Post by Bret Walker on Apr 2, 2002 9:58:43 GMT -5
Just when you thought you'd heard enough about Enron, here's what Scott Adams of Dilbert fame has to say about them:
Enron
-----
I think we can learn a few things from the Enron situation. First, if the president of your company has "killing" built into his last name (Skilling) and your CEO is named Lay, don't be surprised if something bad happens to the employees. It's a little-known fact
that two other executives at Enron are named Randy Pooponyour401K and Tim Declarebankruptcy. In retrospect, all the warning signs were there.
Most observers believe that the Enron executives are devious, unethical crooks. The only other explanation is that they are the biggest idiots in the solar system. No matter how outraged you feel about this situation, you have to be amused by what's coming next: To avoid jail, the executives will have to convince a jury that they are astonishingly incompetent. That's their only defense. Watch in delight as the executives spend two years and most of their fortunes auditioning for the lead role in "I Am Sam." I'd like to be a fly on the wall when they hire their lawyers.
Defense Lawyer: "My fee is a million dollars an hour."
Enron Executive: "Is that a lot? I'm not good at accounting."
Defense Lawyer: "It's cheap. In fact, you'll actually be MAKING money."
Enron Executive: "Woo Hoo!!"
If the Enron executives are lucky, I'll be picked for the jury. I have a natural bias toward assuming managers are incompetent. And I believe in being nice to people who have hundreds of millions of dollars and a track record of contributing to anyone who might help them. Personally, I wouldn't accept a bribe in exchange for casting a not-guilty vote. But I might accept a "donation" that would improve their "access" to me. There's nothing wrong with improving someone's access.
Now let's talk about the unfortunate employees of Enron. If those employees are like most employees, they've been making personal phone calls on company time, stealing office supplies, fudging expense reports, lying about their accomplishments and using sick days for vacations. Compare that to the executives who allegedly stole hundreds of millions of dollars. The philosophical question to consider is this: Are the executives LESS honest or just MORE effective?
I tried out that philosophical question with some of my friends the other day and they informed me that stealing from a company is okay if you think the company deserves it and you take less than $1,000 per year. Now when my friends leave my house, I do a full
inventory.
--From the Dilbert Newsletter 40.0
Enron
-----
I think we can learn a few things from the Enron situation. First, if the president of your company has "killing" built into his last name (Skilling) and your CEO is named Lay, don't be surprised if something bad happens to the employees. It's a little-known fact
that two other executives at Enron are named Randy Pooponyour401K and Tim Declarebankruptcy. In retrospect, all the warning signs were there.
Most observers believe that the Enron executives are devious, unethical crooks. The only other explanation is that they are the biggest idiots in the solar system. No matter how outraged you feel about this situation, you have to be amused by what's coming next: To avoid jail, the executives will have to convince a jury that they are astonishingly incompetent. That's their only defense. Watch in delight as the executives spend two years and most of their fortunes auditioning for the lead role in "I Am Sam." I'd like to be a fly on the wall when they hire their lawyers.
Defense Lawyer: "My fee is a million dollars an hour."
Enron Executive: "Is that a lot? I'm not good at accounting."
Defense Lawyer: "It's cheap. In fact, you'll actually be MAKING money."
Enron Executive: "Woo Hoo!!"
If the Enron executives are lucky, I'll be picked for the jury. I have a natural bias toward assuming managers are incompetent. And I believe in being nice to people who have hundreds of millions of dollars and a track record of contributing to anyone who might help them. Personally, I wouldn't accept a bribe in exchange for casting a not-guilty vote. But I might accept a "donation" that would improve their "access" to me. There's nothing wrong with improving someone's access.
Now let's talk about the unfortunate employees of Enron. If those employees are like most employees, they've been making personal phone calls on company time, stealing office supplies, fudging expense reports, lying about their accomplishments and using sick days for vacations. Compare that to the executives who allegedly stole hundreds of millions of dollars. The philosophical question to consider is this: Are the executives LESS honest or just MORE effective?
I tried out that philosophical question with some of my friends the other day and they informed me that stealing from a company is okay if you think the company deserves it and you take less than $1,000 per year. Now when my friends leave my house, I do a full
inventory.
--From the Dilbert Newsletter 40.0