If you say that you need a 1.2% profit increase, and imply that people will be fired if it doesn't happen, then that is coercion, and it is your responsibility to make sure that the system(company) can handle it...
I'm sorry, but no. The top is ALWAYS pushing for faster, cheaper, and better. Someone always makes the decision to do things in a stupid way to make it work. SOMEONE MAKES THAT DECISION.
It's not a matter of "They could get fired if they didn't"
It's a matter of thinking they are choosing to keep their jobs. This is like any soldier who turns a blind eye to the disgraceful actions done by their fellow soldiers like rape or murder innocents.
Before you claim "Bullshit", Let me assure you it is exactly that. If you see something that isn't right, it is your DUTY to stop it as a US Soldier. If you see something that isn't right, it is your DUTY as an employee to report it immediately. Every company has the same wording in it's policy manuals. Just because you think it is bullshit doesn't make it bullshit. Companies have that sort of crap to protect them from this kind of stuff. Yes, there is the potential some dumb fuck will fire you, but that isn't what happened here. People were pushed to do it faster and faster and cheaper and cheaper, and besides a few very vague, general ass-covering statements, NOBODY put the brakes on.
I'm just going to leave that out there. The part about bosses don't have control of their employees, and aren't responsible for them. As for brain drain, and making the leap between oil executives and weapons scientists....no. Just no. Smart bombs OR nuclear weapons, that's a specious comparison.
I never said bosses weren't responsible. We aren't talking about BOSSES here. We are talking about CEOs. "Big fapping deal, same thing!" you think.
Fine. Answer me this, in ALL the places you or anyone here has ever worked, how many shook hands with their CEO even ONCE. This isn't even talking about exchanging first names or being directly reportable, but just have had the contact of a handshake with one once.
People as a general rule are so far seperated from their CEO with layers and layers of management they don't even see their FACES except on a framed picture on a wall. You propose to start a precident of crucifuing them because they ask for a little more production? I can't even begin to explain where the flaw is in expecting that. I tried, but you are way too dense to even see the problems with it.
A. Did anyone die because of the sewage leak? Did the workers installing it die?
No.
B. I see willful risk taking that resulted in people dying in BP's case. You're saying "screw up" and using a non-oil, non-industry, city project screw up anecdote to reinforce your belief. They did sewer work in my town too. It sucked.
A. Where is the willful risk?
B. Where do you stop the criminal liability? The citizens who vote the politicians in that establish the regulation for the industry that the company operates in? They are as liable as the BP executive. Citizens could have voted against politicians that didn't regulate it as well as it should have been.
By reading the thread, I mean the links too.
I did. Yes, BP cut corners, but it was one of two commonly used designs. it was the cheaper one, it is very common for companies to try to keep their production down. At no point did they deliberately use Sub-standard materials. At no point did they deliberately use sub-standard engineering. They used things that were known to work, and commonly worked. It was the responsibility of the project's engineers to figure out if things weren't going to work and report that so that the cheapest and best could be used. Instead they kept a design that everyone thought would work fine. It wasn't over-engineered because that costs money. You don't make a ladder that goes up to the roof of a house capable of holding the weight of an adult elephant. When you are hauling 10 lb buckets up 50 feet you don't need a rope that can tow a semi truck.
Also, THIS LINK:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/17/bp-safety-violations-osha_n_578775.htmlThis PROVES what I was saying about things. It wasn't the fapping platforms with 600 violations.
Read your own fapping link and then talk to me about what I (am/am not) reading.
Oh, just so we are clear:
Oil REFINERY:
Rig that looks like Deepwater Horizons:
Apple Farm:
BP doesn't own any apple farms, but since you are really curious...
With the schedule slipping, Williams says a BP manager ordered a faster pace.
This is an important statement. A faceless BP manager said this. Why didn't Williams state the risks at that time? The link between the faceless BP manager and the project's Engineers is probably where criminal prosecution should begin to be examined. Williams states himself that he saw a MAJOR safety issue and said nothing. He didn't even say "I went to the manager and explained in private that I thought this might be an issue, since he didn't seem to understand."
Nobody corrected the guy who was wrong. Someone knew what would result and didn't say a word. How is that guy LESS criminally responsible that the CEO whom didn't even get this little vital piece of information?
Yes, the CEO hired some people who hired some people that Hired some people that shouldn't work for a Burger joint, let alone manage other people. That doesn't mean that when that burger joint they theoretically shouldn't work for burns down that the top guy should be charged with arson. The guy who was directly above them should get charges if anything, because that individual was the one that should have known that they couldn't be trusted with the delicate art of burgers.
I'm just going to stop there. You're asking for a smoking gun or a memo that says "Cut corners, muwhahahah." There is ample evidence that it's happening without that. Also, while it's cute that you try to undercut OSHA's safety violations by claiming BP has a million fringe, non oil businesses that require OSHA supervision....BS. BP has 600+ violations. The next biggest, 4. Or is BP the only one with millions facilities? Because they aren't the dominant oil company in the US, even before DWH.
I never claimed they have millions of fringe non-oil businesses. In fact, I make a point of saying they DON'T. I stated that to tell you that there is more than one kind of business, and a safety violation in one of those
532 of those violations weren't even associated with OIL DRILLING. They were Oil processing plants. One plant, actually. The other 228 were spread out amongst all the rest of BP's operations, of which there are actually non-oil businesses. No apple farms, mind you, but things like
Solar Farms(Unknown if it has any violations, but it could) and
Wind Farms(Unknown if it has any violations, but it could). They also have Refineries, Pipelines, regular oil wells, Oil platforms, Tankers, and all kinds of other businesses.
Quick Google-fu will demonstrate that businesses associated with Exxon mobil have had more than a single OSHA violation this year. How the violation figures are tallied I don't know, But I am willing to bet that they are significantly more than the Media claims, and that Exxon is probably the current year's golden child and not representative of the average per facility of the industry. You haven't provided me any information on that, and yet you think the CEO of the company should be held criminally responsible because of a higher than average rate of safety violations, with 532 of them representing only a single facility (which yes, should be shut down until they get their house in order.)
I do think BP needs to do some serious housecleaning, but I don't see any value in prosecuting their CEO. The Manager of that refinery might deserve it if anything comes that is prosecutable. The faceless manager probably should face prosecution as well, but the investigation needs to be finished to find out exactly who. I am starting to think that Williams should face at least a fine too, for keeping his mouth shut over a potential problem he was able to recognize.
And if it turns out he's been pressured by his bosses to take short cuts and approve sub-standard designs...what then? Should we let their mid-level engineer take the fall for their overall policy decisions? Are they not where the buck stops?
It depends. If an engineer said "Don't do this, You'll kill us all!" the engineer did his job and the manager made the critical problem and should be canned. If that manager passed the problem up saying it's the reason for delays and his manager said do it anyway, THAT higher manager should be prosecuted. If the CEO told a manager to increase speed without feedback on potential problems, and the guy below him said increase speed without any feedback on potential problems, Wherever that feedback bottleneck occured we should come down on like the hammer of fucking god and pin that guy's ass to the wall, displayed in such a manner that EVERYONE can see that if you genuinely act without considering your consequences, you will be prosecuted.
Increases of speed can occur without increased risk for casualties. Someone fucked up, someone should pay. I just don't think it is the CEO.
Now you're just nitpicking. I'm saying their overall response early in the disaster was disrespectful to the public that buys their gas. They down played it, tried for as long as they could to conceal the HD video of the leak that they had set up, had their jackass CEO speak off the cuff as though this wasn't a huge freaking deal...yeah, I get the impression that they essentially laughed this off and then realized we are quite seriously pissed about all this. There's no citation for that, and I trust you can read the difference between opinion and informed conclusion. And you can't fault them for the perception they could throw money at this and make it go away; our regulation and punishment of them up until now has only reinforced that perception. It's going to stay that way until we actually hold them accountable for the dozens dead, and the hundreds injured.
And this is no reason to prosecute.
EXCEPT that warnings have gone from the top to the bottom in BP's case. If there has been a systematic pattern of ignoring safety violations, if mangers at all levels expressed their concerns and the word from the top continually was "Don't care', then you hold the people at the top responsible.
Okay, I can see this, but if it were willful and desired you'd have a laundry list of people coming and speaking out about how they were fired from BP for doing the right thing. I don't see it, so yes there may be a pattern of ignoring safety violations, but it isn't on the CEO for this, because people weren't getting canned over reporting problems. BP's corporate climate even had people to assist others in filling out forms in such a way that avoided placing blame, so as to ensure that things got reported more often instead of being swept under the rug until a fapping platform sunk. There is a serious problem with what happened here, and we need to get to the bottom of it, not scream for the CEO's head.
I find it hard to believe that, with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake for even a month's worth of delays, that BP execs weren't hovering over the phones going "Progress report! You need 18 more stabilizers?! We don't have that kind of time! How many do you have on site? Two? Do it. No, I don't have time for you to do the math, and neither do they. Just get it done. Wait, we're out of concrete too? Jesus christ, do we have any liner left? Ok, just use the liner for the rest."
Hundreds of millions of dollars is always at stake. You hire competent people to ensure you don't burn yourself out. I am certain that there were progress reports filed. It is certainly standard procedure in the construction of a pipeline, as mandated by the EPA. Did the progress reports contain the issues in them that occurred before the explosion? That's what I'd like to know. If they did, then let's look at the people who were supposedly reviewing the reports and find out why they didn't act. I can assure you though, it is highly unlikely that any of the top Executives read the progress reports. Top people like things like "On schedule" "Early" or "Delayed by x days".
Too many projects with too many millions of dollars at stake for them to focus all their attentions on things that from all reports they got were going right.