Hacker News Reader

Comment by xnyan | Hacker News Reader

Or charge real fines that are impactful. The article mentions a $12M fine from US regulators - you might as not even levy a fine that's so small.

View on HN

Boeing's defense contracts make it too big to fail.

Sure, huge fines might deflate its shares/exec's comp packages, but I don't think the risk of giant fines endangers Boeing the way they might other businesses.

Execs comp packages won't hurt that much, they can just downsize and then go on a hiring glut when things look better.

This concept of 'too big to fail' is eventually going to come a cropper when something deemed as such, fails anyway and wipes out entire industrial sectors from the dependent country.

The idea behind being too big to fail is that the full faith and credit of the US government will be used to prop you up if necessary. Failing anyway? Go back to step 1.

That absolutely describes Boeing.

A real fine that targets the company is not a deterrent. All the damages get to trickle down to employees, customers, partners, etc. The punishment has to be applied to the individual who knowingly broke the law. Taking a bad business decision is one thing, hiding behind corporate accountability after you falsified records to get that bonus should be punished with both prison time and fines.

Unfortunately part of that bonus probably went to "lobbying" so don't hold your breath for the moment when laws will be about actual justice.

When I hear this arguments, I just wonder, why does the argument always apply "to the executives," and not all of the employees down the line that signed off on a given decision. I think the reason we don't adopt more of these rules is that it's kind of naïve, in my opinion, to blame the problem on only part of the parties involved in a given decision. This would then have to be coupled with better whistle-blower protections, giving employees a right and duty to call out bad behavior.

> why does the argument always apply “to the executives”

Because the power asymmetry between executives and workers is vast and continuously growing. Executives are phenomenally powerful powerful people within these industries, whose influence and interests make it possible for such scandals to take place. And they’re the ones truly incentivized to cut corners and break rules in order to meet deadlines, generate as much growth as possible, etc.

Whistleblower rights, at least in the US, are completely insufficient to enable your vision of corporate oversight. Whistleblowers risk their careers, reputations and livelihoods, and often there’s no guarantee that blowing the whistle changes anything. Who makes such retribution not just possible, but inevitable? Executives.

> why does the argument always apply "to the executives," and not all of the employees down the line that signed off on a given decision

Because the executives are given a lot of power over those employees, they are paid accordingly, and they are privy to far more information to aid them in taking a decision.

A CEO is paid over 300 times more than the average worker. [0] Multiply that by a factor to represent the authority of the position, and the acute awareness of what those actions represent and you should get the magnitude of the difference in accountability.

> giving employees a right and duty to call out bad behavior.

You already have this right. But you either do it to the authorities at great personal expense (in any way you can imagine) and with far higher burden of proof, or you do it internally in front of another executive. There is no incentive to take any action because the executive will always have the company as a shield in front of the law.

[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/dianahembree/2018/05/22/ceo-pay...

Accountability is a word people use to express their loyalty to the organization. It's supposed to mean a commitment to correct something that went wrong. As long as we have organizations that are bigger than people, it's not going to be possible to follow a strict eye-for-an-eye principle. If an organization kills hundreds of people, like Boeing, you can only execute the CEO once.

The people you're talking about use it wrong.

> In ethics and governance, accountability is answerability, blameworthiness, liability, and the expectation of account-giving.

Accountability should be there to make sure those people wielding all the financial power and influence of an entire company don't use it for their own interest regardless of consequences. Unless all that financial power and influence are used to create favorable laws...

> If an organization kills hundreds of people, like Boeing, you can only execute the CEO once

So better do nothing, maybe they stop, right? Are you saying that committing more crimes than you can be punished for should be a get out of jail free card? Put that CEO in jail for life and all others will take notice. And depending on the country this will mean "pay more to get favorable laws".

I am not the CEO of Boeing. Why do you think I care if he is executed or imprisoned? I'm just saying that it's impossible to extract the value that someone destroys by being a bad leader, from that leader, because shit that breaks is usually far too big.

If it was possible to get good results by executing executives who fail, wouldn't it follow that some country would have already tried it and been eating our lunch by now? Wait a second, there is a country that comes to mind...

> it's impossible to extract the value that someone destroys by being a bad leader, from that leader, because shit that breaks is usually far too big.

Then you extract everything you can from that "leader" and move on to the next one responsible. Are you saying that Boeing's CEO could smash a couple of planes into some skyscrapers and get away because you can't extract the value from him? Laws also have the deterrence aspect. When you pick up that fat paycheck it comes with the responsibility. Unless you can buy your own justice. Make a list o high ranking executives or politicians that ended up in prison in the US...

And don't play with words, knowingly falsifying documents is not "being a bad leader" it's "being a criminal".

Here's your idea in a more mundane example: a driver intentionally plows into a crowd killing 2+ people. He can't pay back the damage having a single life to give himself so we'll just blame the car.

> If it was possible to get good results by executing executives who fail, wouldn't it follow that some country would have already tried

[note: "executing" was your term, mine were prison time and fines]

Oh but they did [0]. Just not with local companies in countries with extremely powerful lobby groups, where laws are written by CEOs. So the CEO of a US company like Boeing will never see the inside of a US prison. And since Boeing is so deep in US military contracts, I'm sure pressure will be put on any country that thinks of indicting him.

[0] https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/6/16743308/volkswagen-olive...

At a minimum when an employee gets punished we should also take a close look at the chain of command and work environment. Very often it's the executives setting up a dysfunctional environment where it's hard for the little guy to do the right thing. I work at a medical device company and my standards definitely go down sometimes when there is too much deadline pressure. It's a very subtle decline of morale and quality that happens over time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com