Disgruntled employees can be whistleblowers. This does not mean their accusations are false and it doesn't mean they are true. The accusations should be investigated.

Of course, if one was never falsely accused of an action, they won't understand what I said.

I didn't recommend a poor performer for re-enlistment. Within days of my transfer, she accused me of harassment. I got a copy of the letter she filed and I wrote a response to the Commanding Officer. I cited examples of the performance issues and I'm assuming the investigate cleared me as nothing became of charges against me. The performance issues also resulted in lower marks on the her previous evaluations. One example of poor performance was she was troubleshooting an AM/SSB transmitter and couldn't figure out why the power meter didn't display an output. The AM/SSB switch was in the SSB position. She had trained on this equipment in basic school and I assumed she was familiar with a little known document called a Technical Manual. That was one of many performance issues I noted.

So, disgruntled employees can retaliate with any number of accusations.

During a five year period in the 80's I had five women working for me. One requested early out because of pregnancy, one poor performer, and three lasted till they were retirement eligible with one moving up to the Officer ranks. Sixty percent retention wasn't too bad in my eyes. It could have been 80.

 

I would like to see all executive compensation back to the first witnessed case of illegal activity (2004?) and corporate profits deemed "illegally acquired gains" and have Uncle Sam strip them just like the cash on a drug dealer (or suspected drug dealer). Then take some future earnings to pay off the account holders and fired employees who tried to report to the WF ethics hotline.

I've also pondered on the same concept for any high level people caught red handed doing illegal dealing whether they are private business or government.

They get caught lying,cheating, manipulating, stealing for their own gain they and everyone who directly gained from their actions get stripped of absolutely every asset and item they own before going to jail and if they get out they start out at ground zero penniless ex convict status.

No bank accounts, no houses, no pensions or retirement plans, no nothing to to go back to. Everything they valued as status symbols is gone for good to have been auctioned off to help pay for their crimes and to make sure they didn't have some secret hidden reserve they get audited every year to make sure what they own is accountable to the penny that ways if they pop up in the elite life again without full detailed item by ietme accountability they get restripped of what was missed the first time around.

 

I've also pondered on the same concept for any high level people caught red handed doing illegal dealing whether they are private business or government.

They get caught lying,cheating, manipulating, stealing for their own gain they and everyone who directly gained from their actions get stripped of absolutely every asset and item they own before going to jail and if they get out they start out at ground zero penniless ex convict status.

No bank accounts, no houses, no nothing to to go back to. Everything they valued as status symbols is gone for good to have been auctioned off to help pay for their crimes and to make sure they didn't have some secret hidden reserve they get audited every year to make sure what they own is accountable to the penny that ways if they pop up in the elite life again without full detailed item by ietme accountability they get restripped of what was missed the first time around.

I want to see the CEO living in a little shit-box apartment next year. I would drive across the country to watch him drive his blue-smoke-spewing 1995 Ford Taurus Station Wagon to the local Aldi to buy a box of macaroni and cheese for dinner. He'll get wet along the way since the piece of Visqueen serving as the window in the drivers door was leaking all over his left leg along the way. He'll stop by the local self-service gas station to get $10 in gas (prepaid cash since he doesn't have a credit card) and then watch him check his oil and see that the dipstick is completely dry. Then he thinks hard whether he wants to spend $2.99 on a quart of oil today because he was hoping to buy a 6-pack of toilet paper with the last three one-dollar bills and various coins in his pocket. Oil / toilet paper - a tough decision. Ultimately he decides to buy the oil and then steal a handful of paper towels from the windshield wash station.

He'll get up early tomorrow to empty garbage cans and clean offices at a local business. He will be happy to see his automatic deposit of his paycheck by Friday - then get angry when Wells Fargo takes a $3 service charge when he uses the ATM to withdraw $10 in gas money on Saturday.

 

Yep. That's what I suspect most every honest person in America would love to see done to every crooked corporate executive and government official. Skip jail time and just make them live at the far opposite end of the life they wanted for themselves the most for the rest of their lives.

If that punishment didn't scare the majority those greedy crooks straight make them live it themselves.

It's one of those punishments that should have absolutely zero people opposing it unless they themselves are doing bad things to others for personal greed.

 

Yep. That's what I suspect most every honest person in America would love to see done to every crooked corporate executive and government official.

Didn't you get the memo? No one is accountable for anything, anymore.

p.s. the buck stops with tcmtech and he has no power to do anything to anyone about any issue.

[/sarcasm]

 

Didn't you get the memo? No one is accountable for anything, anymore.

It's only that way because no one will step up and enforce the laws we have now. If they did we wouldn't have these problems.

An unenforced good law is no better than an ignored bad one.

 

In a word ... Leadership. That is lacking.

 

I think it's even worse than that. A mere lack of leadership is one thing, but I think there is actually "leadership" towards lawlessness, on purpose, for the good old motives of greed, avarice and power. I guess I agree 100% if you add the word principled in front of leadership.

 

I think it's even worse than that. A mere lack of leadership is one thing, but I think there is actually "leadership" towards lawlessness, on purpose, for the good old motives of greed, avarice and power. I guess I agree 100% if you add the word principled in front of leadership.

One step missing.

Leadership towards lawlessness and plausible deniability that executives knew anything about it. The execs were sure to have minions within an arms reach to be sure someone could be thrown under the bus at any time.

 

A buddy of mine at work used to say the two jobs of management were to take credit and assign blame.

 

The CFPB looks like to toothless tiger in it's primary responsibility for regulating consumer protection in the United States. It's funded by the United States Federal Reserve (owned by private banks) so I don't see it every being more than a cover for real action on bank crimes. No one has gone to jail and nobody really expects people will.

Well lets see, they did away with Glass-Steagall, won't fund Dodd-Frank and CFPB is worthless. The GOP say that all banking should be deregulated, you guys think it's bad now wait till that happens. Even you low level repubs will be hit and hit hard.

 

The GOP say that all banking should be deregulated, you guys think it's bad now wait till that happens.

Did you approve of those "too big to fail" bailouts? I didn't.

From wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Legislation
Starting in the early 1960s, federal banking regulators interpreted provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act to permit commercial banks and especially commercial bank affiliates to engage in an expanding list and volume of securities activities.[3]

hmm... which party controlled the presidency and the legislature in the early 1960s?

From wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd–Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act
Dodd-Frank, both democrats, and that bill passed along party lines, Section 619 of the bill, that allowed banks to invest up to 3% of their Tier 1 capital in private equity and hedge funds[17].

I wonder which party controlled the presidency?

From the CFPB website ...

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/policy-compliance/rulemaking/
The CFPB implements and enforces federal consumer financial laws to ensure that all consumers have access to markets for consumer financial products and services that are fair, transparent, and competitive.

Interesting rulemaking statement.

 

Did you approve of those "too big to fail" bailouts? I didn't.

Really?
You would have destroyed banking in America. Bankrupt GM as well I suppose?

hmm... which party controlled the presidency and the legislature in the early 1960s?

From wiki

This is the one that did it.

I wonder which party controlled the presidency?

Do you think Dodd Frank is to tight or to loose?

 

You would have destroyed banking in America. Bankrupt GM as well I suppose?

If they were too big to fail and we bailed them out, there is no reason to complain about the benefits of the rich.

 

Care to rethink your position?

In 1999, WJC was president. Last time I checked, he had a D to represent his party. Apparently he didn't veto it.

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/privacy-and-security/gramm-leach-bliley-act
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB Act or GLBA), also known as the Financial Modernization Act of 1999, is a federal law enacted in the United States to control the ways that financial institutions deal with the private information of individuals.

Attached is the CRS document from 1987.

 

If they were too big to fail and we bailed them out, there is no reason to complain about the benefits of the rich.

Hmm, That argument makes a lot of sense.

 

Care to rethink your position?

In 1999, WJC was president. Last time I checked, he had a D to represent his party. Apparently he didn't veto it.

He was very busy in 1999.
But hey, if the president is responsible for everything lets get rid of the rest of them.

 

But hey, if the president is responsible for everything lets get rid of the rest of them.

It just could happen soon, when Kim Jong Trump gets in power. He's the only one that can make and do what the USA needs.

 

The president thinks he is responsible. There are three equal partners in this government. They have specific duties and responsibilities and yet, the meddle into each other's business.

Chief Justice Jay exercised the courts position when he told the president, Jefferson I think, that the course will accept cases of their choosing, they are not subservient to the president.

Some justices attempt to make laws ... Which is not their job.

The Senate wants to select judges ... Not their job. They get the president's selection and they either approves or dis approve. They can advise the president, but, the president can ignore such advice.

The executive branch has ignored their responsibilities as well, and ventured into the legislatures turf.

If they wanted the others responsibility, they should seek the office.

 

WJC is always busy....too many names to print.