3 ms·

If you don’t have a duty to report, you don’t have a duty to report. You can’t predict what government prosecutors will do. If they start investigating and it t

by rayiner 4mo ago

If you don’t have a duty to report, you don’t have a duty to report. You can’t predict what government prosecutors will do. If they start investigating and it turns out for whatever reason they can’t pin it on the boss, they could have pinned if on OP. Think about it logically. If you’re the prosecutor, the guy whose time is fraudulent is presumptively the criminal. It could very well be that he was actually the one who was engaged in the fraud, but went to the authorities to protect himself by making it look like his boss did it.

b40d-48b2-979e 4mo ago
[flagged]
- bit-anarchist 4mo ago
  Having morals doesn't mean you must self-sacrifice. If you have no obligations, you have no obligations.
  - b40d-48b2-979e 4mo ago
    He did report, he chose to report to the choice he thought would have no motion. He knew it was wrong, he consulted with what to do, then he chose the action that let him skate by while observing prison-levels of public fraud. His entire monologue is self-serving while trying to maintain a facade of responsibility/ethic.
    - bit-anarchist 4mo ago
      What facade of reponsability? Their responsibility was not being complicit in the crime and they accomplished just that. It's not their responsibility to prosecute their employer, specially if it comes with significant risks to their life.
      - b40d-48b2-979e 4mo ago
        He was complicit when he knowingly made the choice that would have no accountability.
        bit-anarchist 4mo ago
        That presumes that it's their responsibility to hold them accountable or, at least, that the other option is free. Given that you haven't shown either of those, and the statements point to the contrary, it's fair to say they are not complicit.
        b40d-48b2-979e 4mo ago
        or, at least, that the other option is free So morals only matter depending on how easy a decision is to make and how it won't affect you personally? This is coming back full circle to "has no morals".
        bit-anarchist 4mo ago
        > So morals only matter depending on how easy a decision is to make and how it won't affect you personally? I see you cut the first part, only to follow with a "only" qualitative. That's not an honest nor moral thing to do. Specially given you still have to prove their moral obligations about the matter. Saying that they've chosen the risk minimizing option is a non sequitur.
  - wisty 4mo ago
    If you only have morals when it's at no cost to yourself, do you have morals?
    - streetfighter64 4mo ago
      That doesn't make sense. Obviously if I refrain from stealing I'm upholding my morals at a cost to myself (the cost being the free stuff I don't get). You seem to expect people to have morals at every cost to themselves, implying that they don't have any morals otherwise. You may as well ask why people aren't donating all of their possessions and living at the minimum subsistence level. Or why haven't you donated one of your kidneys yet? Do you consider it to be too high of a cost to yourself, even though it would be the "moral" thing to do?
carlosjobim 4mo ago
Yours is unfortunately the attitude which breeds corruption, and also the attitude of the majority of people. "Not my problem", "not my duty", "covering my own ass", "not getting into trouble" and so on. The reptilian minded people like OPs boss love having you guys around, because they can't do their unethical schemes just by themselves, and you won't make a fuss. As for the prosecutor; he is first and foremost interested in where the money went. If fraudulent hours didn't give OP an extra paycheck boost, then that money went somewhere else.
- voakbasda 4mo ago
  Look, you want people to get involved? Then it needs to be safe to do so. Recent history has demonstrated that whistleblowers have no such assurance. They risk damage to their reputation and future employment prospects; some even end up forced out their career of choice. This is how we reward them, and you expect people to just step up and fall on those swords? Other commenters have pointed out that our justice system also lacks any means to determine how a particular case will play out. Personally, I would do everything in my power to avoid entanglement with the government, in any way shape or form. I am literally terrified of going to court for any reason, because Truth and Justice no longer have any place there; no, the Law sucks all the oxygen out of the room. If you think otherwise, then I would wager that you have never been through that system.

by rayiner 4mo ago

b40d-48b2-979e 4mo ago

[flagged]

bit-anarchist 4mo ago
Having morals doesn't mean you must self-sacrifice. If you have no obligations, you have no obligations.
- b40d-48b2-979e 4mo ago
  He did report, he chose to report to the choice he thought would have no motion. He knew it was wrong, he consulted with what to do, then he chose the action that let him skate by while observing prison-levels of public fraud. His entire monologue is self-serving while trying to maintain a facade of responsibility/ethic.
  - bit-anarchist 4mo ago
    What facade of reponsability? Their responsibility was not being complicit in the crime and they accomplished just that. It's not their responsibility to prosecute their employer, specially if it comes with significant risks to their life.
    - b40d-48b2-979e 4mo ago
      He was complicit when he knowingly made the choice that would have no accountability.
      - bit-anarchist 4mo ago
        That presumes that it's their responsibility to hold them accountable or, at least, that the other option is free. Given that you haven't shown either of those, and the statements point to the contrary, it's fair to say they are not complicit.
        b40d-48b2-979e 4mo ago
        or, at least, that the other option is free So morals only matter depending on how easy a decision is to make and how it won't affect you personally? This is coming back full circle to "has no morals".
        bit-anarchist 4mo ago
        > So morals only matter depending on how easy a decision is to make and how it won't affect you personally? I see you cut the first part, only to follow with a "only" qualitative. That's not an honest nor moral thing to do. Specially given you still have to prove their moral obligations about the matter. Saying that they've chosen the risk minimizing option is a non sequitur.
- wisty 4mo ago
  If you only have morals when it's at no cost to yourself, do you have morals?
  - streetfighter64 4mo ago
    That doesn't make sense. Obviously if I refrain from stealing I'm upholding my morals at a cost to myself (the cost being the free stuff I don't get). You seem to expect people to have morals at every cost to themselves, implying that they don't have any morals otherwise. You may as well ask why people aren't donating all of their possessions and living at the minimum subsistence level. Or why haven't you donated one of your kidneys yet? Do you consider it to be too high of a cost to yourself, even though it would be the "moral" thing to do?

carlosjobim 4mo ago

Yours is unfortunately the attitude which breeds corruption, and also the attitude of the majority of people. "Not my problem", "not my duty", "covering my own ass", "not getting into trouble" and so on. The reptilian minded people like OPs boss love having you guys around, because they can't do their unethical schemes just by themselves, and you won't make a fuss. As for the prosecutor; he is first and foremost interested in where the money went. If fraudulent hours didn't give OP an extra paycheck boost, then that money went somewhere else.

voakbasda 4mo ago
Look, you want people to get involved? Then it needs to be safe to do so. Recent history has demonstrated that whistleblowers have no such assurance. They risk damage to their reputation and future employment prospects; some even end up forced out their career of choice. This is how we reward them, and you expect people to just step up and fall on those swords? Other commenters have pointed out that our justice system also lacks any means to determine how a particular case will play out. Personally, I would do everything in my power to avoid entanglement with the government, in any way shape or form. I am literally terrified of going to court for any reason, because Truth and Justice no longer have any place there; no, the Law sucks all the oxygen out of the room. If you think otherwise, then I would wager that you have never been through that system.