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

Supervisors often prefer rule breakers, up to a point

journals.aom.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 168 posts

Re: Supervisors often prefer rule breakers, up to a point

#71

Post by darkwater »

alienthrowaway wrote: post #62
randomNumber7 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Similarly, it is reprehensible but legal to pull up a chair and watch a child drown in a pool. In which country? Even for the US I don't believe the law system is that crappy.

> In which country? Even for the US I don't believe the law system is that crappy. There's video from a few years back that shows very American cops standing outside a burning house at night, knowing there was a young child still in it. A passing pizza delivery dude[1] rescued the 6-year old, handed her to cop, and ended up requiring hospitalization. In the online discussion, everyone called the rescuer a hero, but I…

But there was a fire, so the risk of themselves dying was pretty high! There is a reason why they get extra, literal medals if they go above and beyond. Hell, there are situations in which even firefighters would not go easily.

Re: Supervisors often prefer rule breakers, up to a point

#72

Post by darkwater »

kqr wrote: post #60
chias wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw this put really, really well not too long ago: > A lot of us got the message earlier in life that we had to wait for other's permission or encouragement to do things, when in fact, all you need is the ability to understand the situation and deal with the consequences

So fun to see other variations of this. I have for a while said > You never need permission to do a good job. But of course, it takes the experience to understand the nuances of what a good job is in the domain at hand, in the organisation and society at hand.

> You never need permission to do a good job.

If you don't mind, I will steal this one.

Re: Supervisors often prefer rule breakers, up to a point

#73

Post by s1artibartfast »

alienthrowaway wrote: post #70
s1artibartfast wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cops have no legal obligation in the US to protect people from crime. They can watch you be mugged without lifting a finger. They might be fired, but the victim isn't entitled to protection. It basically comes down to positive and negative rights. Someone is at fault if they harm you, but nobody is required to help you, even the government.

>[...] but the victim isn't entitled to protection. Which is the my point. If cops don't have an obligation to save anyone from a fire, then why would random Joe get into trouble for similar inaction. GP was mistaken about the laws in America.

Indeed, we are in agreement. they were in disbelief responding to my parent post.

Re: Supervisors often prefer rule breakers, up to a point

#74

Post by nilamo »

brabel wrote: post #59
randomNumber7 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Similarly, it is reprehensible but legal to pull up a chair and watch a child drown in a pool. In which country? Even for the US I don't believe the law system is that crappy.

I think you'll never find a case where someone got in trouble for not being a hero. I've recently found myself in a somewhat related situation where a guy turned violent in a pub... first I tried to calm him down and almost got hit... he then turned to other guys who were nearby, and one of them got punched in the face and fell unconscious. My family was with me and told me to stay the hell out of it, but I thought t…

> I think you'll never find a case where someone got in trouble for not being a hero

Very much depends on country: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

Re: Supervisors often prefer rule breakers, up to a point

#75

Post by genewitch »

kukkamario wrote: post #64
brabel wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you'll never find a case where someone got in trouble for not being a hero. I've recently found myself in a somewhat related situation where a guy turned violent in a pub... first I tried to calm him down and almost got hit... he then turned to other guys who were nearby, and one of them got punched in the face and fell unconscious. My family was with me and told me to stay the hell out of it, but I thought t…

Here in Finland, there is legal obligation to help people in emergencies, but this does not mean that you are required to danger yourself or act beyond your abilities. So usually only thing you are actually legally required to do is to call for help.

Are you legally required to carry a means of communication? If not, how can this possibly be enforced? It sounds like an end run to get to negligence charges.

For example, how fast can I drive to get to a telephone if I don't carry one or otherwise cannot use it?

Re: Supervisors often prefer rule breakers, up to a point

#76

Post by InDubioProRubio »

staunton wrote: post #63
taeric wrote: post #12

A more palatable phrasing, "supervisors prefer people that engage with the rules with purpose." That is, choosing to break a rule because you are making a cost call based on what you were able to achieve is not, necessarily, a bad thing. The "point" where this fails, of course, is where the "cost" call above is such that the supervisor can't agree.

Sometimes, the goal is to create an environment where people must break certain rules to get anything done, which everyone (including supervisors) understands, but by way of imposing those rules responsibility and liability is transferred to subordinates.

The use of private internet access for work is denied. Doing so, shifts all responsibility from the IT-department on the private citizen. The WiFi is currently out of service.

Re: Supervisors often prefer rule breakers, up to a point

#77

Post by rendall »

genewitch wrote: post #75
kukkamario wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in Finland, there is legal obligation to help people in emergencies, but this does not mean that you are required to danger yourself or act beyond your abilities. So usually only thing you are actually legally required to do is to call for help.

Are you legally required to carry a means of communication? If not, how can this possibly be enforced? It sounds like an end run to get to negligence charges. For example, how fast can I drive to get to a telephone if I don't carry one or otherwise cannot use it?

> It sounds like an end run to get to negligence charges.

It's not anything nefarious like that. US citizens and US law enforcement tend to have an adversarial relationship, unfortunately. Finns generally do not. That law is an expression of expectation for behavior in a civilized society, not an opportunity for prosecutorial promotion, as it might be in the US. One must take reasonable steps to save a drowning child, including calling police. In practice, only the most egregiously callous psychopathic misbehavior is punished. Honestly, who doesn't think that a person shouldn't be in jail who would prefer to film and giggle while a child was drowning? A person like that needs a timeout at least.

Re: Supervisors often prefer rule breakers, up to a point

#78

Post by bmacho »

alienthrowaway wrote: post #62
randomNumber7 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Similarly, it is reprehensible but legal to pull up a chair and watch a child drown in a pool. In which country? Even for the US I don't believe the law system is that crappy.

> In which country? Even for the US I don't believe the law system is that crappy. There's video from a few years back that shows very American cops standing outside a burning house at night, knowing there was a young child still in it. A passing pizza delivery dude[1] rescued the 6-year old, handed her to cop, and ended up requiring hospitalization. In the online discussion, everyone called the rescuer a hero, but I…

A burning house is not "a pool".

In my country you can't watch a kid drowning in a pool* but you are not obligated to help anyone in a burning house, since that would put you in danger too. I assume it is the same ~everywhere in the world, including the US.

* assume rescuing would be fairly safe, you are a good swimmer, you have lifeguard education, the weather is nice and the kid is small. AFAIK rescuing drowning people is dangerous as they can pull you down.

Re: Supervisors often prefer rule breakers, up to a point

#79

Post by ajb »

genewitch wrote: post #75
kukkamario wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in Finland, there is legal obligation to help people in emergencies, but this does not mean that you are required to danger yourself or act beyond your abilities. So usually only thing you are actually legally required to do is to call for help.

Are you legally required to carry a means of communication? If not, how can this possibly be enforced? It sounds like an end run to get to negligence charges. For example, how fast can I drive to get to a telephone if I don't carry one or otherwise cannot use it?

There's a discussion of the difference between American and German tort law here: https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/how-germany-vie...

The difference is that German law is more systematic and includes a general duty to rescue, but this doesn't result in excessive negligence charges, as awards are much smaller.

Re: Supervisors often prefer rule breakers, up to a point

#80

Post by jillesvangurp »

As one of my friends used to joke: "rules are for other people".

I live in a place that loves rules (Germany) and I come from one (Netherlands) that has people like I just quoted taking a more relaxed attitude to rules. Being pragmatic about rules and not placing blind trust in them is key to being able to adapt to changing circumstances.

Germany is having a hard time adjusting to modern times. It's something that's being complained about a lot in the country. The topic of "Digitization" (capitalized, because that's a German grammar rule) has been a topic in elections for the last 20 years or so. They can't do it. There are rules that say that only paper signatures are valid. Never mind that this rule has been challenged, relaxed, etc. They stubbornly revert to doing everything on paper. It's infuriatingly stupid. You get this whole ritual of people printing paper, handing out copies, and insisting it's all done in person. I get plenty of docusign documents to sign as well these days. So I know that this perfectly acceptable. For official documents for the tax office even (via my accountant). It's fine. This rule no longer applies. But try explaining that to Germans.

Breaking rules when they stop making sense and don't apply to changed circumstances is a sign of intelligence. Supervisors can't foresee all circumstances and they like people that can think for themselves that can adjust and follow the spirit of the rule rather than the letter of the rule.

Post reply on HN