In previous topic, people told me that they would never want to live in a place that expects criminal liability from CEOs and executives in companies.
That's only for petty criminals, murderers and people who can't pay bills.
That's only for petty criminals, murderers and people who can't pay bills.
Fine. I'll help them pack their bags, and move furniture into the moving truck.
The strongest irony of what I suspect you are suggesting is that the #1 lesson of high-performance safety cultures is a blameless attitude to accidents. Criminal liabilities for the CEO ... are better than criminal liabilities for lower level employees. But still not the path to the highest levels of safety.
How is expecting the person who is responsible for the outcome of the company to be responsible draconian?
If I kill someone, I am responsible. If I direct someone else to kill someone, we’re both responsible to different degrees. If I create an elaborate structure wherein the lower levels are inculcated that killing people is just part of the job, the responsibility starts dramatically shifting upwards.
It makes total sense to hold him as the person responsible. It even (probably) makes sense for the board to sack him immediately. But it is arbitrary and excessive to criminally prosecute him. Lots of CEOs have done worse and gotten away with it; they're in positions of great power and being human they make a lot of mistakes. The bankers alone have ruined the wealth of generations, let alone the sitautions the military-industrial complex creates.
Picking on this person because of 2 plane crashes is not remotely consistent with how this sort of thing is handled elsewhere. It is unfair and it'll just add pressure to the death of manufacturing in the west. And to top it off it probably won't change the safety profile of Boeing planes going forward.
If the mechanic was reselling the real parts on eBay and instead using shoddy parts, everyone would agree on criminal liability.
If the CEO and leadership are also cutting corners and destroying a safety culture for money, and endangering the public, that is also criminal.
People have been making similar arguments since the development of the limited liability company. It turns out that limiting liability is a far better system than the alternative for getting good things done.
We've already got a problem where all the manufacturing is heading to Asia. Criminal penalties hanging over the heads of CEOs of manufacturing companies will not help the situation.
It's hilarious how gung-ho free market cheerleaders are about systematic responsibility and accountability and skin-in-the-game decision making... right up until the millisecond that involves something other than rich people getting paid for being rich, and then it's bailouts this and limited liability that.
And criminal prosecutions of decision makers isn't as much skin in the game as it is making it risky to be responsible. It is just asking for lower-quality people to move in to high ranking posts and for confusing corporate structures to emerge.
It is better to impose large financial penalties on the company then let the markets sort out the details. I don't even mind the CEO suffering large penalties, but he and Boeing need to negotiate that before the event and put it in his contract, not after the fact.
It works well because it encourages investors to take risks and fund new ventures.
It doesn't give them immunity to commit criminal acts, and therefore it doesn't protect the officers they appoint either (like the CEO).
If the CEO knowingly makes criminal decisions, he can absolutely be prosecuted.
Endangering the health of the public like for example dumping toxic waste or destroying a safety culture are criminal.
If Boeing decided to build a 797 story that was even bigger than the Airbus 380 and lost a lot of money, then limited liability would kick in. However, to deliberately cut safety culture and endanger the public is criminal.
That is neither fair nor helpful. Hit the company with a huge fine then let the board decide if the CEO stays or goes - that is how it is traditionally done and it is an effective model for getting results.
2. Deliberately changing a culture isn't criminal; that is something CEOs are expected to do sometimes. It is equivalent to saying a developer should be liable if they do an unnecessary refactor and it makes the code worse for a customer.
3.
> and endanger the public is criminal.
You say this but we allow car manufacturers to operate. Cars manufacturers have done more damage to people I know than Boeing could hope to. The focus on Boeing is hysterical.
Change the incentives, change the targets of incentives, change the results.
That does cut it. It is crazy to criminally prosecute someone if they haven't broken any law.
No. I'm suggesting that if there is a criminal inquiry into safety defects of a product, it should target the company as an entity, not company officers.
And that we should maintain consistent standards; ie, display more tolerance of Boeing's performance than people are showing.
In addition yeah also prosecute criminals. But that doesn’t stop crime. See “war on drugs” for example.
If people don't want to do serious jail time they shouldn't do serious crimes, the contract couldn't possibly be more simple. The purpose of incarceration isn't to coddle murderers, it's great if they change their life but ultimately it's to extract murderers from society so decent people can live peaceful and successful lives and anything else beyond that is ancillary.
Unfortunatly in the real world your criminal justice ethics will have to accommodate crimes that are not murder, so you might need to think about some prisoners eventually getting released, who might then go on and do more criming.
> it's great if they change their life but ultimately it's to extract murderers from society
In that case, there is no need to make prisons particularly cruel. Cost can be debated, but surely as a society, we can put a value on humaneness. Even if not, if say I, a billionaire, wanted prisoners eat caviar every night and am willing to fund it, surely this should be allowed.
Is that same logic applied to the lower class? Or is this basically admitting that if you are rich enough and bury your crimes and negligence behind enough paperwork and complexity, that you are no longer culpable?
I get your point that applying hard rules will encourage people to escape them, but there needs to be some framework opposed to the current anything goes and we might fine you at worst.
We politely ignore that and focus on the present and the future, because they have too much power as a class to be punished and it wouldn't do much good anyway.
The US security state, in all its facets, has a lot of popular support. By people who I think are a bit foolish, but nevertheless. (although I'll sneak in that the karmic justice of watching the mechanisms of the War on Terror get turned on Republican voters has been sad but satisfying)
Why do you bring "draconian" punishment? Is punishment always draconian? Are the best results observed in places where crimes are not punished? Could you provide references to research that confirms this? Or your worries that punishments should not apply to CEOs?
Let's say Bob gets a job in a Boeing factory and on every plane he works on, he deliberately hides a bunch of broken components in the system, thereby causing the planes to fall out of the sky. We can talk blamelessly about how we can avoid every hiring someone like Bob again, or taking precautions against malicious employees, but Bob himself has to accept the criminal liabilities that come with the choices he made: his decisions caused people to die.
But what happens when Bob instead installs himself as the CEO, and deliberately makes choices that prioritise revenue and stock prices over safety, knowing full well the risks that he is forcing on people, and that his planes in some cases fundamentally don't work? From a blameless culture perspective, we again need to figure out how we can avoid hitting another Bob and having these mistakes happen again, but surely we also have to recognise that our CEO actively, and in some sense maliciously, made decisions that caused people to die?
In this case, thankfully (and ultimately lucky) nobody has died - although previous incidents have not had such good outcomes. But we still need to recognise that this culture came from decisions made at the top of the organisation. I fully support a blameless culture that doesn't punish people for making mistakes and tries to fix the long-term, fundamental issues rather than find a scapegoat for each incident. But this goes beyond simply making mistakes, especially when one remembers the pattern of behaviour within the Boeing organisation that has caused several incidents like this.
I picked the CEO as an example because it's a visible role, although in this case I believe several CEOs have overseen the decision making that has lead to these incidents. I am not saying that the CEO specifically is at fault here. But wilful decisions have absolutely been made that have put us in this situation, and I think it is absolutely right that if you make decisions that ultimately lead to potential injury and death, you need to suffer the consequences of those decisions. And for that, we have a criminal justice system.
We can quibble with the amount that got picked. It turns out in this case the amount spent was too low. But it is unreasonable to talk about "... deliberately makes choices that prioritise revenue and stock prices over safety ...". At some point the call has to be made that the planes being built are safe enough, and that from there start to focus on profits. These companies have to produce more value than they consume (which is what "profits" represents at the macro level) otherwise there isn't any point producing.
In this case the call was made poorly, but the call had to be made. Holding the call maker personally responsible isn't the path to more successful outcomes in the future. The path that has been working quite well for around 2 centuries is to hold the company responsible for what the company did. If we start penalising CEOs for trying to build planes profitably, then it is possible that the industry will collapse. There is no justification here to hold people personally liable. It is enough to hit Boeing with an appropriate fine.
0: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/BA/boeing/gross-pr...
I can't see how that is unreasonable. Nobody here is arguing that Boeing officials should be held criminally liable because they didn't invest enough money into safety. The liability is because they are blatantly disregarding safety. They invented MCAS and didn't let pilots know about it. One plane crashes and they don't care. Second plane crashes and they don't care. For years, stupid things keep happening and they still don't care.
By your logic, a psychopath CEO may deliberately undermine safety culture to earn more profits and still won't be held responsible, because it's “limited liability”. Limited liability means that financial liability is limited, not criminal one.
Yep. This is how it is generally done. Shareholder's in Boeing are literally responsible for installing "a psycopath CEO" who undermined safety and they aren't liable. I see little difference between that and extending the protection to the CEO as well. It gets better results because we don't chase risk-averse people out of the CEO position. In this situation, we WANT the most risk-averse people we can find in the CEO seat of the airline manufacturers. They won't take it if the response to a crisis is making the position more risky.
There is an argument that the CEO should be liable if it leads to more productive results. But I don't see why that would be true - it is more effective to adjust the profitability of the company when things go wrong and let the incentives do the rest. The default position is that doing your job poorly is not criminal.
Also; most CEOs are psycopaths. You don't need to include it as an adjective. It is built in to the title.
However, criminal liability in itself won't solve it. Capitalism forces this kind of behavior; it's the natural trend for any company. The Dictator's Handbook describes it well.
What's needed is what's been done in every other industry: Regulation which changes incentive structures. Raw capitalism forces meat packing plants to pack ground rats in with your ground beef, quack medicines, and all sorts of other issues. The regulatory solution needs to have short-term economic consequences of some kind for doing the wrong thing. There are many of those, including:
1) Require insurance, and let the market sort it out. If the settlements and fees came from an insurance company rather than Boeing, the insurance company could set rules and inspections as it believed adequate to turn a profit.
2) Have high standards and regular inspections
3) Major changes to both capitalism and corporate governance. We have the best system we've thought of so far, but we sort of stopped thinking about new systems 50-100 years ago (fascism and communism were the last major attempts, and didn't turn out too well)
4) Completely overhaul our infrastructure for transparency. This could include whistleblower protections, as well as FOIA-like schemes, where an academic can look at what Boeing is doing.
It's worth noting this is a quasi-monopoly / duopoly situation, so market systems tend to work worse than most places.
But yes, it's a problem that criminal consequences are for poor people or people lower down the rungs. People at the top should go to prison too if they do something bad, with the same quality legal process as poor people.