News Enron - a case for government regulation of corporations

Click For Summary
The ongoing Enron trial features key testimonies from former executives Jeff Skilling and Kenneth Lay, both asserting their innocence amid allegations of fraud. Whistleblower Sherron Watkins has testified that she warned Lay about significant accounting issues months before the company's collapse, suggesting he misled investors while freezing employee retirement accounts. The discussion raises questions about the effectiveness of current regulations, with some arguing that existing laws are vague and poorly enforced, complicating prosecutions of corporate crime. There is a consensus that holding individuals accountable is essential, yet concerns remain about the adequacy of regulatory oversight. The outcome of the trial may set a precedent for how corporate misconduct is addressed in the future.
  • #61
Futobingoro said:
The Landrum-Griffin Act even created a bill of rights to protect union members against abuses of power.

So why object to an act with a similar aim for corporations?

And tu quoque is a very weak kind of argument, if you really wanted to discuss, and not just snark.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
selfAdjoint said:
And tu quoque is a very weak kind of argument, if you really wanted to discuss, and not just snark.
I did not use the Landrum-Griffin Act to dismiss unions as hypocrites, I used it to question the practice of blindly favoring the regulation of businesses. In fact, I was very careful in my choice of words. I consciously made sure that I included the highlighted words in the following passage so I wouldn't be putting a negative label on all unions:
Sure, the bad working conditions of the 19th century may have warranted some kind of worker-organized leverage over management, but Landrum-Griffin shows us that unions can not [HIGHLIGHT]always[/HIGHLIGHT] be trusted to wield this leverage responsibly. It is almost farcical to imagine that [HIGHLIGHT]some[/HIGHLIGHT] unions might have picketed against themselves.
If you remove those words, this passage has an entirely different meaning, i.e. demonizing all unions. That paragraph even started out with the phrase, "On a more serious note, however," implying that the preceding remarks weren't relevant to my main point.

My point was not, "Unions don't practice what they preach, so their ideas on regulating business are invalid." That would have been a tu quoque.

My point was, "It is therefore prudent to consider every possibility when one advocates the transfer of power from one authority to another. It might not be as cut-and-dry as it seems."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #63
Of course, businesses and the management would prefer no constraint whatsoever - and so does organized crime.
It wouldn't be proper to counter an accusation of reasoning fallacy with an accusation of my own, would it? After all, the Nazis at Nuremburg made a futile attempt at dismissing the Allies' accusations by coming up with some accusations of their own.

But I think my point has already been made. :smile:
 
  • #64
Motivation for Landrum-Griffin Act was
. . . evidence of collusion between dishonest employers and union officials, the use of violence by certain segments of labor leadership, and the diversion and misuse of labor union funds by high-ranking officials.

I hope you realize that this subject is not one-sided.
No one said it was.

I have a few problems with Union Management - especially when they start behaving like some corporate managers. To be fair, I know a lot of good/great corporate managers, who have high ethical standards. They are not the ones seeking to roll back regulation, and they are not the ones with whom I have problems. It is the corporate managers who wish to remove regulation and proper constraint, or who seek protection/shielding from liability from their own improper action. I'd have the same issue with regard to union managers and politicians who seek to prevent regulation of their actions.

Certainly laws need to be fair and reasonable.

Along the lines of unions and their management, I have always wondered why unions have never gone on strike over the quality of the products or goods they manufacture, as opposed to going on strike over wages or benefits. Maybe I missed something along the way.

My point was, "It is therefore prudent to consider every possibility when one advocates the transfer of power from one authority to another. It might not be as cut-and-dry as it seems."
Of course.
 
  • #65
Talking about government regulation of industries...
There is one in particular that runs rampant and is not regulated whatsoever. That industry is law. I have no problem paying good money for a job well done, but in the case of lawyers, they can practically do nothing then charge you a grand. Wth is that all about? Other industries are regulated aggressively, but not them, why is that? There is no justification for the crazy amounts they charge people.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 90 ·
4
Replies
90
Views
10K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K