Welcome to the police state. You do realize that the judge was in on this too, right? And why exactly arent charges already brought against those companies?Welcome to privatization.
Everyone involved should be arrested and put away for a long, long, LONG time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree. If Kirth Gersen ever runs for office on his outlaw-all-lobbying and buying influence is wrong, platform; He would have my vote. To me, business isnt that scary without government helping them. Businesses cant force you to not unionize without roughing you up, which requires government to, at the very least, look the other way. Plus businesses can not force you to do anything, unless they have government help.
In summary, I believe that both governments and businesses can do plenty of evil all by themselves; but put them together and they form a toxic peanut butter and chocolate confection of tyranny.
I believe that both governments and businesses can do plenty of evil all by themselves; but put them together and they form a toxic peanut butter and chocolate confection of tyranny.
Well (and amusingly) put.
Welcome to the police state. You do realize that the judge was in on this too, right? And why exactly arent charges already brought against those companies?Welcome to privatization.
The article is 2 years old. Does anyone have any idea what happened since then?
I believe that both governments and businesses can do plenty of evil all by themselves; but put them together and they form a toxic peanut butter and chocolate confection of tyranny.Well (and amusingly) put.
Read it in the voice of The Tick (tm) for extra laughs.
The article is 2 years old. Does anyone have any idea what happened since then?Welcome to the police state. You do realize that the judge was in on this too, right? And why exactly arent charges already brought against those companies?Welcome to privatization.
sentenced to 87 months in prison and forced to resign from PA bar. Kids had records expunged. This was from my neck of the woods and made headlines back then.
. Businesses cant force you to not unionize without roughing you up, which requires government to, at the very least, look the other way.
Sure they can--they can fire you, they can lie to you, they can harrass you, they can threaten retributive actions, etc., etc. As I found out when my ex-co-workers at the airport found out when we tried to organize into the Teamsters.
EDIT: This makes it sound like I got fired, which isn't true. But one of the guys who the bosses erroneously thought was the ringleader did.
Of course, under current labor law all of these things are illegal--but this is the Corporations Are Evil thread, right?
sentenced to 87 months in prison and forced to resign from PA bar. Kids had records expunged. This was from my neck of the woods and made headlines back then.The article is 2 years old. Does anyone have any idea what happened since then?Welcome to the police state. You do realize that the judge was in on this too, right? And why exactly arent charges already brought against those companies?Welcome to privatization.
And the companies?
And the companies?sentenced to 87 months in prison and forced to resign from PA bar. Kids had records expunged. This was from my neck of the woods and made headlines back then.The article is 2 years old. Does anyone have any idea what happened since then?Welcome to the police state. You do realize that the judge was in on this too, right? And why exactly arent charges already brought against those companies?Welcome to privatization.
The sentence was for conahan. The other one Ciaverella was just sentenced to 28 years and 1 million dollars. (he was the judge who did the actual sentencing) sentencing ended just the other day on the 11th. as for the companies (PA childcare and western childcare) I dont know, I think its still being sorted out. The first article omits that only one owner bribed the judges, the other owner was being extorted by the judge Ciaverella. article
Edit- I was wrong about the 87 months thing. That is what they were trying to plea it downt to. Conahan awaits sentencing.
Well, I like this summation of events over at Verizon, but it leaves a bunch of stuff out.
Like the fact that the IBEW doesn't have a strike fund. Like the fact that they called off the strike, not because the bosses agreed to anything except a willingness to sit back down and talk it over.
I'm proud of what my union has been able to do in support of this strike, of course, but I don't have high expectations for this strike. The unions bungled Wisconsin, and, I fear, they'll probably bungle this.
My own contract is scheduled to expire in 2013 and that's going to be interesting.
|
Just a thought. There is a lot of railing at big business here. Is there any evidence that small business is any nicer? Or does big business just get reported more? For example, I expect (I haven't checked, but someone else can and I bet it's true anyway) all those kids sewing shoes in sweatshops for Nike were actually working for Nike subcontractors, not Nike themselves. It doesn't excuse Nike not checking their subcontractors properly but I expect all of those businesses were small and localised, but still merrily abusive (by rich world standards). And I imagine examples must exist in rich worlds too. So how do we feel about small business? Or business in general?
Just a thought. There is a lot of railing at big business here. Is there any evidence that small business is any nicer? Or does big business just get reported more? For example, I expect (I haven't checked, but someone else can and I bet it's true anyway) all those kids sewing shoes in sweatshops for Nike were actually working for Nike subcontractors, not Nike themselves. It doesn't excuse Nike not checking their subcontractors properly but I expect all of those businesses were small and localised, but still merrily abusive (by rich world standards). And I imagine examples must exist in rich worlds too. So how do we feel about small business? Or business in general?
I believe size is a factor. The bigger the company, the more likely those in control of the company do not personally know their customers, and so do not feel as much personal responsibility. Since this is the Internet, I will underscore my use of the phrase "more likely."
I also think corporate person-hood is a factor. Many people seem to believe that the abstraction somehow obviates the need for any sort of restraint whatsoever. In other words, somehow a corporation's only responsibility is to make money. An actual person, on the other hand, seems to conceptually maintain his other responsibilities. For example, a person dumping chemicals into a river is seen as doing something wrong, while a corporation doing so is only seen as acting in its own rational self-interest. The fact that either way a person is physically doing the dumping doesn't seem to matter.
...their business model demanded it.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
|
|
I believe size is a factor. The bigger the company, the more likely those in control of the company do not personally know their customers, and so do not feel as much personal responsibility. Since this is the Internet, I will underscore my use of the phrase "more likely."
That seems reasonable, up to a point - Hasbro compared with Paizo maybe being a case in point. I would suggest, however, that another factor is that a smaller business, especially one where the owners are also the managers, means that a longer term view can be taken as opposed to anonymous institutional shareholder effectively demanding short-term profits at the (potential) expense of longer ones.
But it also comes down, in a smaller company, to the personality of the owner/manager(s) - a wanker is still a wanker even if he runs a small company. My brother worked for a small shop and the guy who ran it ripped him off over salary. So I don't think size is necessarily the be-all-and-end-all.
I also think corporate person-hood is a factor. Many people seem to believe that the abstraction somehow obviates the need for any sort of restraint whatsoever. In other words, somehow a corporation's only responsibility is to make money. An actual person, on the other hand, seems to conceptually maintain his other responsibilities. For example, a person dumping chemicals into a river is seen as doing something wrong, while a corporation doing so is only seen as acting in its own rational self-interest. The fact that either way a person is physically doing the dumping doesn't seem to matter.
Having worked in the head office of a multinational, I don't think anyone surrenders their individuality in such a drone-like way. People do this stuff if they can get away with it, but again it comes down to quality of management, not size of company. If it's illegal, it's illegal no matter what, and breaking the law will impact upon the perpetrators, be they an individual and/or a corporate board - generally, that makes it a bad idea (i.e. costly at a corporate and individual level) and most companies, in my experience, shy away from outright illegality. If it's not, you'll probably find loads of companies would do it, of all sizes (it's the tragedy of the commons, in that case, and that does not require corporations).
|
|
Part of it is just that the larger businesses can simply do more damage and have more influence to cover up their misdeeds.
Indeed - deep pockets.
The corporate structure also isolates people from the effects. The higher-ups just give the orders and don't have to deal with the consequences directly and the lower level people are just following orders and trying to keep their jobs.
True up to a point - if out hypothetical waste-dumper is doing what he was told, he wouldn't have much choice unless he chose to walk. But illegal acts are pursued at a personal level - you can't run a company performing illegal acts and hide behind the corporate personality to absolve you of responsibility. That goes for the dumper and the bosses. Of course, most cases aren't as clear cut as this anyway, including the Nike one. Legal, but potentially unethical acts, are more difficult to divide neatly.
Somehow, in pursuit of limiting an individual's financial risk (good), we've ended up greatly limiting individual criminal liability (very, very bad).
And the idea that the lower-level personnel actually ordered to carry out the dodgy actions wouldn't be (1) instantly fired for refusal (though the company would doubtlessly cite a fabricated reason), and (2) immediately be thrown under the bus if/when things go bad...well, I really don't know what to say, except that that is just contrary to easily observable reality. Hell, half the time they may not even be told what they're actually being ordered to do...
|
|
Of course you can hide. All you have to do is maintain plausible deniability. Keep your involvement out of the paper trail. Don't admit anything. How many corporate executives have we seen in recent years on the stand or in the media claiming they had no idea what was going on, they weren't in the loop etc? Sometimes it's even true. They go to great lengths to avoid any official knowledge.
Yes - but it doesn't always work. Look at Enron, where the executives went down big-time. You seem to be giving the impression that a corporate shell somehow gives rise to impunity, and I really can't credit that. Where there are complex cases, sometimes it isn't actually very easy to determine the rights and wrongs. Also, the legal barrier to conviction is pretty high ("beyond all reasonable doubt") and that's for a reason
So in the hypothetical waste-dumper case, the exec never explicitly order their subordinates to dump the waste, they just reward those who save the most money on waste disposal and punish those who spend more doing it the right way. Not for illegal disposal of course, they'd be shocked, shocked if they learned of that, but just for saving money. Just good business sense. Somewhere down the line, someone will know and they'll take the fall if they get caught. For many illegal acts, there is no personal crime, just corporate fines, which they'll pay and take as a tax write-off.
So the executive is probably not at fault. He didn't order them to do anything illegal, so if something illegal happens it's down to the individual dumper. Now, if there are inadequate controls in place to see that illegal dumping is not taking place, that might be construed as negligent, but frankly it could be pushing it (it would depend on case law). Or that could a breach of a specific regulation, and the penalties would accrue as set out there. But absent of that, I really think that saying "Please do your best to save money" to employees is actually being responsible to the shareholders, not an act of corporate malfeasance as such. If an employee that performs an illegal act off the back of that, that is arguably down to that employee.
I'd agree about small companies reflecting the founder/owner. Which can be good or bad. They're certainly not all saints. I'd argue that large corporate structures are bad by design. That the structure itself encourages the bad to rise to the top.
I've generally worked for big companies. My take on it is that it depends on the corporate culture. It's a fairly nebulous concept but pretty key to the way an organisation behaves - the unwritten code of how you go about doing things. Some organisations are reasonably good at doing things in a well-controlled, reasonable manner, and others aren't (and I've worked in both). But in the end, what defines and drives the culture is the attitude of senior management - i.e. there is nothing very special about the corporate structure as such, it really boils down to who, as individuals, are running the company. I'm a career internal auditor so I spend my time looking at how the company has screwed up, and then reporting it to senior management. So, to some extent, I have a ring-side seat on seeing how these things are addressed. (If you want to go consultancy-speak, I've got a lot of insight into corporate governance over control systems.)
I'd say there are a number factors which depend on how a company operates. One key thing is, do they "shoot the messenger"? Is unwelcome news greeted with fury and dibelief, rather than a desire to identify anf fix problems? Do senior management receive the information they need, when they need it, to know what is going on? Do they understand the risks of the business, and monitor them effectively (including stuff like reputational risk)? Do they address them effectively and on a timely basis? Are management a team, or a bunch of yes-men and nonentities arranged around a dominant leader? Is governance something to which they pay lip-service, while the real power set-up differs from the official version ("Yes, we have very assertive and expert non-executive directors!") or do they take it seriously?
These things will determine how savvy the company is, what it's attitude is to stuff that affects people on the ground. For example, BP seems to have had cultural problems so that poor decisions were made in respect of safety. Lehmans didn't understand its own risk profile. Andersens (remember them?) were so driven by a desire to provide client service at any cost that they forgot their role to the shareholders of the companies they audited. But, with the exception of instances where the leadership were actively involved in fraud (Enron, Worldcom, Madoff), many of the bad decisions were not taken individually by senior management - instead, they were probably driven by a series of poor decisions made by those lower down in a toxic culture. Senior management can impact via "tone at the top" but an ingrained culture can be hard to turn around.
If there is an issue with larger companies, it is that they are actually pretty hard to manage. I don't believe any CEO of any multinational genuinely has much of a grip of what is going on, as he is at such a remove from the coal-face. Also, the bigger the company, the greater the reward for being good at playing politics, rather than being good at your job. But I don't think these are solely the preserve of large companies either. People can be stupid and make irrational decisions for various reasons, in all walks of life. And, in my view, this is about people. There are no such things as companies, only people interacting. Some are nice, some aren't, some are competent, some aren't.
|
|
Somehow, in pursuit of limiting an individual's financial risk (good), we've ended up greatly limiting individual criminal liability (very, very bad).
And the idea that the lower-level personnel actually ordered to carry out the dodgy actions wouldn't be (1) instantly fired for refusal (though the company would doubtlessly cite a fabricated reason), and (2) immediately be thrown under the bus if/when things go bad...well, I really don't know what to say, except that that is just contrary to easily observable reality. Hell, half the time they may not even be told what they're actually being ordered to do...
That's really not my experience of work. If you are stupid enough to do something illegal because your boss told you to, that's pretty much your look-out. And I really don't see that as a big companies issue - fly-tipping as it is known in the UK (running a company to collect rubbish, but then just dumping it in the countryside, or in an alley, or pretty much anywhere except a landfill site to avoid paying the landfill duty) is carried out by small companies, run by borderline (or not-so-borderline) criminals.
A more telling example might be the political-economic nexus between the energy ministry in Japan and the nuclear power industry that resulted in Fukushima (and a few other incidents). But most of that is about government acquiesence and protection of a strategic industry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it interesting that some people who work for large corporations have any idea whatsoever what the senior management's attitude is. I work for a multinational corporation. Between me and the CEO are so many layers of management that I literally can't keep track of them all. I'm lucky to have any vague idea of what the general office manager for our building thinks, much less what goes on at a policy level.
Me -> client manager -> group leader -> unit leader -> business leader -> office manager... that's already five (5) layers of management, and I still haven't even left the building. Getting outside the state, region, country would involve probably as many more layers at each step.
I find it interesting that some people who work for large corporations have any idea whatsoever what the senior management's attitude is. I work for a multinational corporation. Between me and the CEO are so many layers of management that I literally can't keep track of them all. I'm lucky to have any vague idea of what the general office manager for our building thinks, much less what goes on at a policy level.
Me -> client manager -> group leader -> unit leader -> business leader -> office manager... that's already five (5) layers of management, and I still haven't even left the building. Getting outside the state, region, country would involve probably as many more layers at each step.
Agreed -- my only problem with management claiming to have no idea what's going on is that is their job -- they are supposed to know what's going on. If they don't know how can they improve or direct what is happening?
Agreed -- my only problem with management claiming to have no idea what's going on is that is their job -- they are supposed to know what's going on. If they don't know how can they improve or direct what is happening?
That's the thing with so many layers. It's intentionally set up so that the office-level guy never knows what the regional people are up to -- and the regional people have no idea what the other regions are up to, or drives corporate policy as a whole. Because you're actively discouraged from "skipping wrungs" in the ladder when communicating, you probably never even meet a person who's 4+ steps above your grade face-to-face.
|
|
I find it interesting that some people who work for large corporations have any idea whatsoever what the senior management's attitude is. I work for a multinational corporation. Between me and the CEO are so many layers of management that I literally can't keep track of them all. I'm lucky to have any vague idea of what the general office manager for our building thinks, much less what goes on at a policy level.
Me -> client manager -> group leader -> unit leader -> business leader -> office manager... that's already five (5) layers of management, and I still haven't even left the building. Getting outside the state, region, country would involve probably as many more layers at each step.
You assume I'm not a senior person. ;-)
Actually, I worked in head office, which was a team of maybe a few hundred rather than tens of thousands (as there were in the divisions). At one point I was only a few layers below the CEO (me - my boss - head of department - CEO) and even when they added an extra layer (me - my boss - head of department - CFO - CEO) I was still fairly close (a bit too close, as events transpired). In my role I had access to some very senior people (up to board directors). I used to bump into the CEO in the lift from time to time and he knew who I was. So, to some extent, it's was priviledged position and it gave me a good insight.
|
|
Agreed -- my only problem with management claiming to have no idea what's going on is that is their job -- they are supposed to know what's going on. If they don't know how can they improve or direct what is happening?
Totally. They say it because it is a good legal defence when things go wrong. But it makes you look like a s#%* manager, certainly, and may not be good for your long-term prospects.
You assume I'm not a senior person.
My actual title is Senior Hydrogeologist, and what I said still holds true. Seniority has nothing to do with it. Geography does (a person who works in the same building as the CEO will know a LOT more than someone who works out of the Abu Dhabi branch office), but mostly it's who happens to get appointed Vice President in Charge of Intergalactic Acquisitions that year, which might be someone who was a donut gofer the day before and happened to impress the Corporate Director of Inexplicable Status Bestowals.
...Corporate Director of Inexplicable Status Bestowals.
My company really needs to find that guy...and fire him. He's been quite busy.
|
|
You assume I'm not a senior person.My actual title is Senior Hydrogeologist, and what I said still holds true. Seniority has nothing to do with it. Geography does (a person who works in the same building as the CEO will know a LOT more than someone who works out of the Abu Dhabi branch office), but mostly it's who happens to get appointed Vice President in Charge of Intergalactic Acquisitions that year, which might be someone who was a donut gofer the day before and happened to impress the Corporate Director of Inexplicable Status Bestowals.
Bitter, much? ;-)
Bitter, much? ;-)
I've seen more than enough bad behavior to render such a casual dismissal thoroughly unconvincing. YMMV.
(Not that Kirth isn't a bitter, bitter shell of a man). ;-)
|
|
I've seen more than enough bad behavior to render such a casual dismissal thoroughly unconvincing. YMMV.
I wasn't dismissing him - he's right, more or less. Although, to be honest, you get ahead by playing the political game. You can rail against it, but some people are just better at it than others. It can be learned, but then not all of us are happy to lose a part of themselves in the process. So we labour in obscurity. Personally, I reconciled to it a while back.
Anyway, it's just fun winding him up sometimes.
I wasn't dismissing him - he's right, more or less. Although, to be honest, you get ahead by playing the political game. You can rail against it, but some people are just better at it than others. It can be learned, but then not all of us are happy to lose a part of themselves in the process. So we labour in obscurity. Personally, I reconciled to it a while back.
Too true. I am firmly in the "not good" category.
Although, to be honest, you get ahead by playing the political game.
From what I see, one gets ahead here mostly by being tall. Which I most emphatically am not. Being good-looking helps as well (two strikes there), and lack of political ability is my 3rd strike. And, yes, it's easy to get me riled.
From what I see, one gets ahead here mostly by being tall. Which I am most emphatically not. Being good-looking helps as well (two strikes there).
Yup, height is a factor -- I'm pretty nondescript there (6'0"). Good-looking, though, I am not. Also not very aggressive, and aggression is often found to be an advantage for males. *shrug* It doesn't really bother me...that's just the way the world works. What does bother me is people who insist that the world is one big happy meritocracy...but that's another rant. :P
From what I see, one gets ahead here mostly by being tall. Which I am most emphatically not. Being good-looking helps as well (two strikes there).Yup, height is a factor -- I'm pretty nondescript there (6'0"). Good-looking, though, I am not. Also not very aggressive, and aggression is often found to be an advantage for males. *shrug* It doesn't really bother me...that's just the way the world works. What does bother me is people who insist that the world is one big happy meritocracy...but that's another rant. :P
Assertive is better than aggressive (especially for males) -- while aggressive will get you ahead it'll also have people watching you closely for openings to exploit. Assertive and they know that all you are doing is 'marking your territory" instead of pissing on theirs. They'll still watch... but the knives aren't as close that way. Also the aggressive types will be more wary as they realize you aren't going full tilt. The fact you can hold your own and choose to stop there will leave them uneasy and guessing -- unwilling to commit to an offense while being weak on defense. You get them to whole still and then you win for them losing.
Hee hee!
I have no desire to scale the corporate ladder at UPS (shop steward's high enough for me!). One of the most interesting aspects of working there is that they have a policy to only promote from within. Which means that this billion-dollar profitting megacorp that moves 2% of the world's GNP every day is run by people who started out just like me--dummies and f#%% ups!
The level of bureaucracy is pretty amazing, too. From me it goes: part-time supervisor, full-time supervisor who reports to both the center manager AND the shift manager who both report to the district manager and from there, I have no idea what happens. And since everything is so compartamentalized by shifts, situations arise all the time where the right hand has no idea what the left hand is doing.
For example, "running the numbers" is the #1 obsession of all UPS supervisors--i.e., getting the work done in the least amount of man hours. My supervisors, in a mad quest to assure the in-flow of bonuses, will cut hours to the bone to hit the numbers--and when that doesn't work, they'll start the drivers early. Even though the part-timers they're sending home are making like $12/h and the drivers are making $45/h--that doesn't matter because that goes on some other supervisor's allocation of time!
The place is utter bedlam most of the time, but I don't really see any alternative when you move so much product day in, day out. Another mantra of my supes is "We're running the business, the business isn't running us." But they lie.
I agree- its' weird to hear you(BT) say that corporations can do bad all by themselves. Up until now you've said that the only way corporations can do bad things is by parterning with the government, and you've posted several examples of this in various threads.I'm not making the argument that big corporations can only do harm with the state's collusion, but government is frequently partnered with giant corporations to do harm. To pretend otherwise is inconsistent with the facts.That's one way of looking at it. Oddly, I view it more of a case of the government failing to rein in the most egregious corporate abuses (often because the mechanisms available to government for doing so have been dismantled by laissez-faire advocates). Calling that "partnering with giant corporations" is what I find to be "inconsistent with the facts."
I don't think I have said that at all. I believe I have consistently maintained that groups like businesses can do more damage with the governments aid.
Individuals often commit horrific acts.
Groups such as corporations often commit horrific acts.
Governments often commit horrific acts.
If I left you with the impression that I don't think corporations can do immense harm without the government's help than I have done an awful job of articulating my position.
Some from my line of work.
Texas City Refinery explosion 2005
The same had yet another fatality in 2008 IIRC.
Deepwater Horizon and its 11 fatalities were part of a much larger pattern.
hmmm
Thread Necro!
Monsanto locks out socially responsible shareholder
Incredibly, the guy who wants the report on possible side effects of GM food could possibly save Montsanto literally billions in the future. Montsanto's response? "We don't want to hear it!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But.., corporations are people, my friend! They're job creators!
Corporations are to be referred to as "people" or "job creators"
War is to be known as "No Fly Zones" or "Kinetic Military Action" or "Humanitarian Efforts"
I wish today's society would realize that 1984 was meant as a warning, not an instruction manual.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But war is peace, my friend.
Santander Consumer USA
Wowza
Santander Consumer USAWowza
Why do you hate the free market?