Unions Want Crime Of Corporate Killing

[Sebrof]

According to the Courier, unions are calling for a criminal offence called corporate manslaughter to be introduced on the island.

 

Here's why it's a bad idea:

 

There are only two possible causes for an accident - acts of God, and human error/negligence. Companies don't kill people; people kill people.

 

If corporate manslaugher is introduced, who will pay the price for the crime? The man whose negligence caused the accident? The boss whose bad planning or poor management meant that safety issues that should have been seen and acted upon, weren't?

 

No, the people who pay the price will be the shareholders, or the tax-payer if the organisation is a public body. Neither of whom are remotely culpable.

 

This is just an exercise to shift blame and avoid responsibility, and should be resisted firmly.

 

If it is introduced it will lead to more accidents because there will be little incentive for management to install proper safety procedures, or workers to act sensibly.

 

Sebrof

[WilDDog]

If it is introduced it will lead to more accidents because there will be little incentive for management to install proper safety procedures, or workers to act sensibly.

 

What complete utter tosh.

 

The Health and Safety at Work act 1974 and The Construction Design & Management Regulations will still have to be strictly adhered too whether a new law is passed or not.

[Sebrof]

If it is introduced it will lead to more accidents because there will be little incentive for management to install proper safety procedures, or workers to act sensibly.

 

What complete utter tosh.

 

The Health and Safety at Work act 1974 and The Construction Design & Management Regulations will still have to be strictly adhered too whether a new law is passed or not.

 

Say what you mean. Don't beat about the bush. :-)

 

But if these two laws are so effective, then surely we don't need anything else?

 

And if they are not so effective, then anything that puts more pressure on people to perform will surely have a positive impact, and anything that reduces such pressure (like this proposal) , will surely have the reverse effect.

 

It's called cause and effect. Look it up when you have a moment to spare.

[gazza]

look at this way,

 

somebody just starts a new job, he giveing all training and is passed to do what ever job hes ment to do,

 

so he gos about his job, he works off the safty plan risk assemnet hes been given by his bosses/company

then on one day somebody is killed,

hes worked to the letter, done everything in his power to make sure he did what was on his plan, but he still gets charged with manslaughter, even though it should be his boss or who ever, but the systerm dont work like that,

 

so this will solve this problem,

im sorry but the way the world is 2day we need some protection from the PC world that have to blame somebody for something, then sue there ass, for something thats not there fault,

 

yes if its from negligence, if u can prove that thay go about there work badly, but to be honest them sort of ppl would not be in a job long anyway

 

and yes human error can have an effect, but have u not ever made a mistake, are you that perfect, everybody can make a mistake, but sometimes it just happins to kill somebody, how unfortunate it may be, we arent perfect the worlds not perfect,

now if said person has a track record of makeing mistakes and then happins to kill somebody, by all means he/she should be delt by the law,

but mistakes can and will happin,

 

i think its a gd plan to bring it in, it wont make ppl take more risks, i dont know one person that does work that could kill somebody, say o well i cant get done for this i wont bother putting this bolt in, or sod it im to tired to put that sign up

hay ho it if it kills somebody not my problem

 

dont be so stupid,

[WTF]

i dont know one person that does work that could kill somebody

 

SAS, munitions manufacturers, police marksmen. the list goes on.

[gazza]

i dont know one person that does work that could kill somebody

 

SAS, munitions manufacturers, police marksmen. the list goes on.

 

i prob put that wrong,

 

i was meaning ppl that work that have the life of ppls in there hands if thay dont do there job right

[Sebrof]

look at this way,

 

somebody just starts a new job, he giveing all training and is passed to do what ever job hes ment to do,

 

so he gos about his job, he works off the safty plan risk assemnet hes been given by his bosses/company

then on one day somebody is killed,

hes worked to the letter, done everything in his power to make sure he did what was on his plan, but he still gets charged with manslaughter, even though it should be his boss or who ever, but the systerm dont work like that,

 

so this will solve this problem,

im sorry but the way the world is 2day we need some protection from the PC world that have to blame somebody for something, then sue there ass, for something thats not there fault,

 

yes if its from negligence, if u can prove that thay go about there work badly, but to be honest them sort of ppl would not be in a job long anyway

 

and yes human error can have an effect, but have u not ever made a mistake, are you that perfect, everybody can make a mistake, but sometimes it just happins to kill somebody, how unfortunate it may be, we arent perfect the worlds not perfect,

now if said person has a track record of makeing mistakes and then happins to kill somebody, by all means he/she should be delt by the law,

but mistakes can and will happin,

 

i think its a gd plan to bring it in, it wont make ppl take more risks, i dont know one person that does work that could kill somebody, say o well i cant get done for this i wont bother putting this bolt in, or sod it im to tired to put that sign up

hay ho it if it kills somebody not my problem

 

dont be so stupid,

 

I don't think you have thought this through. This proposed law won't stop people being charged with manslaughter; it just means that the organisation they work for can be charged instead or as well.

 

If nobody is to blame, then it's an act of god. But if somebody IS at fault, then you seem to be saying that the law should do nothing to them, but just make the organisation pay a fine.

 

If a bus driver gets drunk, drives his bus into your car, and then tells you, "don't blame me, mate, blame Manx Transport" I doubt if you will be too happy. But that is what you are saying should happen.

 

And don't call me stupid, please. You should not assume that your own characteristics are shared by everybody else who posts here.

[gazza]

I don't think you have thought this through. This proposed law won't stop people being charged with manslaughter; it just means that the organisation they work for can be charged instead or as well.

 

well thats a gd thing then,

because at the moment it stops with the person that was maybe carrying out what he was told to do,

 

If a bus driver gets drunk, drives his bus into your car, and then tells you, "don't blame me, mate, blame Manx Transport" I doubt if you will be too happy. But that is what you are saying should happen.

 

well that aint really what its for is it, so not really a gd example is it,

 

so u would rather a comapny does not charged for what ever even if its at fault, just leave the blame for the worker that did his job to the companys letter,

not really fair that is it

[Sebrof]

I don't think you have thought this through. This proposed law won't stop people being charged with manslaughter; it just means that the organisation they work for can be charged instead or as well.

 

well thats a gd thing then,

because at the moment it stops with the person that was maybe carrying out what he was told to do,

 

If a bus driver gets drunk, drives his bus into your car, and then tells you, "don't blame me, mate, blame Manx Transport" I doubt if you will be too happy. But that is what you are saying should happen.

 

well that aint really what its for is it, so not really a gd example is it,

 

so u would rather a comapny does not charged for what ever even if its at fault, just leave the blame for the worker that did his job to the companys letter,

not really fair that is it

 

 

There are two things you haven't understood here. First of all, a company can't be at fault unless a human being is at fault. If fault exists, it exists because a human being has done something wrong.

 

Second, if the employee did what he was told, and was unaware that what he had been told was wrong, then he can't be at fault. However, if he was given a dangerous or illegal instruction, and was aware the instruction was dangerous or illegal, then he has a duty not to carry it out.

 

And the reason you didn't like my example was because it illustrated the logical consequence of your approach. Man does something wrong. He is a "worker". Therefore he can't be at fault. So blame the company. That, in a nutshell, is what you (and the unions) are saying.

[WilDDog]

In my opinion the law has to be brought in at some stage, because the way it is at the moment the employee takes the full brunt of the law if anything untoward should happen, even if the company is at fault. By that, I mean you could take the situation of a company promoting or employing someone to be in position of responsibility who really isn't up to the task. In that case the company in my opinion would be at fault for placing that person into that position of responsibility. If the person wasn't in a position of responsibilty then they should be given an instruction by someone who is, and if that person is the wrong person for the job then the company is at fault.

However, if he was given a dangerous or illegal instruction, and was aware the instruction was dangerous or illegal, then he has a duty not to carry it out.

Totally agree on that score, but you are forgetting that some people will do exactly what they are told for many reasons, a couple of examples being, fear of losing their job or fear of being bullied. Another reason would be an instruction that wasn't explained properly, so if someone was given a dangerous or illegal instruction the person who gave them that instruction should also then be held responsible, and then if it was a large organisation and if there was another person in the loop they should be held responsible, and so on, and seeing as most instructions come from the top then the company would be at fault, and as you say Sebrof, "the organisation they work for can be charged instead or as well", which in my opinion isn't a bad thing.

 

Man does something wrong. He is a "worker". Therefore he can't be at fault. So blame the company. That, in a nutshell, is what you (and the unions) are saying.

 

I don't think that's what he or the unions are saying at all, but until It's clear what they are saying I don't think surmising is going to help, unless of course you know someone in a union that has told you different.

[Chinahand]

Sebrof, I think you are mistaken in your analysis. A company is owned by its shareholders, but run by the agents of the owners, usually the directors in a public or private limited company.

 

It is the officers of the company who have to put the systems in place to avoid a corporate manslaughter charge - it will be them in the dock, not the shareholders.

 

If someone does something stupid and somebody dies, then they are responsible. If someone is told to do something stupid and they do it, then both the person who did it and the person who told them to do it have responsibility. More often than not the person told to do it is in ignorance, and the person who told them to do it should have known better - if a company's systems put its employees or the public at risk the directors are responsible. As a company director I understand that and am basically happy that this law is being brought in.

 

Gazza - you clearly don't know people who work with heavy machinery, high places, scaffolding, transport, aviation, toxic chemicals etc etc etc. I've been involved with most of those things. Seen the damage a heavy press can do - not nice!

[pongo]

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007

 

The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act introduces a new offence, across the UK, for prosecuting companies and other organisations where there has been a gross failing, throughout the organisation, in the management of health and safety with fatal consequences.

 

A draft Corporate Manslaughter Bill was published in March 2005. This underwent pre-legislative scrutiny by the Home Affairs and Work and Pensions Select Committees. The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill was introduced into Parliament last July and received Royal Assent on 26 July 2007.

 

Mother welcomes manslaughter reform

 

the management should have to know what's happening. They'd know about financial matters, so they should have to know about safety too

[Sebrof]

the management should have to know what's happening. They'd know about financial matters, so they should have to know about safety too

 

Quite so. The company can only be at fault if people are at fault. It was quite wrong to prosecute the company when individuals should have been prosecuted. But that is the obvious consequence of this absurd law.

[Sebrof]

Sebrof, I think you are mistaken in your analysis. A company is owned by its shareholders, but run by the agents of the owners, usually the directors in a public or private limited company.

 

It is the officers of the company who have to put the systems in place to avoid a corporate manslaughter charge - it will be them in the dock, not the shareholders.

 

With respect; the whole point of this ridiculous law is that it WON'T be the directors in the dock, it will be the company, and the penalty will be paid by the shareholders.

 

I think Gazza thinks I have it in for the poor working man. I don't. This law will chiefly be used to enable management to evade responsibility.

[Sebrof]

Man does something wrong. He is a "worker". Therefore he can't be at fault. So blame the company. That, in a nutshell, is what you (and the unions) are saying.

 

I don't think that's what he or the unions are saying at all, but until It's clear what they are saying I don't think surmising is going to help, unless of course you know someone in a union that has told you different.

 

So what are they saying?

 

To me it's very clear. Blaming the organisation, instead of those responsible for the offence within the organisation, allows those responsible to get off the hook.