5 ms·

According to the radio this morning, the bankers who did this and the LIBOR fixing are facing jail - it's just that their cases are taking time to progress. I

According to the radio this morning, the bankers who did this and the LIBOR fixing are facing jail - it's just that their cases are taking time to progress. I think it's safe to save the scandal for a little longer.

rcarrigan87 11y ago
I think the article was more focusing on higher level execs that insulate themselves from any criminal charges.
- hueving 11y ago
  If a UPS truck driver drives drunk, do you expect the CEO to go to jail?
  - toyg 11y ago
    The company has a duty of care (which varies across legislations).
  - 13years 11y ago
    Yes, if he new about it and didn't stop it, or even in some way condoned it then he is certainly has responsibility.
    - Sven7 11y ago
      Yup. The sort of leadership Obama and Bush have demonstrated when things go wrong. It flows down the food chain.
  - sobkas 11y ago
    Well, it depends if driver can crash Worlds economy or not. And if it can, there is something wrong with economy, UPS, UPSs CEO, truck and a driver.
  - noonespecial 11y ago
    This seems a little more like the CEO entering a lucrative shipping deal with a mexican drug cartel and then having the driver go to jail for trafficking when caught.
  - codingdave 11y ago
    Not jail, no... but I do expect the CEO to act to prevent (or at least try to prevent) it in the future, or else some consequence should absolutely hit the CEO.
  - yohoho22 11y ago
    I can think of a whole host of such situations where virtually everyone would agree that the CEO should go to jail. What do you have to say to that?
    - tedunangst 11y ago
      I can think of a whole host of such situations where virtually everyone would agree that the CEO should not go to jail. What do you have to say to that?
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    Nah, Sarbanes–Oxley isn't needed in the package delivery industry like it is in banking.
  - im3w1l 11y ago
    Let me make up a slightly similar scenario where I think the CEO should go to jail. We have this long distance trucking company. And the shifts are really long. Like say 36 hours of straight driving. So it's common for drivers to take amphetamines to stay awake. Management doesn't do drug tests. If someone takes excessive breaks they are told by low level management to think hard about the problem and see if they cannot come up with some kind of solution wink wink nudge nudge. If the problem doesn't disappear the driver is fired. After routine testing it is discovered that 40% of drivers usually use amphetamines with an addition 20% saying they have tried it. In this case, yes I think the CEO should go to jail.
- cm2187 11y ago
  Are you suggesting Obama should go to jail if a GI commits a crime in Irak?
  - rcarrigan87 11y ago
    That's really not a fair comparison...
    - donatj 11y ago
      I think that's a dead on comparison.
  - tinco 11y ago
    If that crime was implicit in a direct order of Obama, why not? If someone creates a climate of "do whatever it takes" they should be held at least partially and possibly fully liable. At least that seems like good morale to me.
- dheera 11y ago
  "Higher"-level execs shouldn't be automatically held responsible for decisions they didn't make. Punish the manager(s) or employee(s) or exec(s) who held power and made the bad decision. Those execs don't really own or control the company anyway, for such large, post-IPO companies. That's like punishing the mayor for a crime someone committed on the street.
  - barrkel 11y ago
    I have news for you - Sarbanes-Oxley makes high-level executives criminally responsible for a certain subset of the company's operations. More broadly, executive control is more complete than you suggest. Delegated powers can be audited and controls used to ensure the integrity of the decision-making process. Communications can be monitored, and usually are in banks. Not enacting such controls, or not enforcing them strongly enough, could be seen as negligence.
    - threeseed 11y ago
      > Communications can be monitored, and usually are in banks. So ? You just join a chat room on your 4G phone or iPad. Regardless banks are no different to every other enterprise. The firewalls just capture the URLs and white/black list against some subscribed set. They aren't monitoring every bit of traffic that goes out. Except for maybe PCI compliance e.g. checking for 16 digit numbers passing through the firewall.
      - jsprogrammer 11y ago
        Some enterprises MITM all PKI encrypted channels so that they can monitor all of its communications.
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    It's like punishing the mayor for a crime one of their employees made on the job, after the mayor had been put on notice that mayors are responsible for their employees' on-the-job conduct.

rcarrigan87 11y ago

I think the article was more focusing on higher level execs that insulate themselves from any criminal charges.

hueving 11y ago
If a UPS truck driver drives drunk, do you expect the CEO to go to jail?
- toyg 11y ago
  The company has a duty of care (which varies across legislations).
- 13years 11y ago
  Yes, if he new about it and didn't stop it, or even in some way condoned it then he is certainly has responsibility.
  - Sven7 11y ago
    Yup. The sort of leadership Obama and Bush have demonstrated when things go wrong. It flows down the food chain.
- sobkas 11y ago
  Well, it depends if driver can crash Worlds economy or not. And if it can, there is something wrong with economy, UPS, UPSs CEO, truck and a driver.
- noonespecial 11y ago
  This seems a little more like the CEO entering a lucrative shipping deal with a mexican drug cartel and then having the driver go to jail for trafficking when caught.
- codingdave 11y ago
  Not jail, no... but I do expect the CEO to act to prevent (or at least try to prevent) it in the future, or else some consequence should absolutely hit the CEO.
- yohoho22 11y ago
  I can think of a whole host of such situations where virtually everyone would agree that the CEO should go to jail. What do you have to say to that?
  - tedunangst 11y ago
    I can think of a whole host of such situations where virtually everyone would agree that the CEO should not go to jail. What do you have to say to that?
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  Nah, Sarbanes–Oxley isn't needed in the package delivery industry like it is in banking.
- im3w1l 11y ago
  Let me make up a slightly similar scenario where I think the CEO should go to jail. We have this long distance trucking company. And the shifts are really long. Like say 36 hours of straight driving. So it's common for drivers to take amphetamines to stay awake. Management doesn't do drug tests. If someone takes excessive breaks they are told by low level management to think hard about the problem and see if they cannot come up with some kind of solution wink wink nudge nudge. If the problem doesn't disappear the driver is fired. After routine testing it is discovered that 40% of drivers usually use amphetamines with an addition 20% saying they have tried it. In this case, yes I think the CEO should go to jail.
cm2187 11y ago
Are you suggesting Obama should go to jail if a GI commits a crime in Irak?
- rcarrigan87 11y ago
  That's really not a fair comparison...
  - donatj 11y ago
    I think that's a dead on comparison.
- tinco 11y ago
  If that crime was implicit in a direct order of Obama, why not? If someone creates a climate of "do whatever it takes" they should be held at least partially and possibly fully liable. At least that seems like good morale to me.
dheera 11y ago
"Higher"-level execs shouldn't be automatically held responsible for decisions they didn't make. Punish the manager(s) or employee(s) or exec(s) who held power and made the bad decision. Those execs don't really own or control the company anyway, for such large, post-IPO companies. That's like punishing the mayor for a crime someone committed on the street.
- barrkel 11y ago
  I have news for you - Sarbanes-Oxley makes high-level executives criminally responsible for a certain subset of the company's operations. More broadly, executive control is more complete than you suggest. Delegated powers can be audited and controls used to ensure the integrity of the decision-making process. Communications can be monitored, and usually are in banks. Not enacting such controls, or not enforcing them strongly enough, could be seen as negligence.
  - threeseed 11y ago
    > Communications can be monitored, and usually are in banks. So ? You just join a chat room on your 4G phone or iPad. Regardless banks are no different to every other enterprise. The firewalls just capture the URLs and white/black list against some subscribed set. They aren't monitoring every bit of traffic that goes out. Except for maybe PCI compliance e.g. checking for 16 digit numbers passing through the firewall.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      Some enterprises MITM all PKI encrypted channels so that they can monitor all of its communications.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  It's like punishing the mayor for a crime one of their employees made on the job, after the mayor had been put on notice that mayors are responsible for their employees' on-the-job conduct.