Hertz to pay $168M to customers arrested due to Hertz’s false police reports(viewfromthewing.com)
viewfromthewing.com
Hertz to pay $168M to customers arrested due to Hertz’s false police reports
https://viewfromthewing.com/hertz-to-pay-168-million-to-customers-arrested-due-to-their-false-police-reports/
175 comments
The last 3 years I've had occasion to use Budget on an "I need a rental now" basis.
I've had a good experience because they just don't seem to care. That is, the employees working there just check in/out, sign the paperwork, that's it. I haven't had to spend a lot of time turning down questionable options and upgrades. There haven't been turn-in inspections where they claim that tiny scratch on the car with 160k miles is my fault.
They just seem to get me checked in so they can get back to their phone. It's not a premium experience by any means, but it's simple.
I've had a good experience because they just don't seem to care. That is, the employees working there just check in/out, sign the paperwork, that's it. I haven't had to spend a lot of time turning down questionable options and upgrades. There haven't been turn-in inspections where they claim that tiny scratch on the car with 160k miles is my fault.
They just seem to get me checked in so they can get back to their phone. It's not a premium experience by any means, but it's simple.
FWIW I use Avis (same company, higher price tier) and also have zero of those kind of issues.
I once chose hertz because it was cheapest and I regretted it! They didn't specify how much the baby seat was going to be and it end up being like 20$ extra! they should have mentioned how much the baby seat costs on the checkout page. and then when i complained about it, they just wanted to blame the 3rd party checkout processor. Hertz, never again!
In life, i've learned, that if an optional extra price isn't listed for that option, don't select it. and if you really need that option and the price isn't there, just hit the back button and don't use that service ever again.
In life, i've learned, that if an optional extra price isn't listed for that option, don't select it. and if you really need that option and the price isn't there, just hit the back button and don't use that service ever again.
re: "because it was the cheapest"
I use Budget and I haven't had any problems. However, I always thought Hertz and Avis were the expensive premium rental places. So I learned something today.
Avis is at least. They are the same company that owns Budget, but on the more premium price tier.
I have only rented with Hertz for about 20 years, and finally gave about after almost several bad experiences. Tried Enterprise on my first trip last week and was shocked at how much better it is.
I dont rent often but definitely go with Enterprise when I do. They are the only one left in my city that offers unlimited mileage and my typical trip is 1800 km round trip so it matters.
Last trip Enterprise was fully booked so I did try Budget. Their office is so small that you actually have to arrive at our local airport and THEN call the attendant who comes in from her house to book out your car. That took almost an hour.
The return process is even sillier. Write your mileage on a poorly photocopied slip of paper, and drop it on her desk with the keys. No pics. No checkout inspection, just 'trust us not to charge you extra'.
Fortunately I took a ton of pictures including the odometer so when they couldnt do math and tried to charge me an extra 1000 km, I fought back with pics and got those charges dropped. That's the last time I use Budget.
Last trip Enterprise was fully booked so I did try Budget. Their office is so small that you actually have to arrive at our local airport and THEN call the attendant who comes in from her house to book out your car. That took almost an hour.
The return process is even sillier. Write your mileage on a poorly photocopied slip of paper, and drop it on her desk with the keys. No pics. No checkout inspection, just 'trust us not to charge you extra'.
Fortunately I took a ton of pictures including the odometer so when they couldnt do math and tried to charge me an extra 1000 km, I fought back with pics and got those charges dropped. That's the last time I use Budget.
I will +1 enterprise. Consistently had good customer experience with them.
+2, and National which is owned by Enterprise and allows you to just walk into the garage, get in a car, and drive out. It's the most painless process in the industry.
Isn't that also exactly the Hertz experience? Has been for me. Of course it isn't literally drive out. Most airports you do have to stop at an exit booth and show your ID.
Enterprise, small rental office near home--took them an hour to locate the plates for the car after I complained about and refused to accept a car with expired temporary tags.
> and purchasing the extra insurance to cover any damages.
Don't most credit cards provide rental insurance? How is their coverage different (if it is)?
Don't most credit cards provide rental insurance? How is their coverage different (if it is)?
We have an Enterprise deal with work so we get very good rates, especially when they drop a car off and pick up at my home or office
However I was in one a few months ago and got a puncture on a dual carriageway. By the time I pulled over to a safe location the tyre was shredded. No problem, go into the boot to get the spare wheel out and I'll deal with it later.
There was no spare wheel. Just some little device which I assume is supposed to somehow re-inflate the tyre and seal any small holes for a small amount of time. Clearly not going to work when the side wall is shredded from driving the best part of a mile on it.
Too 6 hours for a tow-truck to arrive, pick me up, take me to a local garage, and change the tyre. That cost my employer far more than the cost of a spare wheel -- not to mention the cost of the tow itself being about the same price as the wheel + tyre.
Probably not a slight on Enterprise, as I'm sure it's the same with other hire companies (I hired from Sixt on holiday and it was the same). Why don't cars come with spare wheels any more? Are people really that incompetent they can't change one? Surely punctures as as common now as they were 20 years ago.
However I was in one a few months ago and got a puncture on a dual carriageway. By the time I pulled over to a safe location the tyre was shredded. No problem, go into the boot to get the spare wheel out and I'll deal with it later.
There was no spare wheel. Just some little device which I assume is supposed to somehow re-inflate the tyre and seal any small holes for a small amount of time. Clearly not going to work when the side wall is shredded from driving the best part of a mile on it.
Too 6 hours for a tow-truck to arrive, pick me up, take me to a local garage, and change the tyre. That cost my employer far more than the cost of a spare wheel -- not to mention the cost of the tow itself being about the same price as the wheel + tyre.
Probably not a slight on Enterprise, as I'm sure it's the same with other hire companies (I hired from Sixt on holiday and it was the same). Why don't cars come with spare wheels any more? Are people really that incompetent they can't change one? Surely punctures as as common now as they were 20 years ago.
> Are people really that incompetent they can't change one?
I suspect they don't want people stealing/replacing spares in rentals with worn ones[0]. The mere possibility of this adds 1 more thing that has to be inspected and kept track of.
0. I once managed to run down the battery on a U-Haul by keeping the emergency blinkers on(!). I didn't have jumper cables and thought I'd hot-swap it with the one on my car to get it charged: which is how I discovered that batteries in U-Hauls cannot be easily removed. I ended up getting a tow truck to jump-start the U-Haul many hours later.
I suspect they don't want people stealing/replacing spares in rentals with worn ones[0]. The mere possibility of this adds 1 more thing that has to be inspected and kept track of.
0. I once managed to run down the battery on a U-Haul by keeping the emergency blinkers on(!). I didn't have jumper cables and thought I'd hot-swap it with the one on my car to get it charged: which is how I discovered that batteries in U-Hauls cannot be easily removed. I ended up getting a tow truck to jump-start the U-Haul many hours later.
I was shopping for a car/SUV recently and was given the story about tire technology changing and tires being so good they never fail :) wish I could remember the precise words but good discussion since I never bought the car due to supply chain issues and now I will remember to ask the details.
I got a flat in my rental car last week. It ended up costing me about 3-4 hours out of my day to have a mobile tire guy dispatched from 40 miles away. No spare in the vehicle, so I had no choice but to wait.
I found it funny when I looked closer and realized that the tire that failed didn't match the other three. I think that particular wheel was cursed since the car only had 26k miles on it.
I found it funny when I looked closer and realized that the tire that failed didn't match the other three. I think that particular wheel was cursed since the car only had 26k miles on it.
tfa is about people _going to jail_. That is so absurd I can barely believe it. and here we are, discussing $20 child seats and missing spares... priorities...
I actually always book through Costco membership. Even then I try to book from Enterprise or budget and avoid Hertz.
Interestingly, I had Enterprise squarely in my head as the budget option compared to Hertz, who I always had down as the "pricey but better service" option (at least if you exercised the Gold program, etc.)
Not sure if I'm strictly a victim of effective marketing, or if they flipped places in the last however many years, or what, but it's interesting to see your post and the replies that imply I've got it backwards.
Not sure if I'm strictly a victim of effective marketing, or if they flipped places in the last however many years, or what, but it's interesting to see your post and the replies that imply I've got it backwards.
If you formed that opinion years ago it might have been more true. In the 00s Hertz was indeed a top tier, best in class, rental company.
They were sold the private equity then taken public in 2006 and the quality of the company declined dramatically over the 2010s.
They changed their model to focus on partnership programs through airlines, hotels, and credit cards while offering low teaser rates for their rentals and upselling addons afterwards.
Performance metrics for their staff shifted from customer satisfaction to sales targets.
They canceled their R&D efforts (like rental kiosks) and refocused that money on marketing campaigns.
Their marketshare and profits declined and as a result activist investor Carl Icahn put pressure on the company to cut costs in 2016, forcing in a new CEO. Those cuts ultimately led to incidents like the one in the original article about falsely reporting the vehicles stolen but also to the company's bankruptcy filing in 2019.
It's been quite the fall from grace for the company.
They were sold the private equity then taken public in 2006 and the quality of the company declined dramatically over the 2010s.
They changed their model to focus on partnership programs through airlines, hotels, and credit cards while offering low teaser rates for their rentals and upselling addons afterwards.
Performance metrics for their staff shifted from customer satisfaction to sales targets.
They canceled their R&D efforts (like rental kiosks) and refocused that money on marketing campaigns.
Their marketshare and profits declined and as a result activist investor Carl Icahn put pressure on the company to cut costs in 2016, forcing in a new CEO. Those cuts ultimately led to incidents like the one in the original article about falsely reporting the vehicles stolen but also to the company's bankruptcy filing in 2019.
It's been quite the fall from grace for the company.
Man, sometimes people are so desperate to advance a point of view, they end up a million miles off base. Carl Icahn didn't "force in" a new CEO, his old CEO was a freaking criminal who signed off on fraudulent earning reports. Yes, a change was warranted. He got paid over $10 million to walk, left Hertz with another $16 million in fines, and he himself ultimately settled with the SEC for just $2 million (and landed in the CEO role at Caesars Entertainment, which filed for bankruptcy under his watch, and then paid him $29 million to "emerge"). No, if you are a criminal CEO and a cheapskate, you don't get to blame Uncle Carl for making you do it.
https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-183
https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-183
Sounds like it. I think the last time I used them was 2016ish or maybe even a year or two before, so that explains it.
I have the opposite experience, tried a lot of things including Turo and Hertz economy is the best. I can rent without a credit card and with a deposit easily, cars are clean, never a flat tire or break down so far, good sat radio. What else is there?
I concur. I travel every month and Hertz was my GoTo for twenty years. The customer service is abysmal. Hertz..hurts.
Is that a US thing? I've been using both in Europe and Hertz seemed better, but also more expensive.
These stories are awful - this wasn't just an administrative headache for people, they served real time and has real consequences.
Filing a false police report is a crime, it would be nice to see that enforced against the company in one way or another.
Filing a false police report is a crime, it would be nice to see that enforced against the company in one way or another.
Agreed. The company is like yeah, we make some minor adminstrative mistakes. But the story says a woman spent 30 days in jail? Picture yourself in her shoes.
If somebody spent 30 days in jail because of a false report by Hertz, then it's not just hertz in the wrong. Arguably it's an even bigger failure by the judicial system.
Yea the judicial system always favors corporations.
If you steal $100 from work you go to jail. If work shorts you $100 in pay, your gonna need to get your own lawyer. Citizens are not given the benefit of the doubt against entities that only exist on paper and don’t suffer real consequences. It’s backwards to put it lightly.
If you steal $100 from work you go to jail. If work shorts you $100 in pay, your gonna need to get your own lawyer. Citizens are not given the benefit of the doubt against entities that only exist on paper and don’t suffer real consequences. It’s backwards to put it lightly.
if something like that happened to me, i would make it my life's mission to work whatever legal means there are to hunt down every one of these "reporters". Going to jail for a fully paid rental in the States is so absurd, I can't believe it.
Personally I'd prefer customers be directly compensated than companies just be fined or people imprisoned.
Why can't they be compensated directly for the financial damages and then put the perpetrators in prison for all the damages that can't be moneyed-away?
> put the perpetrators in prison for all the damages that can't be moneyed-away?
Unless it was done wilfully, this just perpetuates the American fetish for imprisonment. They should be fired. They should be fined. And they should be deeply investigated, to confirm there wasn’t intent.
Unless it was done wilfully, this just perpetuates the American fetish for imprisonment. They should be fired. They should be fined. And they should be deeply investigated, to confirm there wasn’t intent.
They had an explicit policy of not retracting police reports after finding out they were false, so yes, it was done willfully.
I did not read that in the article.
[deleted]
Throwing people in jail for smoking weed in their home is the fetish for imprisonment.
Throwing people in jail for literally throwing innocent people in jail, destroying their careers, and stripping them of their basic human rights is far from fetishizing it.
Throwing people in jail for literally throwing innocent people in jail, destroying their careers, and stripping them of their basic human rights is far from fetishizing it.
They clearly understood they were doing harm, which is outlined in the article. If this was an individual who had done this, there would be no question of them going to jail.
Letting people get away with crimes simply because they're part of a corporation is simply stupid.
Letting people get away with crimes simply because they're part of a corporation is simply stupid.
How does imprisoning someone help the victims in any way? People have some really fucked up ideas of justice.
Justice should focus first on making victims whole, then on rehabilitating the perpetrators to prevent victimization in the future. Imprisonment serves neither of those goals.
Justice should focus first on making victims whole, then on rehabilitating the perpetrators to prevent victimization in the future. Imprisonment serves neither of those goals.
It depends a lot on what kind of crime you're dealing with.
This isn't a matter of teaching the executives of Hertz that no, they don't need to commit crimes to survive, and how to access alternative means of survival, and all that.
They did this because they were greedy, lazy, and they knew they wouldn't suffer much for it. When you're dealing with white-collar sorts of crimes like this, deterrence is a thing.
This isn't a matter of teaching the executives of Hertz that no, they don't need to commit crimes to survive, and how to access alternative means of survival, and all that.
They did this because they were greedy, lazy, and they knew they wouldn't suffer much for it. When you're dealing with white-collar sorts of crimes like this, deterrence is a thing.
Prison is not the right fit. If you want deterrence, make them pay directly towards the victims. Put them on house arrest. Put them on probation. Ban them from holding a managerial or executive role.
There are plenty of alternatives that don't involve locking people in cells - and that are probably more effective a deterrent.
There are plenty of alternatives that don't involve locking people in cells - and that are probably more effective a deterrent.
While there are other options as you pointed out, I'm not sure it's realistic to say they're more likely an effective deterrent than prison.
People pay tons of money to avoid prison, even temporarily - see lawyers, bail, etc. Same goes for getting prison sentences reduced, even just in part, to house arrest and probation.
Just what amount of fines, house arrest, and probation is going to be more effective a deterrent than prison?
I think there's a reasonable discussion to be had about where the line is between 'enough' deterrence and excessive punishment, but it's a bit absurd to claim that things people happily accept in lieu of going to prison will be more of a deterrent than prison.
People pay tons of money to avoid prison, even temporarily - see lawyers, bail, etc. Same goes for getting prison sentences reduced, even just in part, to house arrest and probation.
Just what amount of fines, house arrest, and probation is going to be more effective a deterrent than prison?
I think there's a reasonable discussion to be had about where the line is between 'enough' deterrence and excessive punishment, but it's a bit absurd to claim that things people happily accept in lieu of going to prison will be more of a deterrent than prison.
> Put them on house arrest. Put them on probation.
So, prison. Maybe a slightly nicer prison, but you're still taking their freedom away.
So, prison. Maybe a slightly nicer prison, but you're still taking their freedom away.
House arrest is imprisonment.
Prison is a great deterrence, if targeted at the right people, in this case the executives.
Different types of prisons exist. Prison reform should be the next big battle.
Clearly you did not read the story, insurance is covering the costs, and the CEO does not have a care in the world
I am sorry if your false report causes someone to go to jail, then you need to go to jail as well
I am sorry if your false report causes someone to go to jail, then you need to go to jail as well
I've seen the difference between "requirements that will be expensive to violate" and "requirements that will have the CEO go to jail personally".
Guess which ones get taken a lot more seriously.
Guess which ones get taken a lot more seriously.
Prison would be an extremely effective deterrent for executives. Fines don't scare them at all.
> How does imprisoning someone help the victims in any way?
It doesn't help past victims, it helps future victims. Turns out, people do things that hurt other people if it will 1) benefit them and has 2) never resulted in any consequences.
> People have some really fucked up ideas of justice.
That people who have harmed other people face imprisonment is not one of them.
> rehabilitating the perpetrators to prevent victimization in the future.
Will this be done with a magic wand?
It doesn't help past victims, it helps future victims. Turns out, people do things that hurt other people if it will 1) benefit them and has 2) never resulted in any consequences.
> People have some really fucked up ideas of justice.
That people who have harmed other people face imprisonment is not one of them.
> rehabilitating the perpetrators to prevent victimization in the future.
Will this be done with a magic wand?
There are several reasons why prison sentences make sense in this scenario.
Or phrased differently: without prison sentences the whole situation becomes a pure numbers game: did they get more money out of the false reports/not fixing the bugs causing this misbehavior then they now have to pay in damages.
These kinds of crimes will continue to become the baseline if there are no real consequences to the people actually being responsible for the deeds (this includes the CEO).
Or phrased differently: without prison sentences the whole situation becomes a pure numbers game: did they get more money out of the false reports/not fixing the bugs causing this misbehavior then they now have to pay in damages.
These kinds of crimes will continue to become the baseline if there are no real consequences to the people actually being responsible for the deeds (this includes the CEO).
> Justice should focus first on making victims whole, then on rehabilitating the perpetrators to prevent victimization in the future. Imprisonment serves neither of those goals.
The perpetrators are the employees at Hertz that made the decision. Issuing a fine to the company does not rehabilitate or penalize the decision makers.
The perpetrators are the employees at Hertz that made the decision. Issuing a fine to the company does not rehabilitate or penalize the decision makers.
Putting an executive in jail because they wrongly and deliberately caused a customer to be jailed seems pretty reasonable.
What else do you do, make them pay a fine that's just a rounding error on their checking account? Having them wear orange instead of pinstripes for a similar number of days will get their full, undivided attention.
What else do you do, make them pay a fine that's just a rounding error on their checking account? Having them wear orange instead of pinstripes for a similar number of days will get their full, undivided attention.
> How does imprisoning someone help the victims in any way? People have some really fucked up ideas of justice.
Sending people to prison for committing crimes is "fucked up"? We can quibble over which crimes deserve what sentence, but we shouldn't outright dismiss the possibility of imprisoning white collar criminals.
Sending people to prison for committing crimes is "fucked up"? We can quibble over which crimes deserve what sentence, but we shouldn't outright dismiss the possibility of imprisoning white collar criminals.
> Sending people to prison for committing crimes is "fucked up"?
Unironically, yes. Prison is super fucked up.
Prison time barely acts as a deterrent. It doesn't reform criminals. It has high costs for taxpayers.
American prisons are entirely inhumane. Even heard of prison rape? Even violent criminals shouldn't have to endure what goes down in there. With modern technology, house arrest is far better.
Even for extremely violent criminals who are a existent danger, prison is not right. They should be in mental hospitals.
Unironically, yes. Prison is super fucked up.
Prison time barely acts as a deterrent. It doesn't reform criminals. It has high costs for taxpayers.
American prisons are entirely inhumane. Even heard of prison rape? Even violent criminals shouldn't have to endure what goes down in there. With modern technology, house arrest is far better.
Even for extremely violent criminals who are a existent danger, prison is not right. They should be in mental hospitals.
> Prison time barely acts as a deterrent.
What? Why aren't career criminals more brazen in their acts, if not for fear of punishment (which means: prison)?
I totally get the point that you can't just increase the prison sentence and expect the deterrence to scale, but suggesting that punishment "barely acts as a deterrent" sounds insane, especially when we're talking about calculating criminals like Hertz executives. It's not like they have the uncontrollable urge to make false police reports because of some weird psychological defect.
What? Why aren't career criminals more brazen in their acts, if not for fear of punishment (which means: prison)?
I totally get the point that you can't just increase the prison sentence and expect the deterrence to scale, but suggesting that punishment "barely acts as a deterrent" sounds insane, especially when we're talking about calculating criminals like Hertz executives. It's not like they have the uncontrollable urge to make false police reports because of some weird psychological defect.
The primary reason to lock people up is punishment. It's crime and punishment, not crime and deterrence, or crime and reform, or crime and efficient use of taxpayers' money.
Those are all nice-to-haves, but justice is an equal exchange of bad things done by you to bad things done to you.
Those are all nice-to-haves, but justice is an equal exchange of bad things done by you to bad things done to you.
I'll never understand how people in the US believe their prisons are "entirely inhumane". I see it surprisingly often. Every time I've seen a video about an US prison they understandably don't seem like nice places to be at but definitely liveable albeit boring.
There are so many reasons, like rampant rape, the near requirement in some prisons to join a gang to not get beaten up, $10 for a package of ramen in the shop, routine abuse of things like "solitary" by guards to harm people for fun, $3 a minute to call your family, and horrific situations where the warden is made responsible for planning food, and also given the rule that whatever they don't spend of the meal budget they get to personally keep, which results in inmates eating a slice of american cheese on two slices of bread twice a day for most days.
The punishment of prison should be entirely limited to losing your independence and the dignity that comes with it. It should literally be like childhood "time out". These are still human beings and we owe it to them to treat them like people, they just need to be silo'd off from society for a bit sometimes.
The punishment of prison should be entirely limited to losing your independence and the dignity that comes with it. It should literally be like childhood "time out". These are still human beings and we owe it to them to treat them like people, they just need to be silo'd off from society for a bit sometimes.
I can assure if one executive served even 1 day in Jail, Hertz would not have a false police report for years or decades
> How does imprisoning someone help the victims in any way? People have some really fucked up ideas of justice.
I see where you're coming from in general, but the standard for non corporate executives is imprisonment. Even if it's a "fucked up idea", it's the status quo.
Arguing against imprisonment in the context of corporate criminals doesn't do anything to change that status quo. Rather it just helps perpetuate the dual class justice system where the upper class gets respect and treated like humans while the faceless lower class gets draconian sentences to be "tough on crime".
I see where you're coming from in general, but the standard for non corporate executives is imprisonment. Even if it's a "fucked up idea", it's the status quo.
Arguing against imprisonment in the context of corporate criminals doesn't do anything to change that status quo. Rather it just helps perpetuate the dual class justice system where the upper class gets respect and treated like humans while the faceless lower class gets draconian sentences to be "tough on crime".
Do we know that jail time for corporate executives does not serve as a deterrent?
Personally, I think if you're the one advocating for locking people in cells, you should be the one proving that it's effective.
Pretty sure your gut reaction against the punishment is good argument that it'd deter someone from doing the action that yields said punishment.
Meanwhile we do the equivalent of charging a $90 penalty for a crime that earned $100.
Meanwhile we do the equivalent of charging a $90 penalty for a crime that earned $100.
It doesn't have to be "effective", it just has to be more effective than not locking people in cells. If you're advocating for something else, you should be arguing its effectiveness over locking people in cells. "Effectiveness" doesn't mean anything outside of a comparison to other options.
There are four reasons to incarcerate, as near as I can tell:
Retribution: punish the offender. In the state of nature, if someone offended against you, you could hurt or kill them. Now, the state has a sanitized responsibility to fill that role.
Rehabilitation: give the offender time to think about and learn from his offense.
Isolation: remove the person from society for a while so that if rehabilitation fails, society is still relieved from having to deal with the offender’s misbehavior for a time.
Disincentivization: give others an idea of what would happen if they were caught doing a similar offense.
None of these overlap with “making the victim whole,” which is probably why there is a whole separate system of civil law for that which has nothing to do with punishment (excluding, of course, exemplary damages).
If you think there is no excuse for incarceration, then I’m curious how you’d propose handling the problems of sanitized retribution, isolation, and disincentive for crime. It seems pretty obvious (to me) that the world would be pretty gnarly if unrehabilitated criminals lurked among us, free to perpetrate crimes until an angry victim killed them just because they made a business decision that their crimes outweighed the civil penalty, and would be criminals saw this behavior and got the idea that it would be good for them to emulate the successful, unpunished offenders.
That said, a focus on rehabilitation for those who are deemed possible to rehabilitate seems reasonable to me.
Retribution: punish the offender. In the state of nature, if someone offended against you, you could hurt or kill them. Now, the state has a sanitized responsibility to fill that role.
Rehabilitation: give the offender time to think about and learn from his offense.
Isolation: remove the person from society for a while so that if rehabilitation fails, society is still relieved from having to deal with the offender’s misbehavior for a time.
Disincentivization: give others an idea of what would happen if they were caught doing a similar offense.
None of these overlap with “making the victim whole,” which is probably why there is a whole separate system of civil law for that which has nothing to do with punishment (excluding, of course, exemplary damages).
If you think there is no excuse for incarceration, then I’m curious how you’d propose handling the problems of sanitized retribution, isolation, and disincentive for crime. It seems pretty obvious (to me) that the world would be pretty gnarly if unrehabilitated criminals lurked among us, free to perpetrate crimes until an angry victim killed them just because they made a business decision that their crimes outweighed the civil penalty, and would be criminals saw this behavior and got the idea that it would be good for them to emulate the successful, unpunished offenders.
That said, a focus on rehabilitation for those who are deemed possible to rehabilitate seems reasonable to me.
Well in this case, it would prevent the current executives who pursued bad policy from being executives at a company pushing short sighted bad policy that has real world consequences on customers. And when they get out, maybe they learned a lesson.
So would sentencing them to probation where being a company executive is prohibited.
Do you feel the same way about rape or murder as you do about direct abuse of the justice system by the powerful against the weak?
Probably does. By the logic stated, we could just put a probation on a rapist's genitals and it should all just work itself out.
Retribution is part of criminal Justice. We have no problem “rehabiliting” companies (except that it often fails), and we have no problem using retribution as an excuse to send poor black people to jail for long sentences. Why do we struggle with conceptualizing retribution for handling corporate malfeasance? You have a duty as a company leader to your fellow citizens. If you fail, you should be held accountable. I support prison time for the business leaders at Hertz who caused this problem to occur. Lock em up!
Retribution isn't part of the system. To deter future crimes is and could be used.
> Retribution isn't part of the system.
On what authority are you making this proclamation?
On what authority are you making this proclamation?
Someone who reads the laws they live under.
a) don't underestimate the importance of feeling like having received justice
b) deterrence is important, especially in cases like this: if there are consequences for willfully ignoring something that causes severe harm to others, it's less likely to be willfully ignored in the future. If you can expect to only have to make others whole (if caught), it's a lot easier to just not care. And legal compensation rarely actually makes people whole.
b) deterrence is important, especially in cases like this: if there are consequences for willfully ignoring something that causes severe harm to others, it's less likely to be willfully ignored in the future. If you can expect to only have to make others whole (if caught), it's a lot easier to just not care. And legal compensation rarely actually makes people whole.
We can, and should do both. Filing a false police report is a crime, and if your boss is telling you to do it, it's organized crime.
"Someone told me to do it" is not an excuse for criminal behaviour, and neither is "We constructed a bureaucracy that results in us engaging in criminal behaviour".
"Someone told me to do it" is not an excuse for criminal behaviour, and neither is "We constructed a bureaucracy that results in us engaging in criminal behaviour".
I'd settle for this: compensate people losses, pay punitive damages and charge owners with criminal fraud. Also instead of blindly arresting people on a corporate whim the police must require proof of actual stealing. Even if car is actually not returned on time it does not constitute theft. Renter should be notified first and given opportunity to answer. The whole thing is fucking perversion of justice in favor of corporation thanks to legalized bribe system / lobbying.
I agree. “Someone stole my car” is different from “I lent someone my car and they didn't bring it back when they said they would.” Require the rental company to sue the customer and prove to a court that the car wasn't returned.
Why not both?
But... intent - Hertz had no intent to have customers locked up or threatened by out-of-control cops, so it's all good. When it comes to life-and-limb matters like this intent really shouldn't matter because it's nothing more than a get-out-of-jail card for executives who couldn't care less about the impact of their policies.
No one important at Wells-Fargo went to jail either - they set policies which were expected to have certain outcomes, but top brass could not have possibly have foreseen the outcomes. I'm sick of plausible deniability, especially when it isn't even plausible any longer, the complaints go back years.
No one important at Wells-Fargo went to jail either - they set policies which were expected to have certain outcomes, but top brass could not have possibly have foreseen the outcomes. I'm sick of plausible deniability, especially when it isn't even plausible any longer, the complaints go back years.
intent is one thing, neglect is another
It is for the crime that you're discussing. Filing a false police report is criminal precisely because of intent. Needless to say, if you have a good faith belief that you report to the police[1], you should be able to do so without fear of prosecution if you're wrong!
[1] And whether people like it or not, Hertz clearly thought this system worked at the time they reported the "stolen" cars; just like software developers think their buggy code works until the user reports or crash telemetry come back.
[1] And whether people like it or not, Hertz clearly thought this system worked at the time they reported the "stolen" cars; just like software developers think their buggy code works until the user reports or crash telemetry come back.
The key part of the law is "know or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN"
They can not claim poor record keeping and ignorance as an excuse for filing false reports, they SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, which is part of the intent standard in most jurisdictions
1, 2, even 10 reports ok... they suck. 100's of false reports, that is beyond simple clerical error it would not take much to convince a jury that intent is there. i.e they internally setup the process that lead to false reports being filed likely as a say to cut costs
They can not claim poor record keeping and ignorance as an excuse for filing false reports, they SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, which is part of the intent standard in most jurisdictions
1, 2, even 10 reports ok... they suck. 100's of false reports, that is beyond simple clerical error it would not take much to convince a jury that intent is there. i.e they internally setup the process that lead to false reports being filed likely as a say to cut costs
That seems to be assuming facts not in evidence, though. Did Hertz decisionmakers continue operating the system after having been notified it was giving false positives? I tend to agree that sounds like criminal negligence. But nothing seems to be alleging that anywhere.
Flipping it around: would you feel comfortable calling the police to report that criminal negligence? Or would you be worried about getting in trouble for a false report?
The system is tilted towards non-prosecution, and for some very good reasons. No one's going to jail here.
Flipping it around: would you feel comfortable calling the police to report that criminal negligence? Or would you be worried about getting in trouble for a false report?
The system is tilted towards non-prosecution, and for some very good reasons. No one's going to jail here.
If I was a victim absolutely I would be pursuing that with local prosecutors
>The system is tilted towards non-prosecution, and for some very good reasons. No one's going to jail here.
yes for high profile corporate execs it is, if some Teenager reported his car stolen but then found out a friend borrowed it, not only would the teen reporting the crime go to jail, but the teen that borrowed it likely would still be prosecuted for theft at the same time
Kinda like "resisting arrest" charge that is still valid even when there is no underlying crime to resist arrest from....
Your idea of " system is tilted towards non-prosecution" only exisit for one socio-economic class of citizens
>The system is tilted towards non-prosecution, and for some very good reasons. No one's going to jail here.
yes for high profile corporate execs it is, if some Teenager reported his car stolen but then found out a friend borrowed it, not only would the teen reporting the crime go to jail, but the teen that borrowed it likely would still be prosecuted for theft at the same time
Kinda like "resisting arrest" charge that is still valid even when there is no underlying crime to resist arrest from....
Your idea of " system is tilted towards non-prosecution" only exisit for one socio-economic class of citizens
It doesn't pass any smell test for filing false police reports hundreds of times to be a series of hundreds of mistakes.
You're saying that Hertz deliberately targetted these people for some reason? No, that's ridiculous. Clearly this was a mistake. No one thinks Hertz was deliberately trying to punish its own customers. They just messed up and rolled out a feature with a buggy fraud detector.
you are too caught up on if Hertz did it deliberately, that is not the test. Reasonableness, / Reasonable person is the test.
1. Would a Reasonable person believe the system would lead to false reports
2. Were there any engineers or people internal to the company raising concerns that were ignored by managers / executives (I believe there likely was and there is more than enough probable cause for police to get a search warrant to find out)
3. After the first reports came in what actions were taken by the company
1. Would a Reasonable person believe the system would lead to false reports
2. Were there any engineers or people internal to the company raising concerns that were ignored by managers / executives (I believe there likely was and there is more than enough probable cause for police to get a search warrant to find out)
3. After the first reports came in what actions were taken by the company
Those are all excellent questions! Where's the evidence for affirmative answers to any of them? The fact that you can construct a case in your head isn't very interesting to me. What we know about the real world tells us that the answers are probably "yes", "no", and "nothing criminal".
To be blunt: be real. No one at Hertz is going to jail over this. They fucked up, and have admitted so as part of this settlement. That's all the justice you're going to get. I'm sorry.
To be blunt: be real. No one at Hertz is going to jail over this. They fucked up, and have admitted so as part of this settlement. That's all the justice you're going to get. I'm sorry.
>>What we know about the real world tells us that the answers are probably "yes", "no", and "nothing criminal".
your real world does not match mine, because in my world corp execs routinely ignore the advice of engineers, administrators, and developers when it comes to things like Security....
your real world does not match mine, because in my world corp execs routinely ignore the advice of engineers, administrators, and developers when it comes to things like Security....
Or depraved indifference.
Intent always matters. And it is absolutely plausible that a rental car could be marked stolen through a bureaucratic error. If fact, in this case, it's more than plausible. It's pretty much inconceivable that a rental car company would intend to just say "fuck you in particular" to a few customers and try to put them in jail.
Those customers should obviously get their judgment money, and Hertz should pay a heavy price (maybe even such a heavy price that they go bankrupt), but no one should go to jail for filing a false police report unless they intended to mislead the police.
Those customers should obviously get their judgment money, and Hertz should pay a heavy price (maybe even such a heavy price that they go bankrupt), but no one should go to jail for filing a false police report unless they intended to mislead the police.
"A rental car company" didn't do anything. Humans working at a rental car company did.
Maybe it was a "bureaucratic error" that fraudulently reported the cars as stolen. That bureaucracy didn't spontaneously emerge from dust. Humans built it.
Why should humans not face legal repercussions for the havoc they've wreaked on their victims' lives?
Maybe it was a "bureaucratic error" that fraudulently reported the cars as stolen. That bureaucracy didn't spontaneously emerge from dust. Humans built it.
Why should humans not face legal repercussions for the havoc they've wreaked on their victims' lives?
Because the havoc they ve wreaked could have been avoided, if only the police itself, a public service, behaved appropriately.
Declaring a car stolen by mistake shouldnt be the end of the world. One day someone with the same name as me committed an offense and I was wrongly given to the police of my country, and it took 5 minutes to clear me and nothing happened.
Declaring a car stolen by mistake shouldnt be the end of the world. One day someone with the same name as me committed an offense and I was wrongly given to the police of my country, and it took 5 minutes to clear me and nothing happened.
It Hertz didn't intend to ruin people's lives, they would withdraw the police reports when confronted with their mistakes. Instead, the company prohibits that because:
> A Hertz spokesperson told the Philadelphia Inquirer in 2020 that the company has no “mechanism” to withdraw reports and does not do so because “In the rare instances this happens, if you report a crime, and you later say it didn’t happen, then law enforcement tends not to believe you if you retract it or say you were mistaken,” the spokesperson said. “Hertz’s continued good relationship with law enforcement is important.” [0]
It seems like there is plenty of intent there. The intent to continue lieing to police to protect Hertz's reputation at severe cost to Hertz's victims.
[0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2022/04/11/hertz-stolen...
> A Hertz spokesperson told the Philadelphia Inquirer in 2020 that the company has no “mechanism” to withdraw reports and does not do so because “In the rare instances this happens, if you report a crime, and you later say it didn’t happen, then law enforcement tends not to believe you if you retract it or say you were mistaken,” the spokesperson said. “Hertz’s continued good relationship with law enforcement is important.” [0]
It seems like there is plenty of intent there. The intent to continue lieing to police to protect Hertz's reputation at severe cost to Hertz's victims.
[0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2022/04/11/hertz-stolen...
I just searched the Philadelphia Inquirer website for that phrase and was unable to find anything. I also searched Google for the phrase, both with and without quotes, and with/without the words “Philadelphia Inquirer,” and I haven’t found the original source.
Are you able to find the source of that quote? It’s so outrageous, and is so not something that a corporate spokesperson would say, that I wonder if it’s somehow been taken out of context. Or if it even happened.
Are you able to find the source of that quote? It’s so outrageous, and is so not something that a corporate spokesperson would say, that I wonder if it’s somehow been taken out of context. Or if it even happened.
I doubt USA Today made that quote up, since it would open them to significant defamation liability. While I can't find an article with that exact quote, this article is from the right time period and does paraphrase a very similar sentiment as coming from Hertz: https://www.inquirer.com/business/retail/hertz-stolen-car-gr...
> Hertz has no mechanism to withdraw a criminal referral because, the company spokesperson said, it has to maintain a relationship of “integrity and responsibility” with law enforcement
> Hertz has no mechanism to withdraw a criminal referral because, the company spokesperson said, it has to maintain a relationship of “integrity and responsibility” with law enforcement
Looks like there was an edit between August 4th and August 6th 2020 on the inquirer article:
Aug 4th: https://web.archive.org/web/20200804074215/https://www.inqui...
Aug 6th: https://web.archive.org/web/20200806004611/https://www.inqui...
The original version of the article did have the fuller quote:
> Hertz has no mechanism to withdraw a criminal referral because, the company spokesperson said, it has to maintain a relationship of “integrity and responsibility” with law enforcement.
> “In the rare instances this happens, if you report a crime, and you later say it didn’t happen, then law enforcement tends not to believe you if you retract it or say you were mistaken,” the spokesperson said. “Hertz’s continued good relationship with law enforcement is important.”
Aug 4th: https://web.archive.org/web/20200804074215/https://www.inqui...
Aug 6th: https://web.archive.org/web/20200806004611/https://www.inqui...
The original version of the article did have the fuller quote:
> Hertz has no mechanism to withdraw a criminal referral because, the company spokesperson said, it has to maintain a relationship of “integrity and responsibility” with law enforcement.
> “In the rare instances this happens, if you report a crime, and you later say it didn’t happen, then law enforcement tends not to believe you if you retract it or say you were mistaken,” the spokesperson said. “Hertz’s continued good relationship with law enforcement is important.”
Interesting. I think that someone at Hertz may have made the original statement without authorization. The original article includes the text:
>"A Hertz spokesperson, who asked not to be identified, said that payments or even the eventual recovery of the car did not wipe away what it views as the original theft."
That is bizarre. I am a reporter; I cover news. The spokespeople of major corporations don't request anonymity. Anonymity is reserved for sensitive sources. It's literally the job of a spokesperson to speak on behalf of a company. They don't seek anonymity.
The second version of the article doesn't include the statement that Hertz's spokesperson requested anonymity. Which makes me think that the original source was either not a spokesperson at all, or that they might have been speaking without authorization.
The comment is still weird, but in the context of that article, Hertz doesn't come across that poorly, IMO. If you rent a car, and the rental company asks that it be returned after your rental period is over, going to the point of calling you multiple times, sending you letters, sending you a letter via Certified Mail, and finally trying to repo the car — all before reporting the car as stolen... well... that's kind of on you when the car is subsequently reported as stolen. Even if you kept paying for it. No? People don't have the right to unilaterally extend their rental period. According to Hertz, in 100% of cases, they did all of the above prior to reporting vehicles as stolen.
>"A Hertz spokesperson, who asked not to be identified, said that payments or even the eventual recovery of the car did not wipe away what it views as the original theft."
That is bizarre. I am a reporter; I cover news. The spokespeople of major corporations don't request anonymity. Anonymity is reserved for sensitive sources. It's literally the job of a spokesperson to speak on behalf of a company. They don't seek anonymity.
The second version of the article doesn't include the statement that Hertz's spokesperson requested anonymity. Which makes me think that the original source was either not a spokesperson at all, or that they might have been speaking without authorization.
The comment is still weird, but in the context of that article, Hertz doesn't come across that poorly, IMO. If you rent a car, and the rental company asks that it be returned after your rental period is over, going to the point of calling you multiple times, sending you letters, sending you a letter via Certified Mail, and finally trying to repo the car — all before reporting the car as stolen... well... that's kind of on you when the car is subsequently reported as stolen. Even if you kept paying for it. No? People don't have the right to unilaterally extend their rental period. According to Hertz, in 100% of cases, they did all of the above prior to reporting vehicles as stolen.
They’re lying:
> Saleema Lovelace, who was arrested at gunpoint two days before the date on which she had agreed to return her rental car to Hertz.
> Connie Totman, who rented a car from Hertz in South Carolina and returned the car in Georgia. Hertz subsequently overcharged Ms. Totman in error and falsely reported the vehicle as stolen to South Carolina police.
In the latter case they reported the car as stolen after it had already been returned! The mind boggles.
> Saleema Lovelace, who was arrested at gunpoint two days before the date on which she had agreed to return her rental car to Hertz.
> Connie Totman, who rented a car from Hertz in South Carolina and returned the car in Georgia. Hertz subsequently overcharged Ms. Totman in error and falsely reported the vehicle as stolen to South Carolina police.
In the latter case they reported the car as stolen after it had already been returned! The mind boggles.
In the latter case they reported the car as stolen after it had already been returned!
Don't worry, that happens. Hertz will not hesitate to call you, saying that the credit card used for the rental has been maxed out, and could you supply a different credit card.
Always keep your receipts.
Don't worry, that happens. Hertz will not hesitate to call you, saying that the credit card used for the rental has been maxed out, and could you supply a different credit card.
Always keep your receipts.
> I was wrongly given to the police of my country, and it took 5 minutes to clear me and nothing happened.
That's great that worked well for you, but in America, I don't have enough faith in cops for that to work out.
The prevailing attitude is that cops have to be "tough on crime", and if some false positives end up happening and an innocent person goes to jail for a few days until their name gets cleared, that's fine. In the mean time, they'll try to find SOMETHING to charge them with.
Land of the free, indeed.
That's great that worked well for you, but in America, I don't have enough faith in cops for that to work out.
The prevailing attitude is that cops have to be "tough on crime", and if some false positives end up happening and an innocent person goes to jail for a few days until their name gets cleared, that's fine. In the mean time, they'll try to find SOMETHING to charge them with.
Land of the free, indeed.
Yes, there should be legal consequences for the officers involved as well. Blame is not zero sum.
That's an assertion of belief, not a statement of fact. It's plainly visible that current policies have led to a rash of false police reports (the 168 MUSD judgement is more than sufficient proof), and there is no need why society should put up with the carelessness of Hertz. The problem is pervasive enough to go beyond isolated cases (after all they were slapped with an 8-digit civil fine). Civil law deals with damages to individuals, and criminal law sets expectations for society to prevent trouble. Hertz's incompetence has reached criminal levels, and anyone who rolls out intent as a defense needs to examine himself it that's desirable.
(Speeders, drunk drivers and violently abusive parents rarely intend to kill people but we still have laws on the books to treat such cases adequately.)
(Speeders, drunk drivers and violently abusive parents rarely intend to kill people but we still have laws on the books to treat such cases adequately.)
> the 168 MUSD judgement is more than sufficient proof
This is a settlement, not a judgement.
This is a settlement, not a judgement.
[deleted]
People should also be punished for gross negligence. Hertz filed hundreds of false police reports. After the first few, they should have updated their system. The fact that they allowed the continual filing of false police reports is a willful disregard for the safety of others.
What you're describing is "culpability" and it most certainly does get considered separately from intent (mea culpa vs mens rea). Not knowing whether or not you were within the boundaries of the law is only an excuse when you reasonably couldn't have ever known, with no opportunity for due diligence. Bureaucracy is not ever going to be a legitimate excuse for not knowing if you were acting within the law, because chances are that you could have verified so with any amount of effort.
Once we rented a vehicle from them with a flat tire. Also, it had been electronically limited so that it could not drive at freeway speeds.
When I called customer support to deal with the issue, they hung up on me three times. (Typical conversation:
- Sit on hold for 15-45 minutes
- Hello, can I have your rental number?
- 12345-XYZ
- <click>
I told the fourth person I'd be issuing a chargeback and dumping the vehicle in front of the locked gate of their parking lot if they also hung up. They directed us to a location that couldn't accept the vehicle.
We ended up paying for one day rental or something, but at least I didn't go to jail.
As other commenters said, multiple people (probably management, execs) at Hertz should be serving time in federal prison.
When I called customer support to deal with the issue, they hung up on me three times. (Typical conversation:
- Sit on hold for 15-45 minutes
- Hello, can I have your rental number?
- 12345-XYZ
- <click>
I told the fourth person I'd be issuing a chargeback and dumping the vehicle in front of the locked gate of their parking lot if they also hung up. They directed us to a location that couldn't accept the vehicle.
We ended up paying for one day rental or something, but at least I didn't go to jail.
As other commenters said, multiple people (probably management, execs) at Hertz should be serving time in federal prison.
Once I rented a Hertz car. A couple hundred miles from where I picked it up, the transmission died. I could only drive in first gear. After spending over an hour trying to get through, the person on the phone actually tried to get me to drive it back - 200 miles, in first gear, on freeways, at my expense.
I finally got it towed because I said I'd just be forced to abandon it.
I finally got it towed because I said I'd just be forced to abandon it.
From the article:
In its release, Hertz says they believe “a meaningful portion of the settlement” will be covered by insurance so ‘no big deal’ to them what they did to customers, at least for investors. Meanwhile their CEO shrugs in an included statement saying they “will not always be perfect.”
In its release, Hertz says they believe “a meaningful portion of the settlement” will be covered by insurance so ‘no big deal’ to them what they did to customers, at least for investors. Meanwhile their CEO shrugs in an included statement saying they “will not always be perfect.”
i hope the insurance company takes a look in the documents and tells Hertz to go f** themselfs...
No way that the insurance company would cover negliance and fraud...
No way that the insurance company would cover negliance and fraud...
What does that change? The company paying a fine is still the shareholders or (most likely) the customers paying a fine.
I don't think insurance should apply in criminal behavior.
Atlanta Black Star has a nice writeup including some of the more egregious examples. One of the criminal cases didn't even get dismissed despite public statements that it would be, apparently it was finally dismissed when it went to trial in October.
https://atlantablackstar.com/2022/12/04/hertz-false-stolen-c...
https://atlantablackstar.com/2022/12/04/hertz-false-stolen-c...
A long time ago I was in a relationship where my SO took my car and refused to give it back. I called the police to report it stolen and they said that since I had lent the car to her in the past, this was a case of someone not abiding by an agreement, and it was a civil matter and I would need to retrieve the car or a PI would. This was California, so other states probably have different laws, but I would have to think for a major corporation this should be in civil court first.
The police gave you bad information.
California law does not have any sort of "prior use" exception to theft laws. Letting someone use a car in the past does not give them cart blanche to borrow it again without permission in the future.
You ex stole your car. If they police did not do anything, the proper response would be to take your complaint of inaction to Internal Affairs or your local elected representative. And then to take the car back yourself, or to hire a PI to retrieve the car or a lawyer to issue a demand letter for the return of the car.
California law does not have any sort of "prior use" exception to theft laws. Letting someone use a car in the past does not give them cart blanche to borrow it again without permission in the future.
You ex stole your car. If they police did not do anything, the proper response would be to take your complaint of inaction to Internal Affairs or your local elected representative. And then to take the car back yourself, or to hire a PI to retrieve the car or a lawyer to issue a demand letter for the return of the car.
If you know where your stolen property is your best way to get it back is to let the police know you're on your way to get it back. They tend to react to that because while they DGAF about stolen property they really don't like what it would look like if "serious violence" ensued from them not acting.
California even has a special "taken without consent" (i.e. joyriding) law for cars where you don't even have to prove the "permanently deprive" part that proving theft normally entails.
I think your story carries an unspoken assumption that the police understood and/or cared about the law. I wouldn't be too sure that's the case.
This is so awful it's hard to even believe. It does feel like there needs to be some threat of a company being completely dissolved in cases like this or Equifax or other problems this big that the organization has shown no interest in stopping
at what point is the punishment worse than the crime, such as if hundreds or thousands of people lose their job?
This is dumb. If Hertz closes down, other car rental companies will take up the demand, and Hertz employees will apply for jobs at those companies.
edit: and if people aren't punished at Hertz, those other car rental companies will see that the money to be made through bad behavior more than makes up for the costs if caught.
edit: and if people aren't punished at Hertz, those other car rental companies will see that the money to be made through bad behavior more than makes up for the costs if caught.
Amount of people employed should not factor in to decisions like this. Otherwise the government should prevent Amazon from laying off 20,000 if that's all that matters.
Consequentialist arguments aren't very good for punishing actors for bad behavior. For example, we don't let murders free just because the lives of their children are forever impacted if the murder goes to prison.
is it not an argument against capital punishment?
Let's compare this to China where 2 executives were sentenced to death (and others to life sentences) for their role in selling tainted formula (resulting in infant deaths) and concealing it [1] or Jack Ma (of Alibaba) who just disappeared for 3 months [2].
It should be a legal requirement that a human review and sign off on any complaint about a stolen car to police. That personal (and company) should be held criminally liable for making false police reports in addition to any civil damages (including significant punitive damages) they should pay.
[1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna28787126
[2]: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56448688
It should be a legal requirement that a human review and sign off on any complaint about a stolen car to police. That personal (and company) should be held criminally liable for making false police reports in addition to any civil damages (including significant punitive damages) they should pay.
[1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna28787126
[2]: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56448688
Trading a set of small villains which sometimes get (insufficiently) punished for one super-powerful supervillain which never gets punished for anything doesn't look like a good deal to me. Yes, Darth Vader used to choke his underlings who misbehaved, it doesn't exactly make him a good guy.
The "set of small villains" is in fact basically every CEO and major shareholder. Corporate power is almost completely unchecked and both parties are completely owned by these corporations.
$1000 insulin only exists because the government has been bought and paid for to create a legal monopoly. This is state violence against people who need life-saving medication.
$1000 insulin only exists because the government has been bought and paid for to create a legal monopoly. This is state violence against people who need life-saving medication.
We still haven't sent either Trump or Clinton (either) to jail. How do we not already have the supervillain system? Some of Trump's admin genuinely believe that the president should be above the law, and other's in the republican party agree
"Boo outgroup" partisan fluff aside, nobody actually genuinely believes that. And the powers of US president, while great, are nowhere near the dictatorial powers of Chinese Communist Party and its General Secretary. It doesn't mean US federal government isn't grotesquely overpowered (it is) or partisans don't abuse legal and regulatory system for partisan purposes (they regularly and routinely do) - but it's not nearly close to the system China has where anybody who crosses the Party will be murdered or imprisoned or pushed outside of the country without any recourse. We do have some elements of these system, but on that road, we are still way behind China - and maybe we have time to turn back, if we wanted to.
Are you really using China as an example of how this is handled well? From your own source:
>Ahead of this, Ma addressed an assembly of high-profile figures with a controversial speech that criticised the Chinese financial system. He was not seen in public again until late January. In the interim, there were rumours that he might have been placed under house arrest or otherwise detained. Some even questioned if he was still alive.
>Ahead of this, Ma addressed an assembly of high-profile figures with a controversial speech that criticised the Chinese financial system. He was not seen in public again until late January. In the interim, there were rumours that he might have been placed under house arrest or otherwise detained. Some even questioned if he was still alive.
The lesson I would like people to take from China is that government is the only thing that can rein in corporate power. This is one reason (of many) why I either laugh or just roll my eyes at libertarians.
Obviously there are aspects of China you don't want to emulate (eg the ethnic cleansing).
Obviously there are aspects of China you don't want to emulate (eg the ethnic cleansing).
What does anything in this thread have to do with "corporate power?" It's the cops who put these people in jail and you have exactly the same power as Hertz to file false police reports.
Paying fine doesn't seem enough.
Someone needs to go to jail.
Someone needs to go to jail.
I hate this ridiculously unfair double standard. If someone costs a company money, we ruin their life. If a company ruins someone's life, we charge the company money.
If a cashier at a fast food restaurant takes $30 from the register, they go to jail. If a company steals millions from their workers paychecks, we slap them with a tiny fine.
If a cashier at a fast food restaurant takes $30 from the register, they go to jail. If a company steals millions from their workers paychecks, we slap them with a tiny fine.
In my opinion, which may be unpopular, a CEO who earns many times more than a regular employee should ensure that there are policies in place that prevent a regular employee or the "system" ruining a customers life. They should be held individually responsible if it can be proved in court that they ignored the issues.
Should the president of the USA be held responsible for some department of the US government ruining a citizen's life (which happens all the time)? What about a state governor, should they be responsible for all the state's agencies? How about a mayor whose police force or other department acts poorly?
I can't tell if this is sarcasm, so I will answer without sarcasm:
Yes, they should be held responsible (for some value of "responsible"). It is ultimately their responsibility, which goes along with the power they wield. It's what they signed up for. And this doesn't absolve the people who directly caused the issue. You want leadership to focus on ensuring that their delegates are competent and not corrupt.
There are some shades of gray here, of course. In the US, these leadership positions don't have absolute power. It isn't necessarily their *fault*. But it is absolutely their *responsibility*.
Yes, they should be held responsible (for some value of "responsible"). It is ultimately their responsibility, which goes along with the power they wield. It's what they signed up for. And this doesn't absolve the people who directly caused the issue. You want leadership to focus on ensuring that their delegates are competent and not corrupt.
There are some shades of gray here, of course. In the US, these leadership positions don't have absolute power. It isn't necessarily their *fault*. But it is absolutely their *responsibility*.
Yes and no. Responsibility should be held accountable to the level that it should. Would I paint a broad brush and say specifically the CEO? No. Sometimes the really bad decision happens at a departmental level or maybe it is the CTO and it never got to the CEO, the accountability needs to be there. When it is because of the CEO, then yes. The same rather happens in government. Government employees loose their job or can be removed from positions. In some cases, those government employees have gone to jail.
The only reason why we haven't had a president go to jail for crimes committed, at least for one congress has pursued is that the Presidents who were for sure to be removed (Nixon), resigned and was pardoned.
The only reason why we haven't had a president go to jail for crimes committed, at least for one congress has pursued is that the Presidents who were for sure to be removed (Nixon), resigned and was pardoned.
If the president of the United States is knowingly making a profit from the actions of a government employee and they do not interfer, then yes they should go to jail. The line is murkier when someone is just doing a bad job, but if someone is knowingly making money from illegal behavior they can easily put a stop to they should go to prison.
> If the president of the United States is knowingly making a profit from the actions of a government employee and they do not interfer, then yes they should go to jail.
This would be a great argument for abolishing the IRS.
This would be a great argument for abolishing the IRS.
No it isn't. Taxes don't go into the president's pocket.
Of course they should. If a cop makes a dumb move and the city gets sued then mayor should not be held accountable. However, if the mayor ignores police corruption, then I would love them to serve a prison sentence. They have the power, they must use it.
President should be responsible for things he can change, in US a president doesn't really have power to change everything as there are other parts of the government which are involved in decision making.
Any person in a position of power who can CHANGE policies or remove people and doesn't do so, which leads to further incidents and corruption that affect the population should be held accountable.
This will never happen, as powerful people don't want this.
President should be responsible for things he can change, in US a president doesn't really have power to change everything as there are other parts of the government which are involved in decision making.
Any person in a position of power who can CHANGE policies or remove people and doesn't do so, which leads to further incidents and corruption that affect the population should be held accountable.
This will never happen, as powerful people don't want this.
Until we can get money out of politics nothing will change.
What is double standard? Who do you want to put in jail for this: front line employee? legal guy? finance guy? CEO? or all of them? Or is it just like "Some one need to go to jail, I just don't know or care who that will be and I do not have time for that"
So as per example your example the guy who filed the report be sent to jail even though he was following company policy, though in this case made a mistake. How it compares to cash register guy who was clearly stealing.
So as per example your example the guy who filed the report be sent to jail even though he was following company policy, though in this case made a mistake. How it compares to cash register guy who was clearly stealing.
They continued the practice after it was reported in the newspaper. It's reasonable to assume senior mgmt discussed major negative coverage of their company. That means the practice continued after senior mgmt was aware of it. That makes it their responsibility.
What should they have done instead? First, inform every employee of a new temporary policy that any report to the police about a customer purely about the theft of a car the customer had rented now has to be approved by a senior lawyer. Second, figure out the scope of the problem and how to fix it. Third, replace that unpleasant temporary policy with something more tailored once you understand what went wrong.
What should they have done instead? First, inform every employee of a new temporary policy that any report to the police about a customer purely about the theft of a car the customer had rented now has to be approved by a senior lawyer. Second, figure out the scope of the problem and how to fix it. Third, replace that unpleasant temporary policy with something more tailored once you understand what went wrong.
There's likely a paper trail of various people talking about this policy and what to do about it. Based on that, directly fine or imprison the people responsible for decisions about the policy that lead to people being falsely imprisoned. It's really not that hard.
It's ridiculous that corporations can always absolve themselves and their executives of responsibility because "well, who would we punish" or equally spurious arguments.
It's ridiculous that corporations can always absolve themselves and their executives of responsibility because "well, who would we punish" or equally spurious arguments.
How about the person responsible for instituting this policy along with anyone who approved it?
>"Who do you want to put in jail for this" - persons who allowed to put people in jail based on unconfirmed report. If I as a person go and complain to police that corporation stole money from me they would not just go and arrest the board / CEO.
Precisely. Nothing happens until the individuals responsible pay a penalty. If an exec knowingly, or through negligence, causes a person to be arrested, that person needs to pay up personally. If they did it to protect their own position, then jail time is appropriate. Falsely reporting a crime is a crime.
Qualified immunity makes some sort of sense for actual cops, perhaps, but makes absolutely ZERO sense for a corporation and its executives.
Should be on the CEO's head unless they can prove it was someone's malicious action without their knowledge. At least that would partially exclude the ridiculous compensation
Just to be clear, corporations and executives do not get qualified immunity. They just get to pay with someone else's money (insurance, or shareholders) instead of their own.
I don't know why judges don't insist on jail time for someone in these situations. It might not make sense for a mistake that happened once, but after they knew it was happening and didn't fix their systems, the behavior was knowingly reckless.
I don't know why judges don't insist on jail time for someone in these situations. It might not make sense for a mistake that happened once, but after they knew it was happening and didn't fix their systems, the behavior was knowingly reckless.
They get an effective form of “qualified immunity” even if it’s not codified.
Any individual doing what Hertz is doing would be facing prison time.
Any individual doing what Hertz is doing would be facing prison time.
Dissolution of the company's charter.
You fuck up someone's life bad enough and often enough, you just don't get to be a company anymore.
You fuck up someone's life bad enough and often enough, you just don't get to be a company anymore.
Maybe there's a way to trick them into renting a Hertz car...
> pending 30 days in jail, where she suffered a miscarriage.
Ok this is horrific, and Hertz should be ashamed of their behavior. Now, we dont have any proof the arrest or jail time caused the miscarriage, but to the extent we believe it did, can we also talk for a minute about why our executive branch/jail system is so hard on people (of both sexes btw) such that physiological distress occurs such as miscarriages or suicides?
It's completely unnecessary, I'd dare say detrimental, to getting rehabilitated.
Ok this is horrific, and Hertz should be ashamed of their behavior. Now, we dont have any proof the arrest or jail time caused the miscarriage, but to the extent we believe it did, can we also talk for a minute about why our executive branch/jail system is so hard on people (of both sexes btw) such that physiological distress occurs such as miscarriages or suicides?
It's completely unnecessary, I'd dare say detrimental, to getting rehabilitated.
Because the police for a hundred years have cultivated a culture of horrific abuse of power, and if you bring it up, half the country calls you a radical.
Some people, whether they notice or not, prefer a world where "others" suffer.
Some people, whether they notice or not, prefer a world where "others" suffer.
> prefer a world where "others" suffer.
I did notice this aspect of American mentality. Somehow the culture here really seems to feel that retributive justice is justice served.
I did notice this aspect of American mentality. Somehow the culture here really seems to feel that retributive justice is justice served.
On one hand, I admire the US system where a class lawsuit can punish even the largest corporations, like here.
On the other hand, I am terrified to travel there fearing something like this will happen and I will rot in jail for some Kafkaesque mistake.
On the other hand, I am terrified to travel there fearing something like this will happen and I will rot in jail for some Kafkaesque mistake.
Issues like this is why I now have high status with Enterprise/National and I will never again use Hertz. I don't care how much I get discounted, Hertz is not worth dealing with. Their entire business seems to be constructed on financial trickery and malfeasance with a side effect of sometimes renting a car to someone. They should have been fully liquidated during their earlier bankruptcy rather than allowed to continue operating, and I look forward to the day their corporate charter is revoked.
I travel a LOT, and there are very few businesses in that industry I hate, Hertz is one of them. My only times using Hertz have all ended in disaster.
I travel a LOT, and there are very few businesses in that industry I hate, Hertz is one of them. My only times using Hertz have all ended in disaster.
Really?
Hertz HAS $168M?
> 364 claims
while this is indeed 364 too many, this number is still absolutely tiny. there is going to be lots of confirmation bias in this thread -- of bad interactions. whereas the very very large majority of customers are probably happy with hertz. i always have been.
don't get me wrong, someone at hertz should go to jail for this. but your chances of being one of those 364 seems absolutely tiny doesn't it? they must do a billion rentals a year.
while this is indeed 364 too many, this number is still absolutely tiny. there is going to be lots of confirmation bias in this thread -- of bad interactions. whereas the very very large majority of customers are probably happy with hertz. i always have been.
don't get me wrong, someone at hertz should go to jail for this. but your chances of being one of those 364 seems absolutely tiny doesn't it? they must do a billion rentals a year.
>an average of just over $460,000 per customer.
Says a lot about law enforcement practices when being wrongly accused by them is considered so terrible, that compensation is 10 years of average income in the country.
Says a lot about law enforcement practices when being wrongly accused by them is considered so terrible, that compensation is 10 years of average income in the country.
The US is capitalism-porn come true.
This means I'm driving a rental car for 100+ days a year.
I've tried all the major rental brands and Hertz is a terrible experience even when they're not calling the police on you by mistake. Their systems don't work quite right, there's a bunch of hidden fees, and their customer service is lacking at best.
I swear by Enterprise and purchasing the extra insurance to cover any damages. They've done right by me as a customer across many different cities and locations.
I know that some people are always going to just buy whatever is the cheapest or whatever deal gets them the most points with credit card or whatever. And that seems to be where Hertz makes their money.
But for anyone willing to pay a little more for a good experience and less stress Enterprise is my recommendation.