Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 572 posts

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#421

Post by crumbshot »

gnulinux wrote: post #401
minikites wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If big companies started facing consequences for their actions our economy would fall apart.

So let's allow all big companies to do whatever the fuck they want, because otherwise "our economy would fall apart"? This is the darkest comment I read on HN.

I read it as a lament that our economies are so vulnerable to the actions of a relatively small number of large corporations. Including the idea of certain entities purportedly being 'too big to fail'.

Not sure if that was the intended connotation though.

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#422

Post by cycomanic »

maybelsyrup wrote: post #287
haltingproblem wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While amusing, this attempts to humanize them and somewhat whitewash their abominable actions. They are sitting at the top of the power matrix making lives miserable and dangerous for the ones with least power - paycheck to paycheck workers, those with addictions, inmates in Rikers, dissidents. The fact that they are aware of their own lack of usefulness makes the whole enterprise even more cynical and shady.

To the extent that telling you all this story was an attempt to humanize these guys and "whitewash" their behavior (it wasn't), I have some bad news for you: they're human. It does nothing against evil to pretend that the world is composed of a small number of monsters and the rest of us good ones. I'm the first one to agree with you: consulting - hell, fundamental aspects of capitalism itself - are deeply cynical an…

This is certainly true. I know Godwin's law, but there are some good books and stories (not sure if translated to English), of the children of SS officers, concentration camp guards etc.. They started asking questions of their parents when they got older (or sometimes only after their father died) and found out that the loving and caring father had been a monster at some point.

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#424

Post by StormyWeather »

oaiey wrote: post #6

I hope they also fire everyone involved and substract the money directly from each partner compensation. That will maybe teach a lesson to a whole generation. Okay, naive, wishful thinking.

The responsible parties have been terminated

"We said we would have no tolerance for those who violate our professional standards. In this case, after a thorough investigation, two partners have been terminated for violating our Firm’s professional standards.""

Source: https://www.mckinseyopioidfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/...

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#425

Post by strbean »

Closi wrote: post #353
BitwiseFool wrote: post #114

When company management wants to make a big change they hire consultants to provide cover and justification for it. The consultants role is to agree to and implement whatever the management's desired change is. The consultants exist to provide an air of authority behind the decision and to act as a smokescreen to the employees facing the change. If the plan succeeds, upper management takes the credit. If it fails, th…

> When company management wants to make a big change they hire consultants to provide cover and justification for it. [..] Companies like McKinsey will say whatever you want them to say, and there is no shortage of conflicting case studies to 'prove' their points. Not really, there are plenty of cheaper companies you can hire to do this when you know the solution and just need to bring in someone to do something unpo…

> there are plenty of cheaper companies you can hire to do this

Isn't McKinsey like the IBM of their field, though? Hiring someone cheap makes it harder to pass the buck if it doesn't work out. "Nobody ever got fired for buying McKinsey" and all that.

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#426

Post by lostcolony »

bumby wrote: post #418
lostcolony wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question I always wonder, when people bring this up, is if they've applied it to themselves. If they had a basic UBI of, say, $20k, would they quit their job, and not look for work, not work on personal projects, not look to go back to school, nothing, just do what they are assuming others will do, sit around, watch TV, that sort of thing? Rather than keep striving, keep working, and have both an extra $20k being…

Anecdotally I’ve seen both sides. I’ve seen people get social security or disability benefits and coast for the rest of their lives without working even though they have the ability to do so without affecting their benefits. I assume they value sleeping in and not having to answer to anyone. Their idea of a good time is spending hours hiking or watching tv or various other things that have negligible cost. I’ve also…

Yeah; I wasn't saying one side doesn't exist. It was more in tandem with my parent post - the people who are happy to watch TV, hike, just kinda bum around, doing nothing else, desiring nothing else...how often are they great workers?

I meant the question in response to the observation that "we don't know what happens long term if people are promised this kind of money" - right, but the presumption there is that it will cause people to quit en masse, that they won't look to work, or use it as an excuse to better themselves in a way that society values as well. But will you? I mean, you're on HN; you likely care about bettering yourself, likely have some ambitions. If people with those things aren't dissuaded from working...what's the concern? That we won't have enough checked out people in useless administrative tasks, or poorly performing manual labor or service jobs that we then collectively complain about, while also refusing to pay well for?

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#428

Post by cycomanic »

dia80 wrote: post #118

The opinions on consultants in the thread is largely negative and it's suggested hiring them is a sign of organisational dysfunction. If you can find information on consulting spend in annual reports you could create a "consultant factor" for stocks and see if big spenders underperform.

That relies on the premise that stock performance is somehow correlated with health or overall performance of a company. I think we have recently seen plenty of evidence that the correlation is likely only weak (and I'm not just talking about GME).

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#429

Post by strbean »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #181
iujjkfjdkkdkf wrote: post #93

The war on drugs is responsible for the opioid crisis. Companies psychopathically seek out profits, and need to be kept in check, but that does not diminish the fact that US (and Canadian) drug policy bears direct responsibility for opioid deaths. This kind of news story, while maybe satisfying, is a red herring. As long as addiction is criminalized, and legal drug supplies dont exist, it doesn't matter how many Purd…

The opioid crisis would have happened without the war on drugs. The fundamental driver of it is Oxycontin's dosing schedule, which was optimized for causing addiction. Marketing for Oxycontin is all about how it "lasts twelve hours", when it often doesn't . Doctors were trained and pressured to increase the prescribed dose when patients complained of pain in the hours before their next scheduled dose, rather than swi…

> On a daily basis, patients get relief from pain

In fact they get a dosage in excess of what they need for relief from pain. So, on a daily basis, they are just straight up getting high on opiates, and then withdrawing.

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#430

Post by StormyWeather »

jcomis wrote: post #102
klmadfejno wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is, by the nature of a partnership, how it affects partner compensation.

Not really. This likely will not effect partner comp. It will effect the firm, but partners will spin it as the guilty parties are gone and the leaders need to be retained (through comp!) to right the organization. The low levels will absorb it through lower comp. I've worked in consulting for years and no matter what happens, EVER, partner comp is NEVER effected. They will hem and haw about it, discuss it, maybe mak…

That's not how things work at McKinsey (current employee speaking). It's a partnership and partners take the hit when there is one to take. As a recent example (2020), in response to the difficulties stemming from the COVID 19 crisis partners compensation was massively reduced, but no one else's comp at the firm was affected.

As for the consequences of the current opioid-related debacle, it has been communicated to the firm members today that any economical consequence would be borne out of Partner's comp, as is usual.

Post reply on HN