Enron - a case for government regulation of corporations

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Government Regulation
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Enron trial is currently underway, featuring testimonies from key figures such as Jeff Skilling and Kenneth Lay, both of whom maintain their innocence despite evidence to the contrary. Whistleblower Sherron Watkins has testified against Lay, claiming he was warned about accounting issues prior to the company's bankruptcy. The prosecution aims to demonstrate that Lay made misleading statements to investors while freezing employee retirement accounts and selling his stock. The case highlights the complexities of corporate regulation and accountability, raising questions about the effectiveness of existing laws and the potential need for clearer regulations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of corporate governance and accountability
  • Familiarity with white-collar crime and its legal implications
  • Knowledge of the Enron scandal and its historical context
  • Awareness of regulatory bodies such as the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the role of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) in corporate regulation
  • Explore the legal framework surrounding white-collar crime prosecutions
  • Investigate the impact of corporate whistleblowers on legal outcomes
  • Study the effectiveness of current corporate governance regulations
USEFUL FOR

Corporate lawyers, compliance officers, business ethics professionals, and anyone interested in the intersection of corporate governance and legal accountability.

  • #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
4K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K