Treat Reckless Corporate Behavior like Drunk-Driving

[unhappycamper]

Top executives at BP, Massey, Goldman Sachs et al might have acted more responsibly if they had faced the prospect of jail time


Treat Reckless Corporate Behavior like Drunk-Driving
by Dean Baker
Published on Tuesday, July 13, 2010 by The Guardian/UK

While BP has taken some heat over its spill in the Gulf, it is remarkable how limited the anger actually is. Many defenders of the company have made the obvious point: it was an accident. BP did not intend to have a massive spill that killed 11 people, devastated the Gulf ecosystem and threatens the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of workers.

Of course this is true, but it is also true that a drunk driver who runs into a school bus did not intend to be involved in a fatal collision. As a society, we have no problem holding the drunk driver responsible for a predictable outcome of their recklessness. Driving while drunk dramatically increases the risk of an accident. This is why it is punished severely. A person who is responsible for a fatal accident while driving drunk can expect to face many years in jail. Even someone who drives drunk without being in an accident often faces jail time because of the risk they imposed on others.

This raises the question of why the public seems to accept that the top officials at BP, who cut corners and made risky gambles in their drilling plans, should be able to "get my life back," as BP chief executive Tony Hayward put it. The people who lost their livelihood as a result of BP's spill will not get their lives back, even if BP does pay compensation. Certainly the 11 workers killed in the original explosion will not get their lives back. Why should the people responsible for this carnage be able to resume their life of luxury?

There are two separate questions. The first is a narrow legal issue concerning the extent to which Hayward and other high level executives can be held criminally liable for the accident. It may be the case that the laws are written so that even if companies commit gross negligence that results in enormous harm, including multiple deaths, top officials are not criminally liable. This is a question about the status of current law. The second question is a moral and economic one about what the laws should look like.

From either standpoint, it is very difficult to see why we would want to say that reckless behaviour that would be punished with long prison sentences if done by an individual, somehow escapes serious sanction if done as part of a corporation's pursuit of profit. Do we give a get a "get out of jail free" card to people when they are wearing the hat of a top corporate executive? This makes no sense.

[Bitwit1234]

1. Turned on the TV this morning and scrolled thru to see what was on

and low and behold Joe was having a fit about BP and it's connection to letting that terrorist out of jail, the one involved in the bombing of the airplane over Scotland. And they were panning the fact that CORPORATE AMERICA AND CORPORATE INTEREST AROUND THE WORLD WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR A LOT OF THIS MESS. Yep Yep yep.

[Brickbat]

2. Along these lines, it seems to me that it would make a lot of sense to have random drug tests on

CEOs and lawyers who advise them and the consultants who recommend things to them. Because damn if they don't act like they're on some heavy shit sometimes, and frankly they're a lot more destructive to a lot more people on a much bigger scale than the scab-ass carpenter who hits himself in the head with a nail gun because he's hung over from the night before.

[hvn_nbr_2]

3. Giant corporations have been flying, not driving, drunk on greed for years

Reagan served them enough rounds to get them drunk for decades. Bush-1 poured a few more rounds. Clinton poured yet another several rounds. Bush-Cheney opened the lid of the still at the distillery and they all jumped in and went swimming in whiskey and got their BAC up to about 4% before they got in their corporate jets and flew them into the economy, bringing it down.

The CorpoCongress solution: New restored "regulation" that tells them that it's okay for them to swim and gorge themselves in stills and then fly drunk but they have to have a cup of coffee before they fly.

End result: The greedy drunks crash the economy and the rest of us get the hangover.