Unions Want Crime Of Corporate Killing

[Chinahand]

I can remember a sermon I once listened to which said that the Bible (and the Torah!) really began with Cain and Abel and that the rest of the Bible was dedicated to ever asking and attempting to answer Cain's question "Am I my brother's keeper?".

 

The way I see it is that Corporate Manslaughter isn't saying an abstract concept (a corporation) commited a crime - it is saying that the officers of a corporation (whether its a Ltd, a partnership, a PLC or whatever) were so negligent that they allowed a culture imicable to safety to develop and remain.

 

The officers of a corporation have a responsibility to look to safety and saying they weren't aware, or that someone else was meant to be doing it, or whatever isn't enough.

 

This is complex because there may NOT be a direct causal line between a poor bloke lying dying at the bottom of some scaffolding or whatever and a CEO in a board room - hence it is often impossible for the H&SE to push through the responsibility shifting, lack of paperwork etc to say the people at the top were responsible and had a responsibility.

 

The corporate manslaughter law cuts through that - if you are an officer of a company and you let things drift, assume someone else is doing it, don't follow up - well you aren't being your brother's keeper and the law says you definitely do have that responsibility so you'd better look out.

 

When I did my MBA we had a unit on bonuses and performance reviews. The point was made that people SHOULD be penalized when things beyond their control happen - why? To make them react to these events - yes you aren't responsible for the price of oil going up - but what have you done to reduce the companies dependence on oil, find alternatives etc.

 

I view the corporate manslaughter law in a similar light - not my job, I didn't know isn't good enough - if you run an organization and it is so incompetent that someone dies - well look out. The officers run the company they have responsibilities - they are their brother's keeper.

[Gladys]

In one China!

[P.K.]

people SHOULD be penalized when things beyond their control happen - why? To make them react to these events - yes you aren't responsible for the price of oil going up - but what have you done to reduce the companies dependence on oil, find alternatives etc.

 

I view the corporate manslaughter law in a similar light - not my job, I didn't know isn't good enough - if you run an organization and it is so incompetent that someone dies - well look out. The officers run the company they have responsibilities - they are their brother's keeper.

When I signed up to a large multi-national I assumed that we were all working towards a "Grand Master Plan" that emanated from the top floor of the newest most lavish and expensive building of the entire company. However I also went in at a level that made me quickly realise that those steering the ship were just stumbling from crisis to crisis like everybody else! The difference between success and failure is down to processes you have previously put in place to ensure you can not only deal with crises but thrive on them. IMHO frequently the difference between the public and private sector.

 

The problem with corporate manslaughter is where to lay the blame. If it's caused by policy i.e. cuts in safety budgets then it's a no brainer. However if it's caused by a cock-up at local level it get's tricky as to err is human after all. Any judgement in moving blame to the top will have to be based on what those at the top should reasonably be responsible for i.e. the CEO is unlikely to know that the tea-lady was putting cascara in Marketings morning brew although he probably wishes he had thought of it. Which is why org charts and sign-off have become very important to have in place as a cya measure. But it's all a bit subjective which makes it very tricky.

[Chinahand]

Agree it's subjective and tricky - I assume these trials will end up in front of a jury? They are remarkably good at cutting through bullshit. The H&SE and/or the management or whatever can create their castles in the air, but 12 people good and true usually bring things back down to earth.

[Sebrof]

I decided it was time I read the UK's new corporate manslaughter act, as I had presumed that Mr Moffett was calling for a similar act here.

 

Interestingly, it is aimed solely at the top managment of organisations, not functionaries further down the line. So, if Mr Moffet had this act in mind as a model, it's not going to help him, or rather, his members.

 

"An organisation is guilty of an offence under this section only if the way in which its activities are managed or organised by its senior management is a substantial element in the breach referred to in subsection (1)."

 

The breach referred to is a "gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed by the organisation to the deceased".

 

So if Joe Soap does his job negligently, he can be tried for manslaughter personally.

 

But if the board of directors does its job negligently, the company will be fined, and the shareholders will pick up the tab.

 

One law for the rich, and another for the rest of us.

[WilDDog]

So if Joe Soap does his job negligently, he can be tried for manslaughter personally.

 

But if the board of directors does its job negligently, the company will be fined, and the shareholders will pick up the tab.

 

I think you got it wrong by thinking that the law they wanted to bring in wanted the organisation/company blamed.

This clearly doesn't seem to be the case.

But the way this reads

An organisation is guilty of an offence under this section only if the way in which its activities are managed or organised by its senior management is a substantial element in the breach referred to in subsection (1)."

Does this mean that senior management can't be held accountable in any way and only the directors or shareholders can, along with the person who was negligent in the first place?

 

If that's the case it still doesn't seem right to me, surely everyone involved including senior management should be accountable if they are at fault, or is that what it means?

[Sebrof]

So if Joe Soap does his job negligently, he can be tried for manslaughter personally.

 

But if the board of directors does its job negligently, the company will be fined, and the shareholders will pick up the tab.

 

I think you got it wrong by thinking that the law they wanted to bring in wanted the organisation/company blamed.

 

Since blaming the company ("an organisation is guilty of an offence") is the sole objective of a law concerning "corporate manslaughter", there can be no other logical reason for bringing it in. But perhaps there's an illogical one!

 

This clearly doesn't seem to be the case.

But the way this reads

An organisation is guilty of an offence under this section only if the way in which its activities are managed or organised by its senior management is a substantial element in the breach referred to in subsection (1)."

Does this mean that senior management can't be held accountable in any way and only the directors or shareholders can, along with the person who was negligent in the first place?

 

By "senior management" they normally mean the directors - if the organisation is a company. The shareholders, as such, are not managers, though it is not uncommon for somebody to be both. This section doesn't mean the directors can't be held personally liable, but it permits prosecutors the easy option of blaming the company instead of the people responsible - thus letting them off the hook.

 

If that's the case it still doesn't seem right to me, surely everyone involved including senior management should be accountable if they are at fault, or is that what it means?

 

The whole purpose of this thread was to point out that corporate manslaughter is a way for management to evade responsibility for people's deaths. It seems to me that you don't like this any more than I do.

[WilDDog]

The whole purpose of this thread was to point out that corporate manslaughter is a way for management to evade responsibility for people's deaths. It seems to me that you don't like this any more than I do.

 

I don't.

[Sebrof]

The whole purpose of this thread was to point out that corporate manslaughter is a way for management to evade responsibility for people's deaths. It seems to me that you don't like this any more than I do.

 

I don't.

 

So perhaps the tosh wasn't complete? :-)

[WilDDog]

I stand by everything I've said.

 

At the beginning of the thread you seemed more concerned about the directors and shareholders being blamed and how they shouldn't be.

In my opinion persons who are directly involved or indirectly involved, no matter what there status within a company/organisation and it is proved that is the case, then of course they should be accountable.

We'll have to agree to disagree or agree to agree or something like that.

[Sebrof]

I stand by everything I've said.

 

At the beginning of the thread you seemed more concerned about the directors and shareholders being blamed and how they shouldn't be.

In my opinion persons who are directly involved or indirectly involved, no matter what there status within a company/organisation and it is proved that is the case, then of course they should be accountable.

We'll have to agree to disagree or agree to agree or something like that.

 

You're putting words into my mouth. I did not lump shareholders and directors together, or say directors shouldn't be blamed. They should.

 

"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."

 

For "boss" read director, NOT shareholder.

[WilDDog]

"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?

Like I've said many times they should all be accountable.

 

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."

 

If everyone is accountable and as long as the aggrieved party gets what's owed, I don't really care who pays.

[Sebrof]

"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?

Like I've said many times they should all be accountable.

 

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."

 

If everyone is accountable and as long as the aggrieved party gets what's owed, I don't really care who pays.

 

 

1. The "aggrieved party" will be DEAD! That's why the charge is manslaughter.

 

2. The criminal law is not about compensation; it's about punishment. Nobody, alive or dead, will "get what's owed".

 

3. "Everyone" shouldn't be accountable; just the guilty. Certainly not the innocent tax-payers or shareholders, who will have to pay the fine.

 

 

You don't really have any idea what's going on here, do you?

[Chinahand]

I have to admit to being ignorant to how this works, but it has already been raised that criminal actions are not insurable - and it will be the directors in the dock not the shareholders. Yes the company (and hence ultimately the shareholders) will probably pay for the defence costs, but the responsibilities and the criminality will rest with the director(s).

 

After reading wiki for a bit I see the obvious issue is that the company is fined and not the directors - so the shareholder will pay - I suppose I get Sebrof's point, BUT the same arguement I used early still applies - this is a genuine inscntive for shareholders/owners to take an interest in the actions of their agents. "I didn't know" isn't an excuse. Shareholder's have an active interest in ensuring good corporate governance - this is another incentive for them to ensure their safety procedures aren't incompetent.

[Gladys]

Agreed China. If the company is fined then the shareholders have the opportunity to remove the director responsible. If enough charges of corporate manslaughter are made then shareholders may start to take an interest in such things as good corporate governance as a preventive measure. Without this offence then shareholders can just continue to sit back and wait for the dividend cheque to plop on the mat.

 

Hopefully, it will be worked in such a way as to make corporates want to be compliant without the need for the overweaning H&S regulation/fear of comebacks that we now have.