Between perpetrators and innocent people that covers all people. What am I missing? Maybe you read perps as peeps?