The one engineer doesn't have as much money as GM total.

It's all about cashing in on a tragedy.

 

That applies to tort lawyers. The Justice Department is supposed to care about criminality.

 

If I'm not mistaken, a function of corporations is to limit personal liability.

 

Corporations were now considered "people". As "people" they have personal responsibility. Of course, I'll believe that once Texas puts a "corporate person" in the electric chair.

 

Because corporations are responsible for the actions and failures of their employees. That is the deal. It would be absolutely preposterous to argue otherwise. British Petroleum = Sorry it was Old Niles who broke the valve and caused the leak.... Go after him. His house should pay for the Gulf of Mexico. Please. GM should be held to account just like any other company should. The problem is when some people play favorites and go after some corporations more than other, equally negligent companies. Is GM being hounded more than say Toyota for its design failures? Perhaps. The Teabaggers have been fed a broth of hatred against GM for +eight years since the George Bush bailout. That obviously has something to do with this. Benghazi!

My former 2000 Hyundai Sonata had the engine die at speed twice because of a bad crankshaft sensor -- once on the freeway. As a good driver taught in high school how to deal with such things, I carefully pulled to the shoulder, stopped, put on hazards and popped the hood to flag for help. BUT some others could have definitely been hurt by the design problem. Another thing was that the Sonata and other Hyundais had bad engine cradle designs that rusted out and multiple accidents resulted. A recall was ordered for all. But where was the NHTSA inquiry against Hyundai???? The hearings??? Hyundai fixed these problems under warranty or the recall. Sooo quietly.

What I would like to know is that I always thought airbag modules retained a tiny bit of stored electricity for a short time -- so if power was cut before/during a crash, the airbags would still fire. Obviously this may not be long enough a period of time, with the ignition switch thing. Does anyone know the length of time of retained power?

Benghazi!

 

The Teabaggers

Please explain how people who perform a sexual act have anything to do with this.

 

MANAGEMENT is ultimately responsible for anything and everything the corporation does. Why isn't Rick Waggoner Jr, CEO of GM at the time of this debacle, not charged with criminal negligence? He should be dragged from one of his mansions, tried, convicted, fined into personal bankruptcy, the serve 30 years of hard time for criminal negligence. He retired...errr, was justifiably fired by the Obama administration for incompetence, yet managed to walk away with tens of millions for "retirement".

 

MANAGEMENT is ultimately responsible for anything and everything the corporation does. Why isn't Rick Waggoner Jr, CEO of GM at the time of this debacle, not charged with criminal negligence? He should be dragged from one of his mansions, tried, convicted, fined into personal bankruptcy, the serve 30 years of hard time for criminal negligence. He retired...errr, was justifiably fired by the Obama administration for incompetence, yet managed to walk away with tens of millions for "retirement".

That is what is commonly known as a "golden parachute".

 

Reading Mary Barra's remarks about the conclusions of Valuka's report, it sounds like every large corporation on Earth. "Operating in silos", uh huh; "looking for reasons not to act", you bet. "condoning bureaucratic processes that avoided accountability", yep.

 

So far GM has identified and fired 15 complicit employees over the incident:
http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/05/news/companies/gm-recall-probe/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

That was an odd article. 15 employees were fired but two are still on paid leave. The original two?

I think that this story will break into two parts:

First, an engineer made a personal decision to fix the switch and hide the fix from his superiors. People died.

Second, the issue finally came to management attention and the managers made a cold-blooded collective decision to live with a few fatalities rather than take the financial and reputational hit. Not that it's an excuse, but GM had a sort of fortress mentality at that time. Also, it will be hard to pin that decision on one manager, so GM properly fired 15 of them.

 

I would like to see the investigative report before concluding or even speculating on the culpability of any individual.

Edit: USAToday is reporting that GM agreed "to 'unprecedented oversight' by the government of its safety processes and agreed to turn the entire Valukas report over to Congress and NHTSA." Perhaps we will have an opportunity to read it.

 

What I would like to know is that I always thought airbag modules retained a tiny bit of stored electricity for a short time -- so if power was cut before/during a crash, the airbags would still fire. Obviously this may not be long enough a period of time, with the ignition switch thing. Does anyone know the length of time of retained power?

From the 2012 Volt repair manual:
"The inflatable restraint sensing and diagnostic module (SDM) maintains a reserved energy supply. The reserved energy supply provides deployment power for the air bags if the SDM loses battery power during a collision. Deployment power is available for as much as 1 minute after disconnecting the vehicle power. Waiting 1 minute before working on the system after disabling the SIR system prevents deployment of the air bags from the reserved energy supply."

What it doesn't say is where the reserve energy power is stored. Could the ignition switch be connecting the stored power to the airbag system? Or does each airbag have it's own reserve supply?

 

To the consumer and legally, corporations are responsible for what they design, build and sell. The corporation gains the benefits when the product does well (makes money) and suffers the consequenses when it does not do well (loses money). Employees make mistakes every day. The corporation may discipline employees, fire them etc. ... its an internal issue. The error at GM was not that an engineer made a mistake, the problem was that when the employee's leaders found out about the mistake they handled it poorly. The people at the top of a corporation are legally responsible for everything their company does. Not knowing what your employees are doing may be a reason for problems, but is never an excuse, its poor leadership.

 

To the consumer and legally, corporations are responsible for what they design, build and sell. The corporation gains the benefits when the product does well (makes money) and suffers the consequences when it does not do well (loses money). Employees make mistakes every day. The corporation may discipline employees, fire them etc. ... its an internal issue. The error at GM was not that an engineer made a mistake, the problem was that when the employee's leaders found out about the mistake they handled it poorly. The people at the top of a corporation are legally responsible for everything their company does. Not knowing what your employees are doing may be a reason for problems, but is never an excuse, its poor leadership.

Your argument works fine in civil court, not in criminal court. Otherwise, the Mafia families would all incorporate.

If it is proven that the lead engineer knew about the defect, knew that at least one driver died in consequence, and still actively concealed the issue from senior management, I don't think that incorporation should save him from prosecution. Do you?

 

And, no one is talking about the vehicle operators being drunk and/or driving recklessly.



It's always about Big Bad Corporations fault.

(Shakes head)

 

Would you provide citations please?

 

I've heard these same stories about people dying from " a 50 cent part" for the past 30 years . Well , maybe it was a 25 cent part back then , inflation you know .

 

Is it unreasonable to expect the pilot in command of a vehicle to expect the unexpected? Maybe put down the phone, don't do 40 over the limit or be drunk and drive.....not just point the car and squeeze a pedal but drive the car like a pilot flys a plane?

 

While GMs lawyers later did what lawyers do and delayed the day of reckoning, which may have cost more lives . . .

mikeg3, What are you referring to here? Corporate counsel cannot blow the whistle. That decision is made by the board of directors. If there is an on-going cover-up, counsel can only advise and if a board decides not to act, the only decision that attorney can do is quit. S/he cannot turn the company in to the authorities. I haven't seen anything referring to wrongdoing by any attorneys here. To what specifically are you referring?
DogMom

 

Lawyers don't violate the letter of the law.

When the GM lawyers suddenly settled a case because a key witness was about to be deposed, that was not illegal, but it certainly delayed the day of reckoning.

 

For years, GM as a corporation did not recognize that the ignition switch slipping into ACC was a safety defect.

They didn't have the right people reviewing the problem reports as they came in.





Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

 

The report is actually a real page-turner. I stayed up too late reading it. I used to think a TV show about engineers in a large corporation would be too boring – not anymore.

A few overriding themes for me were the tension between production (cost) and safety, the failure of the system to properly classify the problem as a safety defect, and the general lack of communication between groups in a large company.

I’m not convinced using the same part number was an attempt at a cover-up. GM (not just the one engineer) knew there were problems with the switch at that point. Did the change to the switch change the part’s “form, fit or function”? In hindsight, yes. But at the time I don’t think it was that clear cut.

According to Bloomberg one VP is among the fifteen. Seems appropriate that at least one executive would be included given the seriousness of the situation.

 

The Volt seems to be engineered very well. Hopefully this is a turning point in American business (I do have a rattle in the upper passenger side dash that is inexcusable). But I'm very impressed with the Volt quality -- it just does not seem 'GM' - if that does not make sense read on...

American business has Six Sigmaed themselves to DEATH the last 20 years. Trimming cost on every piece and part has become a 'culture' in these companies (GM, GE, etc...). If you can trim the cost on a $5 item by $0.50 cents save the company millions the next several years. You get promoted for it! No one thought those 'savings' would kill someone or kill the business in 5-15 years!!

The PROBLEM with this culture is it has rewarded mediocracy that has lead to events like the ignition switch. Most cost saving has unintended consequences. Unfortunately unintended consequences don't have tangible cost and are left OFF the corporate spreadsheets. In other words, will that cost savings lead to less product life, or possible loss of life (in the case of the ignition switch)?

In many cases you can 'feel' the differences in quality by how the ignition switch turns in one car, versus another. Or 'see' it in the finish on a quality refrigerator versus a GE refrigerator that has been run through the six sigma program the last 10 years to trim out 'excessive' cost (plastic coating on certain parts of stainless steel finished products). The question is why can't executives see and feel these difference? My answer is most of them are accountants and lawyers and you can't put "see and feel" on a spreadsheet...

At some point the culture at American companies must change. Focus on spending 5% MORE to get 50% more value instead of saving 5% and getting 50% LESS value.

A few overriding themes for me were the tension between production (cost) and safety, the failure of the system to properly classify the problem as a safety defect, and the general lack of communication between groups in a large company.

I’m not convinced using the same part number was an attempt at a cover-up. GM (not just the one engineer) knew there were problems with the switch at that point. Did the change to the switch change the part’s “form, fit or function”? In hindsight, yes. But at the time I don’t think it was that clear cut.

According to Bloomberg one VP is among the fifteen. Seems appropriate that at least one executive would be included given the seriousness of the situation.

 

I guess the $64,000 question is if someone driving a Volt somehow manages to kill the ignition/'power' button while hurling down the expressway, does that likewise initiate the de-powering of the capacitors in the airbag control system, leaving the airbags unable to fire if the driver hits something?

(And thanks for the answer above, also, very well explained. And scary too. Maybe they should have designed a fail-safe system where even if the ignition switch was turned off, if the vehicle was still moving or the car detected a driver or passenger sitting in the car, the airbags would still be armed. I'll take my patent now, please.)

 

What you describe wouldn't happen on the Volt.The Volt (as do most newer cars in the last 10 years) works differently as it is a newer generation vehicle that uses modules that operate based on network transmitted "vehicle power modes" that take into consideration numerous variables other than soley the ignition switch.

The ignition switch is no longer an actual "control switch" that is making and breaking the flow of electrical current throughout the car, instead it is merely an "input" to a processor that is observing it's position, and making decisions as to the existing power mode state on the network bus to dozens of modules.

On the Volt as long as you are not in Park and moving (vehicle speed indicated by various wheel speed sensors) switching off the power switch puts the car into a special "auxiliary ON" power mode where the SDM remains active and in any event of an accident the airbags could still deploy.
However when you press the power button when not moving or in Park it creates a different Power mode- OFF!
(well technically "retained accessory power" mode until the drivers door is opened)

HTH
WopOnTour

 

Agreed, Sort of.


The media is making it sound like GM made cars that people got killed on their way to choir practice.


You should, as a polit of any moving machine, expect the unexpected.

Your ability to react safety to a failure is much less when you are drunk.

or on the phone

or texting

or going 40mph over the limit for the terrian

or anything else.


Knowing the drivers contributed changes the "Court of public opinion" for GM.

Yes, the drivers were in many cases behaving recklessly.

Yes, GM did not make as good a product as they were able to.


BOTH were needed for tragedy. Take one away and the outcome certainly is different.....PLanes dont crash from one failure, it's a series.


HOWEVER, these crack journalists are only telling one peice of the equation. THat, to me, is wrong.

 

Mr. DeGiorgio was portrayed in the report as a midlevel employee who by himself approved a switch he knew was defective, then years later, quietly approved a change in design to fix it without notifying superiors or changing the part number.

http://nyti.ms/1pc2PtN

OK, the report is out and the problem started with one live human being, not a corporate person, secretly breaking the rules to cover up his own screw-ups. At least 13 people died.

When the death reports came in, DeGiorgio could have sent a possibly career-ending but life saving memo to senior management but did not. When Candice Anderson was charged with manslaughter, DeGiorgio did not contact her lawyers, even anonymously.

There need to be larger consequences to engineering malpractice than losing your job.

Criminal cases are not limited by incorporation.

If DeGiorgio is not arrested, this will happen again.

 

http://nyti.ms/1pc2PtN

There need to be larger consequences to engineering malpractice than losing your job.

Not sure about US law, but here a registered professional engineer does have a legal duty to respond to a safety problem. The key is registered professional engineer - many people working inside corporations, doing engineering work, are not licenced because they don't provide services directly to the public.

And there are many cases where engineers are held criminally responsible for their work - an example would be the Algo Centre mall collapse in Elliot Lake where the structural engineer who said the roof was safe has been charged with two counts of criminal negligence causing death (possible life sentence).

 

Shockingly, there was a time when cars didnt have power brakes, power steering or airbags and they just drove it.


Now, without those we cannot safety get the car to the side of the road. Of course, being drunk or excess speed doesnt help.


#Driver Education Fail.

 

There is a big difference between driving a car without power assists and having the power disappear without warning while the car is going 60 mph.

As for air bags, if I buy a car with airbags for my daughter, I am entitled to have them work properly even (especially) if she drives like an irresponsible adolescent.

 

The thing to understand is that while this started with one person's mistake, nobody who touched the problem recognized it for what is was. Many, many people looked at this issue and decided that the switch design, while defective, was not a safety defect. It was a "customer satisfaction" issue, or a nuisance, but not deadly.

It was in this environment that the engineer made the change to the switch design. He was not, at the time, trying to cover up a safety defect.

I don't think we should be so naive as to think this is the only change, in the history of automotive engineering, that was made without changing a part number.

Later on, yes, he appears to have been trying to cover it up. What was going on in his mind at the time we'll never know.

 

Should GM execs be thrown into jail?

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/06/robert_reich_throw_gms_top_guns_in_jail_partner/

 

As any case where harm was caused. there are two parts to a crime: the action and the motive. If there were no motive, it is accidental or negligence by the employees involved, and the corporation is who pays. There can be internal discipline, such as what GM did, but the corporation must pay the majority of the blame and the penalty.

Now, if there is a motive, such as to save money, cheat, or steal, the employees involved must pay with jail time and a penalty. The corporation will pay another penalty as dictated by a court. I believe this is what the article is expressing, and I agree to it. If Mary Barra has the guts to fire GM employees, then her legal assistants can press criminal charges against the employee(s) who decided to save money by ignoring, covering up, or allowing the faulty switches to be used.

I know that this case will be in the news for another year, until all fault is located and penalized, because Barra wants to clean up GM and keep it under control so that this will not happen again.

 

As any case where harm was caused. there are two parts to a crime: the action and the motive.

. No, the two elements are not action and motive; it is deliberate act and intent, or mens rea. There will always be an "action," sometimes involuntary. To be criminal, it has to be a deliberate act, like firing a gun into a crowd.
. And the prosecution does not have to prove motive, just intent, aka mens rea. If you fire a gun into a crowd in a drive-by shooting, you had no motive to hit that particular victim; you didn't even know he was in the crowd. You had intent when you fired the gun.
And third, it is not up to the CEO to bring charges. It is always up to the prosecutor. If a person (or company) files a suit, that is always a civil suit: i.e. Goldman vs. O.J. Simpson. A criminal suit is always brought by the state, i.e. California vs. O.J. Simpson.
DogMom
.

 

Forfeiture of all executive compensation for those that knowingly or recklessly concurred with the conduct, would be a solid civil remedy. Give that power to a jury, and watch abusive execs squirm. Criminal penalty is too high a burden of proof, and everyone the fact that a corporation is an "entity" doesn't help.

 

Why were engineers working from design documents if the behavior of the switch seemed to have changed? If they were investigating a manufacturing problem why not look at the thing? How thorough an investigation can you do without examining the part?

 

The classic Richard Feynman with the o-ring moment....

 

They weren't working from design documents. There were field tests done by all manner of people. But no, they never took apart the physical switches to compare them.

The fundamental problem here was a failure, by GM, to recognize that the switch being too easy to knock out of the "ON" position was a safety defect. As incredible as it is in hindsight, they didn't make that fundamental connection.

 

The fundamental problem was the lead engineer changing the part without changing the part number, a direct violation of GM policy, with no fear of personal consequences. GM knew people were getting killed in Cobalts, they just didn't know where to look because they trusted their engineers to act like engineers.

When debugging a program that stops working, I look for what has changed by examining the last modified dates. If someone backdates a modified program, it would take me quite a while to figure it out. If the program was life-critical, I'd go to the police myself.

The lawyer games will happen in any corporation. That's what lawyers are trained to do.