111–120 of 177 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well in this case, it would prevent the current executives who pursued bad policy from being executives at a company pushing short sighted bad policy that has real world consequences on customers. And when they get out, maybe they learned a lesson.
So would sentencing them to probation where being a company executive is prohibited.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The key part of the law is "know or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN" They can not claim poor record keeping and ignorance as an excuse for filing false reports, they SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, which is part of the intent standard in most jurisdictions 1, 2, even 10 reports ok... they suck. 100's of false reports, that is beyond simple clerical error it would not take much to convince a jury that intent is there. i.e they internally setup…
That seems to be assuming facts not in evidence, though. Did Hertz decisionmakers continue operating the system after having been notified it was giving false positives? I tend to agree that sounds like criminal negligence. But nothing seems to be alleging that anywhere. Flipping it around: would you feel comfortable calling the police to report that criminal negligence? Or would you be worried about getting in troub…
>The system is tilted towards non-prosecution, and for some very good reasons. No one's going to jail here.
yes for high profile corporate execs it is, if some Teenager reported his car stolen but then found out a friend borrowed it, not only would the teen reporting the crime go to jail, but the teen that borrowed it likely would still be prosecuted for theft at the same time
Kinda like "resisting arrest" charge that is still valid even when there is no underlying crime to resist arrest from....
Your idea of " system is tilted towards non-prosecution" only exisit for one socio-economic class of citizens
I travel quite a bit for both business and personal reasons. This means I'm driving a rental car for 100+ days a year. I've tried all the major rental brands and Hertz is a terrible experience even when they're not calling the police on you by mistake. Their systems don't work quite right, there's a bunch of hidden fees, and their customer service is lacking at best. I swear by Enterprise and purchasing the extra ins…
However I was in one a few months ago and got a puncture on a dual carriageway. By the time I pulled over to a safe location the tyre was shredded. No problem, go into the boot to get the spare wheel out and I'll deal with it later.
There was no spare wheel. Just some little device which I assume is supposed to somehow re-inflate the tyre and seal any small holes for a small amount of time. Clearly not going to work when the side wall is shredded from driving the best part of a mile on it.
Too 6 hours for a tow-truck to arrive, pick me up, take me to a local garage, and change the tyre. That cost my employer far more than the cost of a spare wheel -- not to mention the cost of the tow itself being about the same price as the wheel + tyre.
Probably not a slight on Enterprise, as I'm sure it's the same with other hire companies (I hired from Sixt on holiday and it was the same). Why don't cars come with spare wheels any more? Are people really that incompetent they can't change one? Surely punctures as as common now as they were 20 years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The key part of the law is "know or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN" They can not claim poor record keeping and ignorance as an excuse for filing false reports, they SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, which is part of the intent standard in most jurisdictions 1, 2, even 10 reports ok... they suck. 100's of false reports, that is beyond simple clerical error it would not take much to convince a jury that intent is there. i.e they internally setup…
That seems to be assuming facts not in evidence, though. Did Hertz decisionmakers continue operating the system after having been notified it was giving false positives? I tend to agree that sounds like criminal negligence. But nothing seems to be alleging that anywhere. Flipping it around: would you feel comfortable calling the police to report that criminal negligence? Or would you be worried about getting in troub…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends a lot on what kind of crime you're dealing with. This isn't a matter of teaching the executives of Hertz that no, they don't need to commit crimes to survive, and how to access alternative means of survival, and all that. They did this because they were greedy, lazy, and they knew they wouldn't suffer much for it. When you're dealing with white-collar sorts of crimes like this, deterrence is a thing.
Prison is not the right fit. If you want deterrence, make them pay directly towards the victims. Put them on house arrest. Put them on probation. Ban them from holding a managerial or executive role. There are plenty of alternatives that don't involve locking people in cells - and that are probably more effective a deterrent.
This is so awful it's hard to even believe. It does feel like there needs to be some threat of a company being completely dissolved in cases like this or Equifax or other problems this big that the organization has shown no interest in stopping
at what point is the punishment worse than the crime, such as if hundreds or thousands of people lose their job?
edit: and if people aren't punished at Hertz, those other car rental companies will see that the money to be made through bad behavior more than makes up for the costs if caught.
I travel quite a bit for both business and personal reasons. This means I'm driving a rental car for 100+ days a year. I've tried all the major rental brands and Hertz is a terrible experience even when they're not calling the police on you by mistake. Their systems don't work quite right, there's a bunch of hidden fees, and their customer service is lacking at best. I swear by Enterprise and purchasing the extra ins…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems to be assuming facts not in evidence, though. Did Hertz decisionmakers continue operating the system after having been notified it was giving false positives? I tend to agree that sounds like criminal negligence. But nothing seems to be alleging that anywhere. Flipping it around: would you feel comfortable calling the police to report that criminal negligence? Or would you be worried about getting in troub…
It doesn't pass any smell test for filing false police reports hundreds of times to be a series of hundreds of mistakes.
This is so awful it's hard to even believe. It does feel like there needs to be some threat of a company being completely dissolved in cases like this or Equifax or other problems this big that the organization has shown no interest in stopping
at what point is the punishment worse than the crime, such as if hundreds or thousands of people lose their job?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hate this ridiculously unfair double standard. If someone costs a company money, we ruin their life. If a company ruins someone's life, we charge the company money. If a cashier at a fast food restaurant takes $30 from the register, they go to jail. If a company steals millions from their workers paychecks, we slap them with a tiny fine.
What is double standard? Who do you want to put in jail for this: front line employee? legal guy? finance guy? CEO? or all of them? Or is it just like "Some one need to go to jail, I just don't know or care who that will be and I do not have time for that" So as per example your example the guy who filed the report be sent to jail even though he was following company policy, though in this case made a mistake. How it…
What should they have done instead? First, inform every employee of a new temporary policy that any report to the police about a customer purely about the theft of a car the customer had rented now has to be approved by a senior lawyer. Second, figure out the scope of the problem and how to fix it. Third, replace that unpleasant temporary policy with something more tailored once you understand what went wrong.