French executives convicted in the suicides of 35 of their workers(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
French executives convicted in the suicides of 35 of their workers
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/12/20/three-french-executives-were-convicted-suicides-their-workers/
119 comments
I very vaguely remember a story, (though I can't remember which company, but since it's probably corporate propaganda that's fine anyway).
The story goes that you have a company with lots of industrial manufacturing facilities distributed across the country. In one of them there is an accident which leads to the death of workers.
As soon as possible, the big boss at the main office orders the plant manager to fly over and when the manager enters the office, the boss asks "Why did you kill these men?" The manager is flusters and protests they did everything they could, was not to blame, etc. etc.
I don't know if the manager was fired or demoted, but if he wasn't that sends a message through the organization that you can fk up or be negligent and still keep your job.
Anyway, the point is that all of this is a top down corporate culture problem. If the highest level doesn't understand that they are responsible for this, and if they don't enforce a culture of responsibility all the way down the line, then you will get outcomes like at France Télécom or much worse a culture like at Union Carbide that lead to the Bhopal disaster.
Looking at the Bhopal disaster I guess you could say it's also an external accountability problem. If there's not some external entity like a government to hold the company and executives liable, or an insurance company that makes them pay through the nose if they are negligent, then the quarterly earnings cycle will lead to increased risk for employees.
Insurance premiums are perhaps a more practical way to set the right incentives, as they give much more immediate feedback than intermittent disasters. If executives can point to safety measures they have taken and the reduction in premiums that were enabled by that, then perhaps even the most narrow-mindedly short term profit seeking execs/board members/shareholders will do what is right for the safety of employees.
The story goes that you have a company with lots of industrial manufacturing facilities distributed across the country. In one of them there is an accident which leads to the death of workers.
As soon as possible, the big boss at the main office orders the plant manager to fly over and when the manager enters the office, the boss asks "Why did you kill these men?" The manager is flusters and protests they did everything they could, was not to blame, etc. etc.
I don't know if the manager was fired or demoted, but if he wasn't that sends a message through the organization that you can fk up or be negligent and still keep your job.
Anyway, the point is that all of this is a top down corporate culture problem. If the highest level doesn't understand that they are responsible for this, and if they don't enforce a culture of responsibility all the way down the line, then you will get outcomes like at France Télécom or much worse a culture like at Union Carbide that lead to the Bhopal disaster.
Looking at the Bhopal disaster I guess you could say it's also an external accountability problem. If there's not some external entity like a government to hold the company and executives liable, or an insurance company that makes them pay through the nose if they are negligent, then the quarterly earnings cycle will lead to increased risk for employees.
Insurance premiums are perhaps a more practical way to set the right incentives, as they give much more immediate feedback than intermittent disasters. If executives can point to safety measures they have taken and the reduction in premiums that were enabled by that, then perhaps even the most narrow-mindedly short term profit seeking execs/board members/shareholders will do what is right for the safety of employees.
Sounds like you're thinking of Paul O'Neill and Alcoa. He figured out that worker safety was a proxy for a whole bunch of other metrics at Alcoa.
He had everyone focus intensely on safety. Worker accidents went down massively. As a byproduct, costs went down and productivity went up.
Any serious incident has to be reported up, was investigated, and was treated very seriously.
Note that while this likely generalizes to other places, it doesn't necessarily generalize to every place. I could conceive of some setups where safety and profits were opposed. But in Alcoa's case, O'Neill was able to use safety as a driver for other changes.
He had everyone focus intensely on safety. Worker accidents went down massively. As a byproduct, costs went down and productivity went up.
Any serious incident has to be reported up, was investigated, and was treated very seriously.
Note that while this likely generalizes to other places, it doesn't necessarily generalize to every place. I could conceive of some setups where safety and profits were opposed. But in Alcoa's case, O'Neill was able to use safety as a driver for other changes.
You don’t need to even go that far.
One place I did a little work for had some safety culture problems in the field services teams, especially with digging equipment. The culture was very focused on grilling the employees in why they screwed up. New management came in and basically made the foremen and managers do a bunch of postmortem reviews and made them generally uncomfortable by making them accountable. Incidents went down dramatically, eventually going to near-zero after about 3 years.
In a more white collar setting, imo these issues are about people who rule by fear, either because that is how they are managed, or because they lack the competence to work any other way.
One place I did a little work for had some safety culture problems in the field services teams, especially with digging equipment. The culture was very focused on grilling the employees in why they screwed up. New management came in and basically made the foremen and managers do a bunch of postmortem reviews and made them generally uncomfortable by making them accountable. Incidents went down dramatically, eventually going to near-zero after about 3 years.
In a more white collar setting, imo these issues are about people who rule by fear, either because that is how they are managed, or because they lack the competence to work any other way.
They were not prosecuted for the suicides themselves, which the judge considered to have multiple causes. They were only prosecuted for institutional harassment.
What is 'crazy pills; is that any reasonable person would hold them accountable for this.
This is populist lynching.
First - the rate of suicides at Orange during this time were pretty much on par with suicide rates in France overall. Orange has 100K employees, and there are going to be suicides every year.
It's a huge misrepresentation to talk about a 'rash of suicides' that's just about the statistical norm.
Second - having lived and worked in France, I can assure you that workplaces are generally not toxic nearly to the degree that you see in the USA. The hours are short, and vacations are long.
In France employees literally kidnap managers by blockading them in their offices with furniture during union negotiations.
Third - is the degree to which negative work conditions actually affect life outcomes. So it's clear there were several policies in place that were not very nice - but this happens all the time in the world. An 'easier' route would have been for Orange to simply have done a big layoff.
If a factory closes and employees are laid off, does the business then become responsible if people kill themselves over it? No.
What needs to happen here is an investigation into what actually happened, to try to fix the issues in a reasonable way.
Instead - we got a kangaroo court.
French workers and management have been in a really tense standoff now for a couple of decades (well, leftover from a few hundred years ago) and it's not going well.
I literally live in an are of Montreal where tons of young, educated people are moving because the French system in their words is 'breaking down'. Few people believe in the work, it's very risky to hire people because they can't be let go, taxes are insanely high (>50% income tax after a 24% employment tax), systematically high levels of inequality and a serious problem with integration of new migrants that has little parallel in North America.
This was a political answer to a problem that needs real solutions.
This is populist lynching.
First - the rate of suicides at Orange during this time were pretty much on par with suicide rates in France overall. Orange has 100K employees, and there are going to be suicides every year.
It's a huge misrepresentation to talk about a 'rash of suicides' that's just about the statistical norm.
Second - having lived and worked in France, I can assure you that workplaces are generally not toxic nearly to the degree that you see in the USA. The hours are short, and vacations are long.
In France employees literally kidnap managers by blockading them in their offices with furniture during union negotiations.
Third - is the degree to which negative work conditions actually affect life outcomes. So it's clear there were several policies in place that were not very nice - but this happens all the time in the world. An 'easier' route would have been for Orange to simply have done a big layoff.
If a factory closes and employees are laid off, does the business then become responsible if people kill themselves over it? No.
What needs to happen here is an investigation into what actually happened, to try to fix the issues in a reasonable way.
Instead - we got a kangaroo court.
French workers and management have been in a really tense standoff now for a couple of decades (well, leftover from a few hundred years ago) and it's not going well.
I literally live in an are of Montreal where tons of young, educated people are moving because the French system in their words is 'breaking down'. Few people believe in the work, it's very risky to hire people because they can't be let go, taxes are insanely high (>50% income tax after a 24% employment tax), systematically high levels of inequality and a serious problem with integration of new migrants that has little parallel in North America.
This was a political answer to a problem that needs real solutions.
> Third - is the degree to which negative work conditions actually affect life outcomes. So it's clear there were several policies in place that were not very nice - but this happens all the time in the world. An 'easier' route would have been for Orange to simply have done a big layoff.
> If a factory closes and employees are laid off, does the business then become responsible if people kill themselves over it? No.
A common (mis)management technique used in France is called "placardisation" (literally "put someone in the closet"). Rather than laying off people, drive them to nervous breakdown and ensure that they quit. I've survived this once and I can tell you that it's not pretty. That's the kind of practice that was being tried.
(I've written something a bit more detailed in another comment on this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21856307 )
> Instead - we got a kangaroo court.
The investigation lasted years. What makes you claim that it's a kangaroo court?
> If a factory closes and employees are laid off, does the business then become responsible if people kill themselves over it? No.
A common (mis)management technique used in France is called "placardisation" (literally "put someone in the closet"). Rather than laying off people, drive them to nervous breakdown and ensure that they quit. I've survived this once and I can tell you that it's not pretty. That's the kind of practice that was being tried.
(I've written something a bit more detailed in another comment on this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21856307 )
> Instead - we got a kangaroo court.
The investigation lasted years. What makes you claim that it's a kangaroo court?
"Placardisation" is totally a thing. Contrary to anglo-saxon culture, to this day, failure is not an option for French management. And having to fire someone is failure. So the alternative is often harrasment.
Note that `placardisation` (lmao) is not only a French thing, but is a Northeast Asia thing as well.
It's also an American thing even though they don't have a word for it. It was even referenced in the Silicon Valley Season 1, where Bighetti is "sent to the roof" to do nothing, because the CEO does not believe in firing people.
Very much an American thing. During the first dotcom bubble the company who bought mine turned out to have a habit of getting rid of CTOs who had golden parachutes by ordering other employees to not talk to them and giving them a supposedly nice office on an unfinished, empty floor of a skyscraper where all the lights outside their office were disconnected. One held out long enough to launch his new startup and I was pretty impressed that he put it together in semi-squat conditions while being shunned. When it comes to cheating people on contracts there are a lot of determined, creative people in management and on boards.
I’ve heard it referred to as “getting managed out.”
Involuntary resting and vesting
Interesting, I didn't know that.
Does this reach the point where the practice has a "cute" name over there, too?
Does this reach the point where the practice has a "cute" name over there, too?
Isn’t it the same thing as mobbing? Extreme mobbing
You have this problem of exiling people in-place because the labor regulations make it absurdly difficult to fire people. You see the same thing in school department "rubber rooms" or union shops that tell the useless guys to go count bolts and stay out of the way.
It's better for everyone if you can just shitcan people when things aren't working out.
It's better for everyone if you can just shitcan people when things aren't working out.
Well, this would make (some) sense if actually firing someone was nigh-impossible. But in France, it's actually not that hard. You just have to explicitly tell them why, fill a few forms and pay the severance package.
> taxes are insanely high (>50% income tax after a 24% employment tax)
This is a lie. The top bracket is at 45% above €156.244. This means it is mathematically impossible to pay more than 45% in income taxes, let alone more than 50%.
> systematically high levels of inequality
Yes, there is, but France has a lower Gini index than Canada, so hearing that criticism coming from expats to that country is a bit hypocritical.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...
This is a lie. The top bracket is at 45% above €156.244. This means it is mathematically impossible to pay more than 45% in income taxes, let alone more than 50%.
> systematically high levels of inequality
Yes, there is, but France has a lower Gini index than Canada, so hearing that criticism coming from expats to that country is a bit hypocritical.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...
Canada is a considerably more opportunistic country than France in every way. I love French culture and they make many things, but for people looking to get ahead, especially migrants, there is no comparison.
Your rebuttals don't help: a 45% max tax (instead of 50%) + ~25% payroll tax + 20% VAT is really quite a hostile.
The difference in GINI between Canada and France is really quite small, unfortunately, there's nothing to be proud of when 'everyone is at the same level of poverty'.
The culture is boring in Canada, but almost 'everything works' well - civil government, low levels of corruption etc..
My brother is essentially 'working class' and he and his wife live a nice, big new home (that they can afford), they have every material pleasure one could imagine, an impossible achievement in most of France.
I still love France but it's not a fully functional state.
Your rebuttals don't help: a 45% max tax (instead of 50%) + ~25% payroll tax + 20% VAT is really quite a hostile.
The difference in GINI between Canada and France is really quite small, unfortunately, there's nothing to be proud of when 'everyone is at the same level of poverty'.
The culture is boring in Canada, but almost 'everything works' well - civil government, low levels of corruption etc..
My brother is essentially 'working class' and he and his wife live a nice, big new home (that they can afford), they have every material pleasure one could imagine, an impossible achievement in most of France.
I still love France but it's not a fully functional state.
You’re only talking about the “income tax” (IR), leaving out the CSG, a flat tax on income, and the various social contributions, which are based on labour income. The CSG brings more money to the Government than the IR, anyway.
> This is populist lynching.
How so? It seems to have been an orderly trial.
> First - the rate of suicides at Orange during this time were pretty much on par with suicide rates in France overall. Orange has 100K employees, and there are going to be suicides every year.
One could argue with this characterization that Lombard himself made all the time. But at any rate, they weren't prosecuted for the suicides, only for institutional harassment.
> An 'easier' route would have been for Orange to simply have done a big layoff.
This is indeed what Orange did in every other country but France. You can look up what happened in Poland to TPSA for example, and it took place everywhere else.
Orange was not able to do layoffs in France because of statutory employment guarantees provided to much of the civil servant workforce.
One can certainly disagree with such a policy — it is nuts to guarantee jobs for life in an industry where the jobs 10 years from now are completely different from the jobs to do now — but it is another thing to use a disagreement with this policy in order to justify rolling out harassment techniques as a way to downsize. It's like faulting the employees for taking a good deal decades ago — the government didn't have to offer the deal back then.
There have to be limits to management's ability to instill a climate of fear, as the consequences are real (not talking specifically about the suicides here, as the policy had many other negative outcomes).
How so? It seems to have been an orderly trial.
> First - the rate of suicides at Orange during this time were pretty much on par with suicide rates in France overall. Orange has 100K employees, and there are going to be suicides every year.
One could argue with this characterization that Lombard himself made all the time. But at any rate, they weren't prosecuted for the suicides, only for institutional harassment.
> An 'easier' route would have been for Orange to simply have done a big layoff.
This is indeed what Orange did in every other country but France. You can look up what happened in Poland to TPSA for example, and it took place everywhere else.
Orange was not able to do layoffs in France because of statutory employment guarantees provided to much of the civil servant workforce.
One can certainly disagree with such a policy — it is nuts to guarantee jobs for life in an industry where the jobs 10 years from now are completely different from the jobs to do now — but it is another thing to use a disagreement with this policy in order to justify rolling out harassment techniques as a way to downsize. It's like faulting the employees for taking a good deal decades ago — the government didn't have to offer the deal back then.
There have to be limits to management's ability to instill a climate of fear, as the consequences are real (not talking specifically about the suicides here, as the policy had many other negative outcomes).
> One can certainly disagree with such a policy — it is nuts to guarantee jobs for life in an industry where the jobs 10 years from now are completely different from the jobs to do now — but it is another thing to use a disagreement with this policy in order to justify rolling out harassment techniques as a way to downsize. It's like faulting the employees for taking a good deal decades ago — the government didn't have to offer the deal back then.
I like the way you phrase it.
I like the way you phrase it.
"How so? It seems to have been an orderly trial."
Because you can't blame employers for the personal actions of employees.
It's political because there was a narrative created in France that 'Orange is an evil place that drove this to happen' and people wanted to see supposed 'accountability'.
The trial is red meat to appease the plebes.
The unemployment rate in France is 8.5%, whereas in the US and Canada, it's less than 1/2 that, in Germany it's 3.1% (!).
The laws there to supposedly protect French workers form layoffs are clearly not working and are probably having the opposite effect.
Because you can't blame employers for the personal actions of employees.
It's political because there was a narrative created in France that 'Orange is an evil place that drove this to happen' and people wanted to see supposed 'accountability'.
The trial is red meat to appease the plebes.
The unemployment rate in France is 8.5%, whereas in the US and Canada, it's less than 1/2 that, in Germany it's 3.1% (!).
The laws there to supposedly protect French workers form layoffs are clearly not working and are probably having the opposite effect.
You keep bringing up something I agree with, regarding the counterproductive effect of labor protection laws. I just don't see how that excuses the lawlessness of management's actions.
> Because you can't blame employers for the personal actions of employees.
I'm unsure what you're referring to, but that's untrue, thankfully. If managers direct their employees to perform illegal actions, they too can be held liable. Nothing so brazen here, but willfully turning a blind eye to, or rewarding middle managers applying severely distressing psychological pressure (meaningless assignments, etc) is something that they chose to do way past the warning signs. I also don't think the sanction is disproportionate, nobody goes to jail, and the fine is modest. But I wouldn't put the square quotes around accountability.
> Because you can't blame employers for the personal actions of employees.
I'm unsure what you're referring to, but that's untrue, thankfully. If managers direct their employees to perform illegal actions, they too can be held liable. Nothing so brazen here, but willfully turning a blind eye to, or rewarding middle managers applying severely distressing psychological pressure (meaningless assignments, etc) is something that they chose to do way past the warning signs. I also don't think the sanction is disproportionate, nobody goes to jail, and the fine is modest. But I wouldn't put the square quotes around accountability.
> First - the rate of suicides at Orange during this time were pretty much on par with suicide rates in France overall. Orange has 100K employees, and there are going to be suicides every year.
There were 35 suicides in ~ 32,000 workers, not 100,000.
There were 35 suicides in ~ 32,000 workers, not 100,000.
90 000 directly in France, at least [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_S.A.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_S.A.
The 32 suicides were reported amongst the 32,000 people whose jobs were affected.
The problem is that those who make the laws are the same than those who have the money or are really close friends.
As long as there is no janitors running for office, not much will happen. People will forget soon enough.
Check the Desmarais family[0].
[0]: https://www.canadalandshow.com/podcast/dynasties-6-the-desma...
As long as there is no janitors running for office, not much will happen. People will forget soon enough.
Check the Desmarais family[0].
[0]: https://www.canadalandshow.com/podcast/dynasties-6-the-desma...
The workers chose to work there and chose to kill themselves.
Do we not expect people to have agency anymore?
Do we not expect people to have agency anymore?
All employees are free to leave... That does not excuse misconduct by managers or violations of law. But the specific outcome here, I. s. suicide, is fiendishly difficult link to any one cause.
The usual standard for negligence is something like “resonantly foreseeable”, but even that isn’t particular useful in this case: with enough employees, you could probably always avoid at least one suicidal by, say, doubling wages. So where’s the limit?
The usual standard for negligence is something like “resonantly foreseeable”, but even that isn’t particular useful in this case: with enough employees, you could probably always avoid at least one suicidal by, say, doubling wages. So where’s the limit?
I'd consider 35 people who felt that suicide was better than leaving is a pretty solid display of why that argument doesn't work.
How does that 35 compare to the base population rate of suicide?
If it’s within a small margin, I’d conclude that’s a pretty solid display that people are people and some decide to kill themselves.
If it’s within a small margin, I’d conclude that’s a pretty solid display that people are people and some decide to kill themselves.
This is, in essence, the argument that the CEO made, during the crisis and at the trial. He kept saying (paraphrasing here) that there was no statically significant increase in the rate of suicides, and because the company was so huge it was bound to have employees killing themselves from time to time, regardless of what management did or didn't do. According to him, the whole affair was a pure media campaign orchestrated by people who disagreed with his management of the company.
The incredibly insensitive delivery of this argument cost the man his job years ago. The immense grief of families and coworkers, the fact that the suicides appeared to be work-related (and sometimes even happening at the workplace), the scathing reports by medical inspectors seemed all irrelevant to the dude, who basically just looked at this as a statistic to be managed. His lack of public displays of empathy or desire for introspection was pretty disturbing.
The incredibly insensitive delivery of this argument cost the man his job years ago. The immense grief of families and coworkers, the fact that the suicides appeared to be work-related (and sometimes even happening at the workplace), the scathing reports by medical inspectors seemed all irrelevant to the dude, who basically just looked at this as a statistic to be managed. His lack of public displays of empathy or desire for introspection was pretty disturbing.
If we start with the assumption that harrasment cause suicides then that argument means that it's ok to harras people as much as others do on average.
Obviously there is other causes also. But the base principel is a very shaky foundation to build a legal framework on.
Obviously there is other causes also. But the base principel is a very shaky foundation to build a legal framework on.
Why start with the assumption that harassment causes suicide? We could just as well start with the assumption that vaccines cause autism.
We should use our intuition to ask questions rather than to answer them.
We should use our intuition to ask questions rather than to answer them.
You may want to look into Base rate fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy
> All employees are free to leave...
You're literally saying "This job is a necessary part of our society, and while you personally might not want to tolerate the {harassment/low pay/terrible conditions}, someone else has to."
You're literally saying "This job is a necessary part of our society, and while you personally might not want to tolerate the {harassment/low pay/terrible conditions}, someone else has to."
> Employees are free to leave
Those jobs were civil servants with lifetime job guarantee in what was, at the time of hiring, a public company.
Of course the whole question is how to transition to private company with private employment, but that doesn’t cancel the fact that civil servants had made serious concessions to get a lifetime job (lower grade than what they could get in the private sector after their diploma, in exchange for lifetime security), which artificially put them in a weak negotiation position (few savings, mental dedication to only one speciality).
Those jobs were civil servants with lifetime job guarantee in what was, at the time of hiring, a public company.
Of course the whole question is how to transition to private company with private employment, but that doesn’t cancel the fact that civil servants had made serious concessions to get a lifetime job (lower grade than what they could get in the private sector after their diploma, in exchange for lifetime security), which artificially put them in a weak negotiation position (few savings, mental dedication to only one speciality).
> All employees are free to leave...
That's a pretty poor excuse for misbehavior. Similar to "if you don't like this country, you should leave".
That's a pretty poor excuse for misbehavior. Similar to "if you don't like this country, you should leave".
I don’t think it is. The problem with that statement is that leaving a country is a huge transition, with plenty of costs, and unclear rewards.
Leaving a job is sometimes a big deal, but it’s never as serious. One could argue that the more serious it is for your the greater the problem in question is because you don’t have any skills deemed valuable by your current employer or potential employers.
What to do with useless white collar labor is a hard problem. Mistreating people is a bad idea, but you need to do “something” otherwise you’ll eventually just go out of business if firing them is not an option.
Globalism is hard.
Leaving a job is sometimes a big deal, but it’s never as serious. One could argue that the more serious it is for your the greater the problem in question is because you don’t have any skills deemed valuable by your current employer or potential employers.
What to do with useless white collar labor is a hard problem. Mistreating people is a bad idea, but you need to do “something” otherwise you’ll eventually just go out of business if firing them is not an option.
Globalism is hard.
> That does not excuse misconduct by managers or violations of law.
Literally right after the bit you quoted.
Literally right after the bit you quoted.
A foundational text of sociology is Durkheim's Suicide, based precisely on the premise that the act itself is undeniable, that bodies are very hard to hide, and that the motivations, if not an extreme of altruism, are an extreme of either loss of social context (individuation), or complete hopelessness (fatalism).
Suicide has been chosen as its subject, among the various subjects that we have had occasion to study in our teaching career, because few are more accurately to be defined.... Suicide as it exists today is precisely one of the forms through which the collective affection from which we suffer is transmitted; thus it will aid us to understand this.... [I]n common terms, suicide is pre-eminently the desperate act of one who does not care to live.
Moreover, of population suicide rates:
Not only is this rate constant for long periods, but its invariability is even greater than that of leading demographic data.
That is, deviations from norm are intrinsically significant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_(Durkheim_book)
https://archive.org/details/DurkheimEmileSuicideAStudyInSoci...
The problem with a suicide cluster isn't in determining the cause. It's the fact itself.
Suicide has been chosen as its subject, among the various subjects that we have had occasion to study in our teaching career, because few are more accurately to be defined.... Suicide as it exists today is precisely one of the forms through which the collective affection from which we suffer is transmitted; thus it will aid us to understand this.... [I]n common terms, suicide is pre-eminently the desperate act of one who does not care to live.
Moreover, of population suicide rates:
Not only is this rate constant for long periods, but its invariability is even greater than that of leading demographic data.
That is, deviations from norm are intrinsically significant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_(Durkheim_book)
https://archive.org/details/DurkheimEmileSuicideAStudyInSoci...
The problem with a suicide cluster isn't in determining the cause. It's the fact itself.
There's also genetic predilections for suicide.
Those are exceedingly unlikely to 1) create variances over time or 2) company-specific clusters.
The broader concept is itself well-addressed in Durkheim's book in terms of regional and cultural variances in base rates.
The broader concept is itself well-addressed in Durkheim's book in terms of regional and cultural variances in base rates.
It's ridiculous.
Why is hurting one person with a knife to get wallet punished more than hurting tens of thousands of people to get better results in Excel?
It's obvious that if you're rich, you get away with anything and the justice system is just a farce.
Why is hurting one person with a knife to get wallet punished more than hurting tens of thousands of people to get better results in Excel?
It's obvious that if you're rich, you get away with anything and the justice system is just a farce.
One crime is legible to the masses, the other is not. The crimes are in no way parallel.
Agree the justice system is a farce .
Agree the justice system is a farce .
Muggers don't bring lower prices, numbers in excel sheets does. Your average consumer will accept a mountain of skeletons in the closet if it comes with 10% lower prices.
It's a sad story that I remember from years ago. I wonder how much the rigid rules that France has on employee firing contribute to this.
I am aware of an employer's view in a different case where (in a small company) an employee was asked to leave for poor performance. The process dragged for so long that the employee was paid full salary for close to 15 months without ever coming to office during this period. The company closed shop.
I am aware of an employer's view in a different case where (in a small company) an employee was asked to leave for poor performance. The process dragged for so long that the employee was paid full salary for close to 15 months without ever coming to office during this period. The company closed shop.
In this case, many of the employees were civil servants who were statutorily guaranteed a job as part of the bargain they made with the government decades ago when the company was just a department of the administration.
Regardless, I don't think one can blame the rules. Executives in every difficult business would otherwise have an excuse to blame the law. If the company had failed due to management's inability to downsize as needed, the state would have likely have had to recapitalize the company.
Regardless, I don't think one can blame the rules. Executives in every difficult business would otherwise have an excuse to blame the law. If the company had failed due to management's inability to downsize as needed, the state would have likely have had to recapitalize the company.
In all telecom companies at some point there was a transition to digitization, reducing the need of employees per subscriber; that is an increase of productivity, not a management failure: if you need only half of the employees to provide the same services, what is the management supposed to do with the other half? At one point manual operators at the switching boards simply become obsolete, what can management do?
I didn't mean it's a management failure. The company was really put in a precarious position when it was spun off from government without change to employees' job-for-life statutory protections. With lots of debt piled on by previous management, management was not dealt a winning hand. Although the next set of execs managed to continue the turnaround.
But yes, otherwise there are many other options besides downsizing, such as retraining or entering new markets geographically or vertically, all of which (to their credit) the same set of folks pursued as well.
Similarly silicon valley companies are constantly threatened by obsolescence. I think today Facebook and Google would both be dead if they hadn't retrained a significant share of their workforce on mobile development a few years ago, and machine learning more recently.
But yes, otherwise there are many other options besides downsizing, such as retraining or entering new markets geographically or vertically, all of which (to their credit) the same set of folks pursued as well.
Similarly silicon valley companies are constantly threatened by obsolescence. I think today Facebook and Google would both be dead if they hadn't retrained a significant share of their workforce on mobile development a few years ago, and machine learning more recently.
Generally speaking, the harder it is to fire someone, the more reluctant a company will be to hire someone.
I think most French would be happy to switch to a system where it is easy to fire, as long as the social net was good. Thing is, these two things (strengthening the safety net and making the labor laws more flexible) are defended by different parties. The few that have pretended to do this transition ended up just removing labor law protections.
The great paradox of France is that people keep believing it's hard to fire there while it's not. Every government for the past thirty years have made firing easier.
You have an up to eight months window of at-will before the protections kick in and they are mostly severance compensation which rises with the duration of your employment. You have to have a cause but these are plentyful.
If you can agree with your employee it's time to part, you don't even need to fire them. There is a legal way to commonly agree to break the contract which closes judicial recourse from the employee.
When companies in France complain they can't fire, what they actually mean is that they can't do it for free. Personally it doesn't make me too sad.
You have an up to eight months window of at-will before the protections kick in and they are mostly severance compensation which rises with the duration of your employment. You have to have a cause but these are plentyful.
If you can agree with your employee it's time to part, you don't even need to fire them. There is a legal way to commonly agree to break the contract which closes judicial recourse from the employee.
When companies in France complain they can't fire, what they actually mean is that they can't do it for free. Personally it doesn't make me too sad.
I've been part of a company that would fire all but the very best right before that eight month mark where the probationary period ends. Keeping them past that just isn't worth the risk.
Past the probation period even if you want to pay firing is not easy. Sure you can use contractual statements (such as that the work can be anywhere in France) but short of harassment there is no easy way out.
If you fire someone out means that you are shutting down the position. The court will not be happy if it was a fake shutdown.
A middle ground such as the specific laws for first employment (which did not pass) child be a middle ground.
If you fire someone out means that you are shutting down the position. The court will not be happy if it was a fake shutdown.
A middle ground such as the specific laws for first employment (which did not pass) child be a middle ground.
I keep moving one side or the other on this issue.
I think there is a philosophical difference in the way companies and employees are seen in France vs US. I often feel (from discussions here, but American friends told me the views are more varied in a representative sample of the US population) that in the US companies are seen as an extension of their owners' will. Do what you want on a whim. Want to close a profitable company to just cash in everything and buy a yacht? You own it, you can do it.
In France companies owners that do have employees are more considered like caretakers of a piece of the national production and are expected to be responsible of the piece of economy they grabbed (or, arguable, were allowed to grab).
So yes, if you think you can be a worthy contributor to the economy, you are allowed to grab a piece of it and keep a nice part to yourself, but in exchange there are rules for you to be responsible about it, like not creating jobs that may be unsustainable and depriving sustainable companies from labor.
In France you can fire employees for reasons, but you need reasons better than a whim. If you have a good reason (the employee broke important rules, or the law, refuses to do their work), it is free. If it is for performances or economic reasons, well you made a hiring mistake and it is going to cost you, but a reasonable amount.
I am not sure it is bad. The French economy performs pretty well when you go past the headlines and look at the numbers. I don't think that model is the drag we make it look like.
I think there is a philosophical difference in the way companies and employees are seen in France vs US. I often feel (from discussions here, but American friends told me the views are more varied in a representative sample of the US population) that in the US companies are seen as an extension of their owners' will. Do what you want on a whim. Want to close a profitable company to just cash in everything and buy a yacht? You own it, you can do it.
In France companies owners that do have employees are more considered like caretakers of a piece of the national production and are expected to be responsible of the piece of economy they grabbed (or, arguable, were allowed to grab).
So yes, if you think you can be a worthy contributor to the economy, you are allowed to grab a piece of it and keep a nice part to yourself, but in exchange there are rules for you to be responsible about it, like not creating jobs that may be unsustainable and depriving sustainable companies from labor.
In France you can fire employees for reasons, but you need reasons better than a whim. If you have a good reason (the employee broke important rules, or the law, refuses to do their work), it is free. If it is for performances or economic reasons, well you made a hiring mistake and it is going to cost you, but a reasonable amount.
I am not sure it is bad. The French economy performs pretty well when you go past the headlines and look at the numbers. I don't think that model is the drag we make it look like.
I think you are very correct in your analysis.
There is also some kind of close relationship between job and personal life (at least in the tech companies I worked in).
For instance we will be careful when planning to take into account school holidays.
Or the company will make arrangements on day one at school so that parents can be late (the ones who had to bring their children to school).
Everybody understand that teachers are a civilization on their own and that a meeting with a parent at 16:30 is normal. So companies adapt.
There are many more similar situations.
There is also some kind of close relationship between job and personal life (at least in the tech companies I worked in).
For instance we will be careful when planning to take into account school holidays.
Or the company will make arrangements on day one at school so that parents can be late (the ones who had to bring their children to school).
Everybody understand that teachers are a civilization on their own and that a meeting with a parent at 16:30 is normal. So companies adapt.
There are many more similar situations.
Also, firing is a cultural failure, pushing people to leave is "better"
Got some cold hard facts to back up that assertion?
Firing for poor performance is easy enough when you can prove the low performance and reluctance to improve.
The more it gets touchy feely, the harder it gets: for instance the goals you set were blurry or contestable, you don’t have any track record of how the employee has been doing until you wanted to fire them, the improvement plan you set up is properly followed but you still want to get rid of them etc.
I’ve seen someone basically fired on the spot for critical fault, and another worker let go after a first warning, a 3 month recovery plan and not reaching the goal agreed upon (set on the base of the other employees goal at the same pay level). It’s really not outlandish, and it takes you 3 months to fire your employer, needing 3 months to fire an employee is fair enough.
The more it gets touchy feely, the harder it gets: for instance the goals you set were blurry or contestable, you don’t have any track record of how the employee has been doing until you wanted to fire them, the improvement plan you set up is properly followed but you still want to get rid of them etc.
I’ve seen someone basically fired on the spot for critical fault, and another worker let go after a first warning, a 3 month recovery plan and not reaching the goal agreed upon (set on the base of the other employees goal at the same pay level). It’s really not outlandish, and it takes you 3 months to fire your employer, needing 3 months to fire an employee is fair enough.
30 reported suicides in 2008–2009 in a company employing 100,000 people. This is a suicide rate equivalent to France's average national suicide rate.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-13204168
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-13204168
You may want to read about the concept of "suicide clusters" which seem to the relevant to the deaths at Orange.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Irrelevant if you're not adjusting properly for demographic factors.
And even if the company suicide rate were no higher than average, thats simply an indication that immiserating employment conditions are widespread and commonplace.
Anybody who has ever worked a terrible job can tell you all about how it might make you feel suicidal.
And even if the company suicide rate were no higher than average, thats simply an indication that immiserating employment conditions are widespread and commonplace.
Anybody who has ever worked a terrible job can tell you all about how it might make you feel suicidal.
32 reported suicides in 32,000 people whose jobs were affected.
"The company, France Télécom — which used to be state-owned and is now known as Orange, one of France’s largest corporations — was fined $83,000, the maximum penalty."
Nice.
Nice.
No, Paris.
But you leave out the four months in prison for the CEO which is something. It's not clear from the wording whether he was the only one imprisoned.
But you leave out the four months in prison for the CEO which is something. It's not clear from the wording whether he was the only one imprisoned.
Lombard (the CEO) won't actually be in prison.
"Yet since that term is under two years and as Lombard does not present a danger to society, he will not spend time behind bars under French court rules." [0]
[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-justice-orange-sen...
"Yet since that term is under two years and as Lombard does not present a danger to society, he will not spend time behind bars under French court rules." [0]
[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-justice-orange-sen...
(also, I think most people missed your pun :) )
It's like, what, 6 month of pay.
Considering 2 people died, and this slap on the wrist is 6 month of wages, divide by two and that's 3 month pay for every dead worker.
Will the executive have to pay out of their pocket? If so, each executive can have up to 4 dead workers per year before having to worry -- not even taking bonuses in account!
Europe never ceases to amaze me.
Considering 2 people died, and this slap on the wrist is 6 month of wages, divide by two and that's 3 month pay for every dead worker.
Will the executive have to pay out of their pocket? If so, each executive can have up to 4 dead workers per year before having to worry -- not even taking bonuses in account!
Europe never ceases to amaze me.
> If so, each executive can have up to 4 dead workers per year before having to worry
A smart executive will have some money set aside, but in general losing your entire wage is something most people would be very worried about
A smart executive will have some money set aside, but in general losing your entire wage is something most people would be very worried about
I wish the article gave examples of what this harassment constituted of. It is hard to fathom what specifically they must have been doing.
I don't know about this specific case, but I can give you examples in other companies. Some of them were things I lived through "thanks" to a former boss of mine who's still lurking on HN so hello, former boss.
1. Move someone's desk to (sometimes literally, sometimes figuratively) a closet: a place where they don't see anyone.
2. Set someone to watch them. Make sure that they can't speak to anyone during the day. Make sure that they are always at their desk. If they're not, for any reason, make sure to blame them.
3. Repeat them three times per day that they are doing a piss-poor job.
4. But also make sure that they have nothing to do. Make-believe job at best, but it must be clear to them that it's make-believe job. Once they have produced their deliverables, ignore these entirely.
5. Set them up to fail. Give them impossible deadlines. Change the goalposts. Give them a title and responsibilities that looks like they have entire teams working for them but never fill the teams.
6. Force you to write daily reports of activities when everybody else is on weekly/monthly/quarterly/... basis.
7. But also repeat to them that they're not working sufficiently. Make it clear to them that it's their fault.
etc.
1. Move someone's desk to (sometimes literally, sometimes figuratively) a closet: a place where they don't see anyone.
2. Set someone to watch them. Make sure that they can't speak to anyone during the day. Make sure that they are always at their desk. If they're not, for any reason, make sure to blame them.
3. Repeat them three times per day that they are doing a piss-poor job.
4. But also make sure that they have nothing to do. Make-believe job at best, but it must be clear to them that it's make-believe job. Once they have produced their deliverables, ignore these entirely.
5. Set them up to fail. Give them impossible deadlines. Change the goalposts. Give them a title and responsibilities that looks like they have entire teams working for them but never fill the teams.
6. Force you to write daily reports of activities when everybody else is on weekly/monthly/quarterly/... basis.
7. But also repeat to them that they're not working sufficiently. Make it clear to them that it's their fault.
etc.
Can I ask briefly what kept you spending such a significant portion of your day working for such an employer? Is this is in the US or somewhere else where maybe there is a forced work period? In the US at least your employer generally cannot force you to keep working for them but I know other places in the mideast etc they can.
This was in France.
Well, there were several factors.
1. It took me time to realize that this was going on.
2. My boss basically wanted to get rid of me because I had done my job too well and everybody knew it. I had taken over some of his previous responsibilities and where he had led the company's flagship project pretty close to the grave, I led the team that turned his failure into success. Problem is, he wanted his name to be the one on the top of the poster. By then, getting me to leave was paramount to asking me to abandon my baby. So yeah, it took me some time to come to terms with this.
3. Generally speaking, in France, there's a notion of "job loyalty" which is very different from anything I've seen in UK/US/Canada. I've elaborated more on the topic over there https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21856307
4. Benefits are very different if you quit or if you're laid off/fired. If you quit, there were no benefits at all at the time (laws have changed since then, I believe). My boss was clearly trying to fire me without benefits. I did not enjoy this prospect.
5. Also, finding a new job takes more time in France than, say, in the US. It's both an economical thing and a cultural thing – interview periods are longer, for instance.
edit Rephrased point 2.
Well, there were several factors.
1. It took me time to realize that this was going on.
2. My boss basically wanted to get rid of me because I had done my job too well and everybody knew it. I had taken over some of his previous responsibilities and where he had led the company's flagship project pretty close to the grave, I led the team that turned his failure into success. Problem is, he wanted his name to be the one on the top of the poster. By then, getting me to leave was paramount to asking me to abandon my baby. So yeah, it took me some time to come to terms with this.
3. Generally speaking, in France, there's a notion of "job loyalty" which is very different from anything I've seen in UK/US/Canada. I've elaborated more on the topic over there https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21856307
4. Benefits are very different if you quit or if you're laid off/fired. If you quit, there were no benefits at all at the time (laws have changed since then, I believe). My boss was clearly trying to fire me without benefits. I did not enjoy this prospect.
5. Also, finding a new job takes more time in France than, say, in the US. It's both an economical thing and a cultural thing – interview periods are longer, for instance.
edit Rephrased point 2.
You might find Yoric's comment above hard to believe but actually it's not uncommon. If you work in enough places over time you will come across this behavior.
There are two kinds of people. Those who achieve success in life by getting better at getting things done (and as a side effect, often having authority over others). Those who succeed by gaining power over others without necessarily getting anything done. In fact often they are incompetent when it comes to getting things done but highly competent at the worst kind of politics.
Usually the only people who can deal with the politicians are those above them. These people thrive where the top is weak. It's not hard to deal with them. The first sign is dishonesty. The way to spot this is to frequently do a deep dive. Go down to the people at the lower level and investigate why things went wrong (they always go wrong under these people)
If not these people will destroy that part of your business and drive out the competent people.
Of course this is why honesty in national politics is also so important. But in this case it is the people who need to drive these types out.
There are two kinds of people. Those who achieve success in life by getting better at getting things done (and as a side effect, often having authority over others). Those who succeed by gaining power over others without necessarily getting anything done. In fact often they are incompetent when it comes to getting things done but highly competent at the worst kind of politics.
Usually the only people who can deal with the politicians are those above them. These people thrive where the top is weak. It's not hard to deal with them. The first sign is dishonesty. The way to spot this is to frequently do a deep dive. Go down to the people at the lower level and investigate why things went wrong (they always go wrong under these people)
If not these people will destroy that part of your business and drive out the competent people.
Of course this is why honesty in national politics is also so important. But in this case it is the people who need to drive these types out.
If I was aware of someone wanting to fire me without benefits by forcing me to quit, I'd probably try force them to fire me with those benefits. I'd sit at my desk playing games or watching series or some other non-work activity, ignoring any requests from my manager. Eventually they'll have to fire me, or they keep paying me to do nothing.
Well, if you do this in France, you can get fired for "Faute Grave" ("It's your fault and it's bad"), in which case you get very reduced benefits or even in some cases "Faute Lourde" ("It's your fault and we're probably going to sue you for it"), in which case you get no benefits at all.
In 99% of circumstances, firing people is really not difficult in France (there are a few exceptions such as pregnant women, people who are on a long-term handicap leave or people who have been elected by workers as their spokespersons). Laying them off for economic reasons is a bit more complicated.
In 99% of circumstances, firing people is really not difficult in France (there are a few exceptions such as pregnant women, people who are on a long-term handicap leave or people who have been elected by workers as their spokespersons). Laying them off for economic reasons is a bit more complicated.
> ...or people who have been elected by workers as their spokespersons
would this have been possible in the timeframe you experienced? since he felt the need to isolate you, indicates the boss knew the team respected your leadership, which generally indicates the team would have been willing to vote you as representative / spokesperson.
it might not have become the most pleasant job, but sometimes caesar must accept the crown unwillingly...
would this have been possible in the timeframe you experienced? since he felt the need to isolate you, indicates the boss knew the team respected your leadership, which generally indicates the team would have been willing to vote you as representative / spokesperson.
it might not have become the most pleasant job, but sometimes caesar must accept the crown unwillingly...
I suppose it might have been a strategy but job protection was not my goal.
Finding another job is not easy for many people. I've been looking for work (not in France) for years - even getting an interview is difficult, and I have very poor interview skills (autism spectrum disorder makes it particularly hard to learn how to interview) so I don't get anywhere.
Not everyone is in a market where companies are desperate for warm bodies.
Not everyone is in a market where companies are desperate for warm bodies.
The point is I think that the management want you to quit but cannot (or do not want) to do this themselves. They harass you until you give up.
Thanks @Yoric for speaking out. I suffered from a similar situation early in my career as a developer, and it was far from pleasant.
This happened in a very early stage, self-founded startup in France (was the third person to join). Took me time to realize the situation was really bad and unescapable: I was young and lacking experience.
To employees: don't wait to be fired or to reach your breaking point. You're on the way to serious burnout. There is something out there called the market that is redistributing talents. So get out.
To managers: don’t be that boss.
This happened in a very early stage, self-founded startup in France (was the third person to join). Took me time to realize the situation was really bad and unescapable: I was young and lacking experience.
To employees: don't wait to be fired or to reach your breaking point. You're on the way to serious burnout. There is something out there called the market that is redistributing talents. So get out.
To managers: don’t be that boss.
That situation is the consequence of too protective laws for working in France. In France, it is very difficult to fire someone, so it leads to problems when you want to decrease the number of staff.
Actually, in most cases, it's not that difficult. You need to expect a fairly large severance paycheck, though.
You are right for private employment, but those people were hired under public servant contracts in a public company at the time, with lifetime employment guarantee.
So you are correct, employment is too protected, both in private and public sector, but in addition, the state promises too much. I have seen so many public servants being harassed and/or depressed because they didn’t fit/like their job, that I confirm lifetime jobs make no-one happy.
So you are correct, employment is too protected, both in private and public sector, but in addition, the state promises too much. I have seen so many public servants being harassed and/or depressed because they didn’t fit/like their job, that I confirm lifetime jobs make no-one happy.
Where can I read this article with my phone without paying?
Also is there a way to offer to write an automatic link converter(for free) for hacker news?
Also is there a way to offer to write an automatic link converter(for free) for hacker news?
[deleted]
Is it legally accurate that they are being convicted for the suicides of the workers implying they were the cause or are they being convicted of some other violation which may have lead to worker suicides.
The first sounds insane. The second sounds reasonable.
Can't read the article because of the paywall.
The first sounds insane. The second sounds reasonable.
Can't read the article because of the paywall.
The second (institutional harassment).
“held to account”
“$83,000”
Choose one. That’s not punishment, that’s a pat on the back.
“$83,000”
Choose one. That’s not punishment, that’s a pat on the back.
Is France crazy or are we the bad guys?
When you have an immovable object (can’t fire an employee due to law) up against an unstoppable force (economic pressure to cut jobs) you get actions that try to bend either of the above constraints.
In the end something had to break — either the company or the people or both.
No one forced these people to either work at the company or to commit suicide.
Yes their pensions were linked to their jobs but is quitting and losing your retirement better than death?
Or maybe they wanted to be martyrs and knew this would lead to a punishment for the executives.
In the end something had to break — either the company or the people or both.
No one forced these people to either work at the company or to commit suicide.
Yes their pensions were linked to their jobs but is quitting and losing your retirement better than death?
Or maybe they wanted to be martyrs and knew this would lead to a punishment for the executives.
You speak as if the company's executives were compelled by some force to make their workers lives miserable. They also were not forced to remain in their positions and could have chosen to resign (thus saving the company their compensation) rather than engage in immoral actions. That they chose to do so to maintain their own positions and compensation seems worthy of punishment.
One thing you probably underestimate is that the relationship between employer and employee is very different in France wrt, say, UK/US/Canada.
France has something called "job loyalty." After the ~6 months trial period, a good employee will typically never quit their job, because this would be breaking a bond that is nearly as strong as that of marriage. The employer is, of course, expected to do treat employees as best as possible. If economic pressure forces the employer to lay off people, this is a reality of life, and France has laws that forces the employer to make it happen in a humane manner (i.e. fairly large severance check, among other things).
Here, managers decided to cut out on their side of the deal by employing "placardisation", i.e. bullying people out of their job, i.e. bringing these people to nervous breakdown. But culturally, these people couldn't quit. They could only hope that their managers would be replaced by better managers.
So when you're saying that "No one forced these people to either work at the company or to commit suicide" – well, yes, they were forced because that's how everybody is raised in France.
France has something called "job loyalty." After the ~6 months trial period, a good employee will typically never quit their job, because this would be breaking a bond that is nearly as strong as that of marriage. The employer is, of course, expected to do treat employees as best as possible. If economic pressure forces the employer to lay off people, this is a reality of life, and France has laws that forces the employer to make it happen in a humane manner (i.e. fairly large severance check, among other things).
Here, managers decided to cut out on their side of the deal by employing "placardisation", i.e. bullying people out of their job, i.e. bringing these people to nervous breakdown. But culturally, these people couldn't quit. They could only hope that their managers would be replaced by better managers.
So when you're saying that "No one forced these people to either work at the company or to commit suicide" – well, yes, they were forced because that's how everybody is raised in France.
> So when you're saying that "No one forced these people to either work at the company or to commit suicide" – well, yes, they were forced because that's how everybody is raised in France.
That is very true.
It was even more true in national companies like France Telecom where it was a personal achievement for many to be there.
Often positions in these companies where even family thing, where your family except you to be part of when you are old enough.
That is very true.
It was even more true in national companies like France Telecom where it was a personal achievement for many to be there.
Often positions in these companies where even family thing, where your family except you to be part of when you are old enough.
This is all correct and true, but is also changing, especially in tech.
In other areas this is still very much the case.
In other areas this is still very much the case.
They could fire them if they wanted, they'd only had to PAY for it. Harassing was just CHEAPER.
Executives at a French company couldn't treat people as resources and fire at will because France has employee protection laws (sounds good but only in theory). So, the executives made employees miserable, intending to push them to quit. Instead, employees killed themselves. You want to fire people but you can't, so what do you do? Make them not want to be there anymore.
There is a case to be made that these employees would have killed themselves if they were fired. This is an important distinction because it's the loss of employment, not harassment, that lead to suicide.
It's crazy to think that there are people here who will read this and think that with this given, firing should be illegal and executives charged for manslaughter. You are thinking dangerously and need to study history. Or, you are French and there is no difference.
There is a case to be made that these employees would have killed themselves if they were fired. This is an important distinction because it's the loss of employment, not harassment, that lead to suicide.
It's crazy to think that there are people here who will read this and think that with this given, firing should be illegal and executives charged for manslaughter. You are thinking dangerously and need to study history. Or, you are French and there is no difference.
Pray tell, what part of history?
It's crazy to to think that people are still suggesting people to "study history", as though history is a homogeneous mass that can even be studied as a whole.
It's crazy to think that history is uniformly in favor of the executive class. That somehow the brutality of the elites can be justified by their understanding of history. That they can't be deferred to some broader concept of morality because they have history on their side. This argument is the same as the one made by Francis Fukuyama in his book The End of History and the Last Man and it is fundamentally flawed in the same way.
Never have violence, inequality, exclusion, famine, and thus economic oppression affected as many human beings in the history of the earth and of humanity. Instead of singing the advent of the ideal of liberal democracy and of the capitalist market in the euphoria of the end of history. Let us never neglect this obvious, macroscopic fact, made up of innumerable, singular sites of suffering: no degree of progress allows one to ignore that never before, in absolute figures, have so many men, women and children been subjugated, starved or exterminated on the earth.
It's crazy to think that history is uniformly in favor of the executive class. That somehow the brutality of the elites can be justified by their understanding of history. That they can't be deferred to some broader concept of morality because they have history on their side. This argument is the same as the one made by Francis Fukuyama in his book The End of History and the Last Man and it is fundamentally flawed in the same way.
Never have violence, inequality, exclusion, famine, and thus economic oppression affected as many human beings in the history of the earth and of humanity. Instead of singing the advent of the ideal of liberal democracy and of the capitalist market in the euphoria of the end of history. Let us never neglect this obvious, macroscopic fact, made up of innumerable, singular sites of suffering: no degree of progress allows one to ignore that never before, in absolute figures, have so many men, women and children been subjugated, starved or exterminated on the earth.
> Never have violence, inequality, exclusion, famine, and thus economic oppression affected as many human beings in the history of the earth
And have they ever affected a smaller proportion of human beings in recorded history?
And have they ever affected a smaller proportion of human beings in recorded history?
The proportion dosen't seem as morally relevant (though it is a factor) as the sheer number (you can figure it as a trolley problem; the train running over 10k out of 100k is arguably worse than running over 5 out of 10) - and arguably, inequality, exploitation and domination have more to do with relative wealth than absolute wealth. Although the lives of a great many have undeniably improved, that has nothing to do with what social scientists and philosophers of economics mean by inequality, exploitation and domination - which usually focuses on the share of productive capacity by members of society. All the "big names" like Sen and Roemer have those issues on the radar. You can figure the problems of the system in terms of domination[0], exploiters dominating[1], extraction of surplus-value[2], or unequal exchange of labour[3][4].
[0] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08854300.2016.12...
[1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00346764.2019.1...
[2] http://matsuo-tadasu.ptu.jp/RecentControversyOnFMT.pdf
[3] https://ideas.repec.org/p/kch/wpaper/sdes-2018-10.html
[4] https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...
[0] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08854300.2016.12...
[1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00346764.2019.1...
[2] http://matsuo-tadasu.ptu.jp/RecentControversyOnFMT.pdf
[3] https://ideas.repec.org/p/kch/wpaper/sdes-2018-10.html
[4] https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...
If it's the sheer number you care about, not the proportion, then the problem is clear: Human reproduction. Eliminate that, and the sheer number of incidents of oppression and suffering will go down.
Eliminate that, and there will be zero people!
The proportion world-view has the same problem. If you kill everyone but one person, they can't be exploited by other people.
Like I get it, I should be glad an executive was held to account for anything. But this is a tiny step and we got a looong way to go before we get to liberté, égalité, fraternité.
It seems that with great power comes great wealth and an almost complete lack of accountability.
I would like to live in a world where the link between power and responsibility was much more aggressively enforced. I've worked in places where corners were cut constantly, endangering workers in pursuit of the bottom line, I'm sure it's more or less the norm. The executives shouldn't be able to sleep at night for fear of the complete destruction of their lives for their transgressions. It should be life in prison with no possibility of parole, not a fine.
Even something like buying an SUV should map to greater punishments. It's well known that you're much more likely to kill a pedestrian with a car that has a high grille. The law should enforce a greater level of responsibility on the people who chose to inflict greater risk on the lives of others.