Hacker News Reader

Comment by montjoy | Hacker News Reader

I dunno, that’s a pretty cynical take. Isn’t it just as plausible that they became aware of the bribes internally and were trying to curtail them when the scandal broke out? Or maybe the “don’t do bribes” training actually worked enough for someone to whistleblow even if official internal channels failed? Those who are doing wrong often try to stymie others from making positive changes out of fear, greed, etc.

Edit: I just want to add that there are things to be cynical about - I’m not completely naive. If it’s your legal department heading up the training then you can be pretty sure that there was a cause for it.

View on HN

Yes, massive companies are a nest of conflicting priorities. The sales team wants to do whatever it takes to win the deal, and the legal team wants everyone to behave ethically at all times. The board wants to be shocked(!) when it turns out those goals are in conflict, with the ethical side sometimes losing out, to remove any personal risk to themselves.

> legal team wants everyone to behave ethically at all times

do you really believe that? compliance under scrutiny, more like it

The best job is sitting around and doing nothing. So ideally yes.

But sure, ethically speaking when things get heated they will exploit every loophole they can find to avoid liability. So, lawful evil?

> The best job is sitting around and doing nothing.

That sounds like a terrible job.

Well you can take it as literally or figuratively as you wish. Depends on the person.

Most corporate law guidance is about risk mitigation, not about ethics. Less activity generally translates to less risk.

You can see a similar phenomenon with security professionals. True, the only secure computer is one disconnected from the Internet, turned off, put in a Faraday cage, on the moon, under armed guard - but that's not useful.

> under armed guard

Get rid of the guard. They might turn the computer on.

Even if everyone in the company magically complied with the wishes of the legal department, they would still have work to do. Defending the company against frivolous lawsuits and incoming regulations, suing competitors and other bad actors outside of the company, writing and evaluating contracts, and any internal legal consultation needed.

Having worked with many lawyers... for the most part, yeah. Legal wants you to behave ethically at all times, not because they necessarily have some ideological commitment to ethics (though some do), but because it keeps the company out of lawsuits.

The overwhelming goal of a company's legal department is "don't get sued", followed by "if sued, lose as little money/leverage as possible".

In general the lawyer in the room is going to be far more risk-averse than the engineers, product people, sales people, or marketers.

The trick is that outside of some limited circumstances the legal department at companies are not the final say. Many lawyers who "go in house" (i.e., quit a private outside firm and go work directly for a company) find this frustrating. They come into a room, say "don't do that", and then a few weeks/months/years later someone did it and now they have to prepare for a lawsuit.

That doesn't seem plausible, because you can't stop bribery by telling people that bribery is against the rules. Everybody already knows that.

If they became aware of bribery and genuinely wanted to stop it, the way is to publicly punish the culprits as harshly as they can, to demonstrate to others that enforcement of the rules can happen.

Yes and no. You might not even realize that what you did constitutes giving or receiving a bribe. What cracks me up though is that all large US megacorps give tens of millions of dollars in thinly veiled bribes to officials each year, as they browbeat their employees into not accepting a god damn fruit basket from a thankful client.

Maybe. However such training is essentially considered mandatory compliance at any publicly traded company once you reach a certain size, especially if you sell to the government, and IMO probably not related to any specific event they became aware of.

I've had to do the same mandatory anti-bribing public officials training annually at US companies a fraction the size of Microsoft. The anti-bribe training is so common at large companies in the US, there are companies that sell ready made one-size-fits-all training videos specifically on this topic that are then usually the thing the employee has to sit through anually.

In my experience, different cultures have different feelings on the moral failings of bribes. Some of my colleagues grew up in countries where it is a common business practice, it probably makes sense for large orgs with global employee base to have to establish some kind of baseline for acceptable business practices. Similarly, I know several people who came to study computer science in the US and tried to bribe police officers upon being pulled over for speeding, simply because it's how you handle the matter where they grew up.

Probably neither, "don't do bribes" training is standard onboarding procedure at any Fortune 500 company. Just ironic timing from OPs POV

Not just onboarding. Most, if not all, large companies waste at least an hour of their employees time on this per year, while themselves bribing politicians in DC.

It was, in fact, a story arc in an at the time recent-ish season of SBC[0].

[0] Microsoft's yearly training that is done in the form of a TV drama about MS employees facing ethical dilemmas

An hour? My annual training is typically about 6 hours of drudgery, and often about 2/3rds repeat courses from years previous. Great fun.

That's just the ethics training, depending on your role there's much more than that.

But this is exactly why it's standard procedure. I worked for a huge Credit Reference Agency and it was very obvious that this is ass covering.

Sarah and Bob in the New York Office of Huge Corp must take the training so that the CEO can swear all his employees know not to bribe people. In the event that Manuel, who is given $100 000 per week of company money to bribe the locals in Melonistan so that they don't interfere with Huge Corp's operations is actually brought before the government and forced to spill the beans the CEO will insist they had no idea and some Huge Corp minion gets sacrificed. Manuel will be replaced, Melonistan will be assured quietly that his replacement will provide make up money ASAP.

In Arms this is even worse, because there it's secretly government policy to bribe people, even though it's also illegal. So then sometimes even if you can prove there was a crime, the government will say "We'll take that evidence thank you very much" and poof, the crime disappears, if you make too much fuss you'll be made to disappear too.

> dunno, that’s a pretty cynical take

Just days ago a major US corporation was found guilty of hiring Death Squads in Columbia. Literally to murder people.

Why do we have this common illusions that corporation will not steep down to the dirtiest crimes they can get away with?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6pprpd3x96o

The article you linked says that Chiquita was extorted into illegally paying money to a Colombian death squad, who also murdered people, and were ordered to pay restitution to the victims' families. It doesn't say that they paid the death squad to murder people on Chiquita's behalf.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com