Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kogan Loloklam]

I have a question.
Is the captain mentioned by Williams the same entity as the "company man"?

I don't think the captain made it off the rig.

[Zangi]

Proof the BP employees are nutless:
*snip*

Of course they are nutless.  The need to feed the family, pay debts, and raise the kids have em by the balls.  Probably being a woman contributes to that, but some actually have more balls then men.
The ones who have nuts have already been fired.

A lil naive there...  Reality is a bitch.

I have a question.
Is the captain mentioned by Williams the same entity as the "company man"?

I don't think the captain made it off the rig.

Doesn't the captain go down with the shiprig?
Otherwise, company man?  Depends on the oil rigs culture.  Can't answer that.

While it's true we must resist the mob impulse, it occurs to me that it is the CEO's responsibility, in part, to ensure that the other  employees are fulfiling theirs.

So what do you propose we do?

Execute them all.

And let someone else sort em all out.

[Urist McOverlord]

While it's true we must resist the mob impulse, it occurs to me that it is the CEO's responsibility, in part, to ensure that the other  employees are fulfiling theirs.

I'd say that blame falls less with the upper management, because they are usually very isolated from the employees and the people responsible for the day-to-day of their companies. We can't blame them as much for demanding increased efficiency when, to all signs, nobody told them that it was a generally bad idea. As CEO, it is their job to ensure that their company makes money. The problem comes with how they do that. A CEO tells the guy under him to cut costs. That guy tells the guy under him to cut costs, and so on and so forth until it comes down to some engineer trying to satisfy the whole chain without getting anybody killed. The blame lies less with any particular individual or group of individuals, and more with the corporate culture that says that that engineer can't tell his boss that it can't be done. The chain of command, simply put, only goes one way. Now, is it possible that Tony Hayward wouldn't want to hear about various material changes, structural differences, and so on and so forth? Of course. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that it's likely. That's why we have the hierarchical structure in the first place. But that's because he shouldn't need to. He should be able to say "can you cut costs?" and get a reply back of "not safely." The engineers should be able to say "We can't do this without cutting important equipment." I think it almost seems like the bottleneck becomes the bureaucracy - middle management.

Other issues arise from the regulatory structure. That's the bit that's really ****ed up. Not just because of the whole "regulatory capture" aspect. As Aquizzar said, it's tough to get out there and have a thorough inspection of all these rigs. A page back or so, Loloklam posted a map that showed there were, quite frankly, a hell of a lot of them. Plus the whole "Regulatory Capture" thing. So

My concern, however, is less about DWH cleanup, BP prosecution, or any of that. It's about how many other rigs we have out there waiting to do the same thing. The whole industry is ****ed up, and I hope that DWH can serve as something of a wakeup call.

Disclaimer: I have no reason to believe I know anything more than anyone else, and especially with this sort of subject, I can guarantee I know less than a lot of you (i.e. Nonsapient)

[RAM]

Common reactions

Ideas about whistleblowing vary widely. Whistleblowers are commonly seen as selfless martyrs for public interest and organizational accountability; others view them as a 'tattle tale' or "snitches" (slang), solely pursuing personal glory and fame. Some academics (such as Thomas Alured Faunce) consider that whistleblowers should at least be entitled to a rebuttable presumption that they are attempting to apply ethical principles in the face of obstacles and that whistleblowing would be more respected in governance systems if it had a firmer academic basis in virtue ethics.[5][6]

It is probable that many people do not even consider blowing the whistle, not only because of fear of retaliation, but also because of fear of losing their relationships at work and outside work.[7]

Because the majority of cases are very low-profile and receive little or no media attention and because whistleblowers who do report significant misconduct are usually put in some form of danger or persecution, the idea of seeking fame and glory may be less commonly believed.[citation needed]

Persecution of whistleblowers has become a serious issue in many parts of the world. Although whistleblowers are often protected under law from employer retaliation, there have been many cases where punishment for whistleblowing has occurred, such as termination, suspension, demotion, wage garnishment, and/or harsh mistreatment by other employees. For example, in the United States, most whistleblower protection laws provide for limited "make whole" remedies or damages for employment losses if whistleblower retaliation is proven. However, many whistleblowers report there exists a widespread "shoot the messenger" mentality by corporations or government agencies accused of misconduct and in some cases whistleblowers have been subjected to criminal prosecution in reprisal for reporting wrongdoing.

As a reaction to this many private organizations have formed whistleblower legal defense funds or support groups to assist whistleblowers; one such example in the UK is Public Concern at Work. Depending on the circumstances, it is not uncommon for whistleblowers to be ostracized by their co-workers, discriminated against by future potential employers, or even fired from their organization. This campaign directed at whistleblowers with the goal of eliminating them from the organization is referred to as mobbing. It is an extreme form of workplace bullying wherein the group is set against the targeted individual.

Humans are social animals, you put one in a room with 20 other people all saying "increase profit margins" then it takes a massive amount of awareness and willpower to do anything different. And the probably outcome of going to an external agency with any complaints is to find that nobody in your profession wants to hire you, and nobody in your workplace wants to speak to you. You don't get fired, you resign, your training and experience become worthless, and you get a nice collection of threats to keep you company. This isn't punishment, it is simple human nature...

This wouldn't be the first time a boss had cultivated an environment of not being told when something could cause trouble. This was obviously not the work of an individual, it was a failure of the culture, I am not saying that the rig's staff shouldn't be prosecuted. I am saying that those with the power to make decisions have the responsibility to know the effects of those decisions. These people aren't quite complete idiots, they will try to work profitably, just calling them and telling them to work faster doesn't make any sense. If this was all some secret scheme of a local executive to get the rig working ahead of schedule and catapult their own personal career, gambling that nothing would go wrong this one time, then sure, maybe all the blame should go to them. But if the C.E.O. was putting pressure on the operation then they have as much responsibility in this as anyone...

[aurixdarastrix]

Humans are social animals, you put one in a room with 20 other people all saying "increase profit margins" then it takes a massive amount of awareness and willpower to do anything different. And the probably outcome of going to an external agency with any complaints is to find that nobody in your profession wants to hire you, and nobody in your workplace wants to speak to you. You don't get fired, you resign, your training and experience become worthless, and you get a nice collection of threats to keep you company. This isn't punishment, it is simple human nature...

Not to mention the fact that a corporation is legally obliged to make all possible efforts to maximize it's stock value. 

[Kogan Loloklam]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Common reactions

Ideas about whistleblowing vary widely. Whistleblowers are commonly seen as selfless martyrs for public interest and organizational accountability; others view them as a 'tattle tale' or "snitches" (slang), solely pursuing personal glory and fame. Some academics (such as Thomas Alured Faunce) consider that whistleblowers should at least be entitled to a rebuttable presumption that they are attempting to apply ethical principles in the face of obstacles and that whistleblowing would be more respected in governance systems if it had a firmer academic basis in virtue ethics.[5][6]

It is probable that many people do not even consider blowing the whistle, not only because of fear of retaliation, but also because of fear of losing their relationships at work and outside work.[7]

Because the majority of cases are very low-profile and receive little or no media attention and because whistleblowers who do report significant misconduct are usually put in some form of danger or persecution, the idea of seeking fame and glory may be less commonly believed.[citation needed]

Persecution of whistleblowers has become a serious issue in many parts of the world. Although whistleblowers are often protected under law from employer retaliation, there have been many cases where punishment for whistleblowing has occurred, such as termination, suspension, demotion, wage garnishment, and/or harsh mistreatment by other employees. For example, in the United States, most whistleblower protection laws provide for limited "make whole" remedies or damages for employment losses if whistleblower retaliation is proven. However, many whistleblowers report there exists a widespread "shoot the messenger" mentality by corporations or government agencies accused of misconduct and in some cases whistleblowers have been subjected to criminal prosecution in reprisal for reporting wrongdoing.

As a reaction to this many private organizations have formed whistleblower legal defense funds or support groups to assist whistleblowers; one such example in the UK is Public Concern at Work. Depending on the circumstances, it is not uncommon for whistleblowers to be ostracized by their co-workers, discriminated against by future potential employers, or even fired from their organization. This campaign directed at whistleblowers with the goal of eliminating them from the organization is referred to as mobbing. It is an extreme form of workplace bullying wherein the group is set against the targeted individual.

Humans are social animals, you put one in a room with 20 other people all saying "increase profit margins" then it takes a massive amount of awareness and willpower to do anything different. And the probably outcome of going to an external agency with any complaints is to find that nobody in your profession wants to hire you, and nobody in your workplace wants to speak to you. You don't get fired, you resign, your training and experience become worthless, and you get a nice collection of threats to keep you company. This isn't punishment, it is simple human nature...

This wouldn't be the first time a boss had cultivated an environment of not being told when something could cause trouble. This was obviously not the work of an individual, it was a failure of the culture, I am not saying that the rig's staff shouldn't be prosecuted. I am saying that those with the power to make decisions have the responsibility to know the effects of those decisions. These people aren't quite complete idiots, they will try to work profitably, just calling them and telling them to work faster doesn't make any sense. If this was all some secret scheme of a local executive to get the rig working ahead of schedule and catapult their own personal career, gambling that nothing would go wrong this one time, then sure, maybe all the blame should go to them. But if the C.E.O. was putting pressure on the operation then they have as much responsibility in this as anyone...

My personal experience shows that when you are talking about a risk to the degree this one was, CEOs appreciate the delay rather than risk the consequences.
It is interesting that these people would choose to die rather than risk their jobs and friendships. Talk about blind loyalty.

[RAM]

They don't choose to die, they take risks, and they don't just risk losing their jobs and friendships, they risk losing their entire careers and the majority of their community, they face the certainty of changing their social image, and most of all they risk letting down the team...

[Zangi]

My personal experience shows that when you are talking about a risk to the degree this one was, CEOs appreciate the delay rather than risk the consequences.
It is interesting that these people would choose to die rather than risk their jobs and friendships. Talk about blind loyalty.

It does not have an immediate effect.  Nor is it an apparent death sentence.  The warning signs arn't up in your face: "OMG you are going to die!"

People will choose to ignore the 'what don't look right' for career, the community and the team.

[Sevrun]

Not all of them Zangi... But those that do not could very well suffer for their attention to duty.  People don't like it when someone gets pushy about something they feel is inconsequential.  Then the rig blows up, or the sniper you tried warning them about takes his shot and all that's left is to deal with the consequences.  Unfortunately the people often refuse to heed each other until they've learned this the hard way.

[Zangi]

Not all of them Zangi... But those that do not could very well suffer for their attention to duty.  People don't like it when someone gets pushy about something they feel is inconsequential.  Then the rig blows up, or the sniper you tried warning them about takes his shot and all that's left is to deal with the consequences.  Unfortunately the people often refuse to heed each other until they've learned this the hard way.

Yea, I know not all of em.  I've also mentioned, that the ones who have the balls to blow the whistle are usually on the chopping block.

Are you comparing work to combat or just being in the military otherwise?
In combat, people are supposed to pay attention for and actively do something about the 'what don't look right' or they will let the team down.


Duty to who or what? 
The law?  A contract?  Your job?  Your co-workers?  Yourself?  Your family?
What takes precedence in the ideal world?  What takes precedence in reality?      As an employee, you may or may not find yourself dealing with conflicting 'duty'.

[Kogan Loloklam]

There were over a hundred people on that rig.

I think prosecuting the management that was too stupid to take the rubber chunks seriously will help people in the future make the decision to speak out.

They can't fire 'em all, after all. That's why strikes work, I think.

[andrea]

A corporation is legally obliged to make all possible efforts to maximize it's stock value.

that sounds like it could go sooooo wrong.

[alway]

Hurricane Alex didn't quite hit it, but it is making us more screwed than before: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38017196/ns/disaster_in_the_gulf/

[Aqizzar]

I don't have time to go over it (or read it myself), but Newsweek as some data compilation on the spill and cleanup efforts.  Interesting stuff.

[Kogan Loloklam]

I looked over it. Most of it has already been evaluated and mocked here.

Here's basically what they have (copied and pasted)

Barrels of oil leaked per day: 35,000 to 60,000.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

As of June 30, the spill has released between 2 and 3.8 million barrels of oil, assuming 72 days of flow at 35,000 to 60,000 barrels a day and adjusted for the 508,700 barrels of oil BP has collected from the wellhead so far

Percent of the spill that's natural gas: 70

Time it would take the U.S. to use spilled oil: 4 hours, 24 minutes

Miles of boom deployed: 520.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

boom isn't perfect and can be overcome by the elements.

Response workers: 42,000-plus.

Percentage of claims paid so far: 51

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

BP has paid out about $128 million in claims filed by those who have lost income or sustained damage from the spill. The company says more than 80,000 claims have been submitted and that nearly 41,000 payments have been made

Gallons of dispersant used so far: more than 1.6 million.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

More than a million gallons of dispersant have been applied to oil on the gulf's surface, and another 576,000 gallons have been sprayed directly into the oil that's gushing from the wellhead. This much dispersant has never before been used in U.S. waters, and this is the first time dispersant has been applied below the sea surface. Subsea dispersants have been used since mid-May, and so far, the EPA has found no evidence that they're doing ecological damage.

Cubic feet of natural gas set ablaze: 1 billion.

Ideas to stop the spill: 112,000.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

To date, 112,000 suggestions have been submitted; the company has been receiving 4,000 to 5,000 each day. These suggestions go through a 4-stage triage process, says BP spokesman Mark Proegler, and 324 so far have made it to the final step, which is field testing.

Percent water collected by oil skimmers: 90.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

To date, skimmers (the boats that collect floating oil) have collected 670,700 barrels of oily water from the gulf's surface.