Corporate
Robin Hood is a freakin’ thief… Wait, What?
Today I ran into an article that didn’t make much sense to me. Not that I’m particularly hard to confuse, but I’d like to think I’m reasonably adept at understanding simple allegory. At issue today is the definition of the “Robin Hood” complex:
A former bank executive who was said to have “Robin Hood” mentality has been sentenced to 41 months in federal prison for taking money from some accounts and repaying others, as well as pocketing some of the money for himself.
A psychologist who testified at the sentencing hearing said Mariotti had a “Robin Hood” mentality because he took money from the bank to help support bad loans he had made. In one case, he paid off a $45,000 loan, said his attorney, Ron Hamm. – [Yahoo/AP]
Ah. Uh Huh. So is this how a Robin Hood complex is defined nowadays? I might be wrong, but wasn’t the primary distinguishing characteristic of Robin Hoods antics the fact that he pretty much gave everything he stole to the poor?
Now seeing as this banker executive wasn’t exactly poor, but used the money he stole to pay down his personal debts, that sound more to me like… What’s the word…? Ah, yes. Embezzlement. If course I’m no expert.
I kinda think Robin Hood would be insulted to be compared to this guy. But if a psychologist says it’s a “Robin Hood” complex, who are we lowly peasant folk to argue…
‘Robin Hood’ banker jailed for fraud – [Yahoo/AP]
The RIAAs Worms Turn!
The RIAA seems to be a prominent fixture in the online media these days. And given that they seem to have adopted the rather short sighted strategy of knowingly suing both guilty as well as innocent members of the very demographics that they could have been legitimately making a lot of money from, it isn’t hard to see why. But now it seems that they may truly be getting ready to experience a full size serving of their own brand of justice:
In cases which should by rights have been initiated by the Bush government on behalf of innocent families across America, falsely attacked by Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG, RIAA victims Tanya Andersen and Michelle Santangelo are determined to make the Big 4, as well as companies involved in the sue ‘em all morass, pay, literally and figuratively, for the distress they’ve caused and are still causing.
Go Tanya and Michelle! Though I have some reservations about the long term repercussions of Michelles’ legal approach, ( I think the justification for her claims and the resulting targets are only half right) , I was suitably convinced by Tanya’s list of complaints:
Her amended complaint is impressive. She’s citing negligence, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, federal and state RICO, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, trespass, invasion of privacy, libel and slander, deceptive business practices, misuse of copyright law, and civil conspiracy. – [p2pnet.net]
Wow. It looks like the RIAA is getting ready to have the book thrown at them. As I have said on many occasions, I have always felt that the big entertainment industries had all the right in the world to try and protect their business from pirates.
However I think they crossed the line when they started attacking any technology that could be used for file sharing, especially when these same technologies have proven so beneficial for so many other legitimate purposes. Even more heinous was the decision to sue people, en mass, without any kind of conclusive evidence, and use their legal and financial clout to extort them into settling.
What was the worst was when it became obvious that they were knowingly subjecting innocent people to this form of legalized extortion. I kinda think that they were definitely asking for this. And to be honest, the first line of the article actually echoes my sentiments exactly. Why has this obviously monopolistic corporate activity been ignored by the federal government? I am really interesting in seeing how this turns out.
RIAA named in first class action – [p2pnet.net]
Death In Dishonor…?
The the propensity for suicide within many Asian cultures has always been a source of wonder for me. Cases like the following are quite common:
Zhang Shuhong, who co-owned Lee Der Industrial Co. Ltd., killed himself at a warehouse over the weekend, days after China announced it had temporarily banned exports by the company, the Southern Metropolis Daily said.
Lee Der made 967,000 toys recalled earlier this month by Mattel Inc. because they were made with paint containing excessive amounts of lead. The plastic preschool toys, sold under the Fisher-Price brand in the U.S., included the popular Big Bird, Elmo, Dora and Diego characters.
The Southern Metropolis Daily said that a supplier, Zhang’s best friend, sold Lee Der the contaminated paint.
… Zhang hung himself on Saturday, according to the report. It is common for disgraced officials to commit suicide in China. – [Yahoo/AP]
Now I’ve never agreed with the philosophy of suicide. I believe that it is an easy way out. Living in the face of tribulation or disgrace is much harder to do, however I believe that the greater honor is having the courage to live through and atone for your mistakes.
However the one thing I have always admired these folks for, is their great sense of honor. Killing yourself because you have been disgraced is one of the ultimate testaments to your values. I think the penalty is rather extreme, but I believe that the sentiment behind it is certainly one worth upholding.
Honor is a difficult thing to find here in the USA. Pride? Yes. Innovation? By the truckload. Determination? To blindness. Patriotism? I think we have an overabundance. Honor? …. Meh.
Sometimes it seems like we are all too willing to throw our honor out the window in return for a paycheck. Perhaps if we had as much stock in honor as these folks, our country might be in a better place than it is right now. Just a thought…
China toy boss kills himself amid recall – [Yahoo/AP]
Corporate America is breeding bad Americans…
The dog-eat-dog world of Corporate America is a typical example of what happens when you create an establishment whose only goal is to make money. This article seems to underline the problem with business employee evaluations based purely on a persons ability to make money:
How do people get ahead in the workplace? One way seems to be by making their subordinates miserable, according to a study released Friday.
In the study to be presented at a conference on management this weekend, almost two-thirds of the 240 participants in an online survey said the local workplace tyrant was either never censured or was promoted for domineering ways.
“The fact that 64.2 percent of the respondents indicated that either nothing at all or something positive happened to the bad leader is rather remarkable — remarkably disturbing,” wrote the study’s authors, Anthony Don Erickson, Ben Shaw and Zha Agabe of Bond University in Australia. -[Reuters]
It would appear that business entities appear to be held to a much looser standard of humanity that are individual human beings. As a business entity, they are often allowed to indulge in actions that would have been considered unethical, hostile, or downright violent had the same actions been taken by one person against another. All in the name of the Almighty Dollar.
The problem is that businesses are not lifeless entities. They are not run by automatons. They are run by living, breathing people. Every unethical or inhumane corporate decision is made by human beings, and allowing businesses to operate without regard for the needs of other human beings is the same as allowing the individuals running the company to operate above the laws of humanity.
It is no surprise then, that people who make money, even at the cost of others, are often rewarded and rise up in the ranks of corporate America, while those who try to act with the well being of others in mind are penalized. But we really need to consider the long term social cost of this way of thinking. If we create employees whose only goal is the acquisition of wealth, with no regard to the health and well being of their fellow man, will we not eventually end up with communities of these very same kind of people?
Is that the kind of America we really want to create?
Bad bosses get promoted, not punished? – [Reuters]
Log In
My Thoughts…
Blogroll
General Info
Phyreblades Blogs
Famous Last Words
The Time Machine
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Jan | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | ||||
Issues
Pick your Poison:
Easy Eavesdropping.
- Phyreblade on Objective vs Subjective Reporting
- dreadrocksean on Objective vs Subjective Reporting
- phyreblade on Giving relevance to the irrelevant…
- phyreblade on Giving relevance to the irrelevant…
- shamelesslyatheist on Giving relevance to the irrelevant…