Hayward on fairness

What better illustration of why BP boss Tony Hayward had to resign than his parting statement, in which he says that life isn't fair. [BBC]

⟿ Follow Rob Beschizza on Twitter.

More at Boing Boing

Ants and Stars: Bruce Sterling and Jasmina Tesanovic visit the Sardinia Radio Telescope in Italy

The Snowden Principle

lolbrandon

I don’t own a yacht. Life isn’t fair.
sumi

Â£600,000 a year pension? Geez, I could live out the rest of my life more than comfortably on just one year of that, with more than enough left over to insure the young ones in the family get a good financial start in their early adulthood. It makes me feel a little sick to my stomach to think of how overcompensated these CEOs are.
Roger Wilco

what, he should be thrilled. if there is one place on earth he can trash the environment and still live like a king it’s russia.
dbarak

That picture of him looks a slightly gargoyle-ish, doesn’t it?
danegeld

I could settle with the travesty of a Â£1M golden handshake and Â£600k a year pension for life. … seriously, why is this guy not in jail.
- IWood
  
  Because that’s the nature of corporate personhood: no humans are responsible. That is the entire purpose of the entity. It’s a fictional construct designed to create wealth with little or no sentient accountability. I would in fact gladly acquiesce to current levels of management compensation if that compensation came with the understanding that the individual receiving it was liable for corporate malfeasance. That is: yes, you can make $600K per year in direct compensation, with millions more in options. But if something goes wrong, you go on trial. If convicted, you go to jail. Because you were in charge.
blurgh

In other words, you’re complaining that BP were focussing on PR, rather than getting a fix in place.

Of course, they were trying to get a fix in place. They weren’t trying hard enough? How’s the general public going to know? Despite the fact that everyone thinks they’re an expert, most people will just be spouting second-hand knowledge.

In other words, you think you’re unhappy about them fixing the problem, but really you’re unhappy about them looking like they’re fixing the problem.

It wasn’t that they had too much PR, it’s apparently that they didn’t have enough good PR.

Still, by getting rid of Tony Hayward, it looks like they’re cottoning on to crowd-pleasing but fundamentally meaningless PR stunts now.
Anonymous

He’s absolutely correct and I’m crying with him. Life is not fair.

If it was fair, he and a large portion of the executive officer’s of BP would be in jail currently or out on bail. The company would be in the beginning process of being broken up. The share-holders would be forming a lawsuit against the previous executive officers and most of them would lose all the monetary gain they have garnered from their time at BP.

And I agree with his implied statement. We should make our society a heck of a lot fairer than it is now.
fnc

How sad that he’s right, but for reasons he will never come close to understanding.
Mooseman

I agree he needed to go, because no matter who was at the apex of BP, he or she would be vilified. It is a time-honored and particularly ugly side of human nature, but it exists no matter what.

Tony Hayward had nothing personally to do with this incident, nor should he have. He did not design the well plan, did not monitor the well, did not construct the BOP stack, and did not conduct and then ignore all the tests that disclosed problems. He was not advised of the well instability, nor should he have been. Assessing him the blame no doubt makes you feel good and powerful, but detracts from those who truly deserve the blame.

While no one likes to hear him say it (and maybe he should know better than to say it), he is right–there is plenty of blame to go around, and not all of it is BP’s. Multiple people on the ground, most of then non-BP contractors, made multiple bone-headed mistakes and took stupid risks. And all of these mistakes were contrary to written policies and sound industry practice. Everyone who took a shortcut knew better. Like all of you, Tony Haward learned all of this after the fact.

So, go ahead mob, spit at him; vilify him; hate him. It really misses the point, and is a whole lot easier than understanding how this disaster really occurred. But but I hope at least it makes you feel better.
- Anonymous
  
  He did not design the well plan, did not monitor the well, did not construct the BOP stack, and did not conduct and then ignore all the tests that disclosed problems. He was not advised of the well instability, nor should he have been. Assessing him the blame no doubt makes you feel good and powerful, but detracts from those who truly deserve the blame.
  
  I don’t think Hayward is the only one to blame here. But if he had no idea what happened at his company and wasn’t responsible for ensuring any of it was done properly, what exactly was he being paid for?
- Anonymous
  
  And all of these mistakes were contrary to written policies and sound industry practice. Everyone who took a shortcut knew better.
  
  If only there was someone who could have overseen these people and make sure they didn’t do such things. Anyways, the important point is that the CEO didn’t know what was going on, so was just doing his job, right?
- dw_funk
  
  This doesn’t really excuse his incredible woe-is-me-isms. Probably less than 1% of humanity has as much wealth as he does; hell, he didn’t even get completely fired from BP! They just shifted him sideways into another position, eliminating any need for him to look for a new job, which he might have trouble finding after his abysmal performance as a public figure.
  
  I completely agree that Mr. Hayward isn’t totally culpable for the spill. But it can’t be denied that a CEO has some responsibility for ensuring a proper corporate culture of safety. There is evidence that BP has had a history of unsafe wells and poor adherence to regulations, which may not have originated in the board room, but wasn’t prevented there, either. This is all without mentioning the fact that Mr. Hayward is the CEO of a highly visible energy company, who should be expected to be a little more tactful when a camera is pointed at his stupid, stupid face.
  
  Certainly, the tendency for people to be drummed out of their jobs can be a “particularly ugly side of human nature,” but I don’t think that this is one of them. Regardless of how much responsibility Mr. Hayward had in this disaster, his boneheaded response to the press clearly indicates that he has no place whatsoever being the chief of a prominent international corporation.
  
  You say there’s plenty of blame to go around; there’s more than enough for Mr. Hayward to have his share, too.
- soongtype
  
  People can hate who they want. Hayward was getting rich destroying our environment long before this ever happened. I have no sympathies. If the justice system finds he’s innocent, then good for him.
Boba Fett Diop

Michael Sheen is so going to play this guy in the movie.
JoshuaTerrell

I’m going to echo what Mooseman said. Hayward isn’t the one you should be blaming. Actually, in this case, the blame doesn’t fail squarely on any one person or entity. The Gulf disaster is the result of a subsequent series of mistakes by multiple parties. Who’s fault is this? Collectively, the people who made the mistakes, and likely, they were probably fired the day the oil started flowing. So calling for BP to tried in criminal court is ridiculous. There probably isn’t a crime here to try somebody for. The well is capped, people are watching it closely, it’s time to clean up and move on. And maybe work on that corporate personhood issue.
- nosarembo
  
  @JoshuaTerrell: so your point is, if enough people are criminally negligent, they should all get off scott free.
  
  Resisting. Urge. To. Godwin.
  
  > So calling for BP to tried in criminal court is ridiculous
  
  Yeah, because that totally wouldn’t deter other corps from negligence in the future.
  - JoshuaTerrell
    
    @nosarembo: My point is, if you can find me proof that some individual or entity in this chain of events actually did something criminally negligent, sure, I’ll agree that they should be tried for the crime. But so far I haven’t really heard anyone come up with solid proof of negligence on a criminal scale. The blame is so heavily diffused currently that the negligence each of the entities and individuals involved doesn’t approach criminal (unless someone makes a case for it).
    
    Feel free to go down the Godwin route. I can think of multiple reasons why that comparison falls flat.
    - nosarembo
      
      @JoshuaTerrell OK I think I see your point – BP’s operations had an inertia and individuals only played a small part.
      
      However: the executive level of the company is responsible for oversight. People down the chain should follow that oversight.
      
      I contend the spill wasn’t a freak accident.
      
      If there are no consequences for people’s actions, why should we expect their future behavior to change?
Antinous / Moderator

Tony Hayward had nothing personally to do with this incident, nor should he have.

The firefighter isn’t the one who set your house alight, but it’s his/her job to deal with the consequences.

You: Help! Help! My house is on fire!

Tony Hayward, firefighter: It doesn’t look that bad to me. I’m pretty sure that only a tiny percentage of the building is in flames. Are you aware of how many fires are started naturally by lightning?

You: Why aren’t you hooking up your hose to the hydrant?

Tony Hayward, firefighter: Relax. Have you seen the local fire department’s PR campaign explaining how good we are at what we do?

You: My whole life is being destroyed in there!!!

Tony Hayward, firefighter: Tell me about it. I was in the middle of dessert when this call came in. Don’t you think that I want to get back to it?
Antinous / Moderator

He can cry into the $900+000 that he’ll be getting annually for the rest of his life for having helped give BP the worst quarter in the history of capitalism.
Sagodjur

Cry me a river.

No, seriously. Cry me a river that’s not polluted with oil, Tony. That might actually help.
Teller

I want my gulf back.
brix

life isn’t fair.

sometimes you step off the pavement and run an insanely profitable multinational corporation with gross negligence and a willful disregard for the public wellbeing, not to mention total indifference to the environmental impact of your enterprise… and then something mysteriously goes wrong.
bklynchris

That Citizen Sagodjur (not sure if Mr or Ms was appropriate) made me chortle.

I mean, is he fired bc he couldn’t think past himself to run the company? Or was he fired bc BP needed to put a face on their multiple and many mistakes that I am sure were just SOP?

The guy they have now is from Louisianna, does this mean he will do right by those people’s whose health and livelihoods are ruined by this, I can’t even come up with a word, the pinnacle of corporate malfeasance? I mean, it really is, as they say, brilliant in its complete FAIL.
dr.hypercube

Clueless to the end (well, given the f*ck up, move up ethos that late crony capitalism seems to adore, maybe not the end).
pencilbox

Hayward on Bohpal: “The real tragedy here is that all of that MIC was lost. Enjoy the bugs, people!”

Hayward on the Tsunami: “Do you know how long it will take the yachting community to recover from this?”

Hayward on Haiti: “It’s going to take years, or even decades, for any of the Haitian villages to become quaint again.”

Hayward on Chernobyl: “No one was complaining about this before their hair started falling out. But that’s vanity for you.”

Hayward on Katrina: “You know what fixes something like this? Oil.”
millrick

surely Hayward will be volunteering with the clean-up effort?
that would only be fair wouldn’t it?
Felton

Yes, Mr. Hayward, life’s a beach…covered in oil.
alllowercase

Actually, pencilcase, Bhopal is a good comparator with the Gulf oil disaster.

a) What happened to Union Carbide (now Dow) after it caused 15000 deaths (in India)? How much compensation and cleanup did it have to pay?

b) What happened to BP after it caused 7 deaths and a fuck load of lasting damage to our natural environment, including loads of rare wetland (in the US)? How much compensation and cleanup is it paying?

a) $470m (eventually)

b) $2bn (immediately)

Just sayin’
danegeld

The government that licensed these activities is equally culpable.

Why did BP not have a funnel / leak protection system ready-made before the spill, rather than having to develop the first one during the crisis?

Why didn’t the government make them do that as a condition of being allowed to drill?

Imagine when this happens under Antarctica?
- Antinous / Moderator
  
  The government that licensed these activities is equally culpable.
  
  The Marshall Islands?
  
  “The Deepwater Horizon oil rig that exploded in the Gulf of Mexico was built in South Korea. It was operated by a Swiss company under contract to a British oil firm. Primary responsibility for safety and other inspections rested not with the U.S. government but with the Republic of the Marshall Islands â€” a tiny, impoverished nation in the Pacific Ocean. And the Marshall Islands, a maze of tiny atolls, many smaller than the ill-fated oil rig, outsourced many of its responsibilities to private companies.”
  
  http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/14/nation/la-na-oil-inspection-20100615
  - bjacques
    
    @Antinous: The late Serge Gainsbourg’s jaunty tune “Torrey Canyon” is exactly about that kind of muddy trail of ownership and operation.
    
    Whether or not a CEO knows about the day-to-day details of the company’s operation is beside the point. He or she is paid to be the boss, period. Rake in the bucks, take the responsibility, no matter which underling messed up. If a CEO is ignorant of the company’s doings, than show him or her the door. If a CEO can’t possibly know all that goes on–and that’s usually the case–then the company needs a different structure.
    
    I’m enjoying the hell out of this. Usually, when a honcho says “I take full responsibility” it means “f**k you; you can’t touch me.” May the legals bills reduce Tony to penury.
fnc

Whether he’s the root of this problem or not, I’m perfectly happy with him being given the boot so that future CEO’s will get the point that they had darn well better make sure their company prioritizes other things besides -just- the bottom line if they value their jobs. Considering that CEO’s live inside some sort of reality distortion field where they are never responsible for the results of their corporate governance no matter how bad it is, I’m not hopeful that we’ll see anything resembling change.
alllowercase

yikes – sorry that was supposed to be $20bn