Good Honest Dollar $$

One might have thought that private security guards are supposed to ensure the safety of the general public on premises which they patrol.

Apparently not – at least not in the case of those employed by Olympic Security at the Seattle Bus Station, who just stood there and watched as a fifteen year old girl was beaten unconscious and robbed in a vicious assault last month.

Three parties share in the blame for this appalling incident: Metro Transit, the guards themselves and Olympic Security (the guards’ employer), which should certainly be stripped of its contract.

Taxpayers do not pay for guards to stand around and do nothing.

 
The incident
Footage of the entire incident can be seen here.

Shortly after the girl in question was seen talking to one of the guards (apparently pleading for help), another girl approached, launching a vicious assault in which the victim was knocked to the ground and repeatedly punched and kicked in the face. Meanwhile, a third person stole her bag, including mobile phone and iPod.

Aside from having one guard call for help, none of the three guards on duty did anything. They simply stood there and watched. Even after the victim lost consciousness, they did not bother to check if she was OK.

Their excuse: strict orders preventing them from intervening in any confrontation - a claim supported by both Metro Transit and Olympic Security, employer of the guards in question.

 
Three parties at fault
Pathetic.

All three parties involved had a duty of care regarding public safety. All three failed abysmally and share in the blame:

 
• The guards themselves.

To be sure, the guards themselves are not police and do not have the same rights or authority as members of the police force – especially in cases like these involving physical contact with members of the public. Furthermore, it should also be acknowledged that failure on their part to comply with strict orders could have serious legal and/or disciplinary repercussions, and that they themselves are not therefore in any position to disregard these orders willy-nilly.

Still, they have no excuse. There were three of them – surely their ‘orders’ would not have stopped them from either: (a) preventing the attack by simply standing between attacker and victim; or (b) bothering to check whether or not the savagely beaten victim was Ok.

(Moreover, surely there is a case where you abandon orders for blatant simple common sense when it is clear that the safety of a member of the public is in serious jeopardy)

No – their actions reflected blatant negligence for which they had no excuse.

 
• Metro Transit.

Bottom line: Metro Transit are responsible for public safety at any station or terminal under their operation, and cannot be absolved of responsibility when incidents like this occur regardless of any contributory negligence on the part of either Olympic Security or the guards themselves.

The buck stops with them – period. They failed miserably.

 
• Olympic Security:

Finally, Olympic Security themselves must share the blame, and it is pleasing to see that their contract is under review following this incident.

They can argue all they like about how their staff did as required under the contractual agreement with Metro Transit. But this is a weak argument. As a private security firm, they share in a duty of care, and should not accept any contract under which members of their staff are prohibited from doing what is necessary to protect the public. And given their expertise, it is their responsibility to ensure that these types of contracts allow for proper procedures to handle any security incidents that might occur.

They are also responsible for training their staff how to handle confrontations – and this does not include standing, watching and doing nothing.

Rather than miserably trying to justify their actions, Olympic Security should just come clean and publicly acknowledge a clear and simple fact – they, too, failed in their duty of care.

They should also be stripped of their contract. They are not paid to have their staff stand and watch whilst fifteen year old girls are beaten and robbed. If that’s what’s going to happen, then their services are not of a standard which is appropriate to meet the ongoing requirements of the travelling public.

.

It is impossible to tell for certain whether or not Swedish-French supermodel Filippa Hamilton was indeed sacked because she was ‘too fat’ as she claims.

Nevertheless, the cancellation of her contract with Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. highlights an interesting issue – is it ethical to sack models on the basis of weight?

I am in two minds on this. On one hand, the sacking of anyone based around body-shape considerations does raise distirbing issues. Then again, models are hired specifically for their beauty and it would not be reasonable to expect clothing man manufacturers or anyone else to continue to employ those who are not able to maintain their good looks.

(Luxury lifestyle firm Ralph Lauren recently terminated Hamilton’s contract she had been with the company for six years. Hamilton claims to have been told that she was sacked because she was ‘too fat.’ Ralph Lauren claims that the dismissal related not to her appearance but rather to an inability on her part to meet her obligations under her contract)

 
Beauty – an occupational requirement
In most professions, people are employed on the basis of their ability to perform a specific function – as opposed to how handsome/beautiful they may or may not be (though good looks are an indisputable advantages). Any termination of their employment for reasons other than a lack of ability to adequately perform their function would be completely unfair.

But modeling is different. Models are hired specifically because of their beauty. Physical attractiveness is an occupational requirement, and it would not be reasonable to expect clothing manufacturers or any other firms to continue to use the services of individuals who are not able to maintain their good looks.

(That said, I would certainly question any assumption which says that models who are not super-slim cannot be physically attractive (see below).

Also, please note that my comments do not relate to Hamilton in particular in any way – these are general comments only)

 
Disturbing consequences
That said, the practice of firing models based on weight does raise serious concerns:

 
• Health concerns for the models themselves.

If the practice of sacking models for being ‘too fat’ becomes commonplace, then fear of this occurring may feel pressure to adopt drastic measures relating to weight control and diet – measures which may be seriously detrimental to their health over the longer term.

 
• Reinforcing negative stereotypes.

At a broader level, such a practice also serves to reinforce stereotypes which are not necessarily desirable.

Women should be encouraged to aim for a healthy weight achieved by sensible patterns relating to diet, exercise and lifestyle – not to fit some typecast about being unrealistically super thin.

Moreover, people in general should be encouraged to be happy with who they are, regardless of their body shape or size.

No one should be made to feel inadequate based on their clothing size or body shape.

 
• Who says ‘super slim’ is always more attractive?

Yes, beauty is an occupational requirement for models. But I certainly question any assumption that anyone (women in particular) has to be ‘super thin’ in order to be attractive.

Who says super slim is always more attractive? Not me.

Personally, I would not say that in general that I myself find women are super thin to be necessarily more physically attractive than those who have a healthy build and a normal, healthy weight. Moreover, from my own perspective, there are other attributes, such as attitude as well as neatness and appropriateness of gromming, which are far more important to me in this regard than any weight related considerations.

Any assumption about models who are not super thin not being physically attractive is highly questionable in my view.

 
Conclusion  
Despite these concerns, I still can’t get past the idea that beauty is an occupational requirement in modeling and employers should not be expected to continue the employment of individuals who are not able to meet this requirement.

I am undecided. What do you think?

Under normal circumstances, I would not have a great deal of empathy for litigation on the part of consumers who suffer adverse consequences as a result of their own consumption related habits and decisions.

But there is one group of litigants for whom I have a considerable degree of empathy – tobacco litigants. I have a considerable degree of empathy for those who acquired the habit of smoking perhaps during the 1960s or 1970s, and are now trying to sue tobacco firms for compensation as a result of adverse health conditions with regard to which their consumption of tobacco is believed to represent a significant contributing factor.

Why – simply because of the way that the tobacco industry so blatantly mislead the public with about the health implications of smoking over the course of several decades.

 
To be sure, consumers are responsible for their own decisions ..
Under one plausible viewpoint, consumers who have smoked cigarettes for decades have only themselves to blame for any smoking related health problems which they may contract.

Such a viewpoint asserts that the scientific community had long warned about the dangers associated with cigarettes, and that those who chose of their own free will to continue the habit in spite of the known risks must take responsibility for any adverse health related consequences of their actions.

Though I do not agree, there does appear to be some degree of validity to this argument. Personally, I was not around during the 1960’s and early 70s, and I am therefore not in much of a position to make a great deal of informed comment about whether the dangers of smoking were generally well understood during that time. But from what I have read in Wikipedia, it would appear to me that the global scientific community has been actively warning about the link between smoking and lung cancer from as far back as the 1950s (refer article).

For this reason, there would be a somewhat reasonable argument (though I don’t agree) that those who adopted the habit should have been more than aware that their behavior was not safe.

 
.. but the industry also had a responsibility to tell the truth
But I cannot agree with this viewpoint, simply because of the role which the tobacco industry played in terms of creating confusion about the health impact of cigarettes by repeatly making blatant misrepresentations with regard to the scientific evidence on the subject.

It is a well documented fact that big tobacco gave repeated public assurances that consumption of tobacco related products was safe, even despite mounting opinion to the contrary amongst the scientific community. It is almost certain that by doing this, they created doubt in the minds of some smokers as to the question of whether or not smoking was expected to have a serious impact upon one’s health.

(Click here to watch a video showing Statements by the tobacco industry about the health issues of smoking)

This is one of the key differences between tobacco litigants and some other forms of consumer related complaints. McDonalds, for example, have never to my knowledge denied that eating a Big Mac every day would not represent a particularly healthy habit from a dietary viewpoint. Nor to my knowledge have casinos ever denied that excessive gambling behavior can result in serious financial, personal and emotional consequences.

But big tobacco most certainly assured smokers that cigarettes were safe – assurances which consumers surely had some right to place a degree of reliance upon.

In doing so, the tobacco industry failed to fulfill one of their fundamental basic fundamental obligations as a manufacturer – to provide truthful and accurate information with regard to the health and safety of their merchandise. They also opened themselves up to what I would have thought would have been a more than fair case for compensation claims from consumers who have suffered adverse health related conditions for which there is substantial reason to believe that consumption of cigarettes represents a significant contributing factor.

(Image via Wikipedia)

Piracy off the coast of Somalia represents a very serious problem.

But putting armed security guards on board vessels which travel through the area is not the best solution.

Such an action would place the safety of crew members, as well as the guards themselves, in further jeopardy in my view.

 
Two important points
First, I feel that it is important to clarify two critical points:

 
• Crew safety is the most important consideration.

Granted, the increases in shipping costs which results from piracy is a serious concern, as is the unfair burden which it imposes upon ship owners.

Granted also, the impact of piracy in terms of inhibiting the delivery of food aid represents a more serious problem still.

But you can’t put a price tag on human life. And for this reason, the safety of crew members must surely be the overriding concern in terms of dealing with the piracy issue.

 
• Crew members themselves should never be armed.

Whilst there may be some merit in proposals to employ armed security personnel, crew members themselves should not be armed.

Arms should only be provided to those who are properly trained to use them, and under no circumstances should arms on board shipping vessels be placed in the hands of those who are not trained to use them properly.

 
A weak case for the proposal
The case for the use of armed security personnel does not appear to be particularly strong in my view.

It revolves around the notion that their presence (and that of their arms) would help to deter would-be pirates.

From the viewpoint of an individual ship owner, this may indeed be the case. Indeed, pirates may well be tempted to leave armed vessels alone, preferring the somewhat easier prey of unarmed vessels.

But from an overall perspective, the presence of armed security personnel on board shipping vessels is not likely to cause any significant decrease in piracy activities. Pirates who are sufficiently bold so as to continue to operate in spite of the proximity of large warships are hardly likely to be put off by a few armed guards. This is particularly the case as the shotguns carried by the guards are not likely to be any match for the extensive weaponry carried by many pirates.

For this reason, the case for having vessels manned with armed security personal would not appear to be particularly strong.

(Apparently, weapons carried on board ships is subject to the legal requirements of (a) both the ship’s flag carrier; and (b) the nations in which it intends to dock. In many cases, this means they are limited to shotguns (refer article)

Pirates, on the other hand, are typically armed with long range assault rifles capable of firing up to six hundred rounds per minute)

 
Very serious drawbacks
In contrast, there are at least two very serious drawbacks of the idea:

 
• Potential for escalated confrontation.

As it stands, the vast majority of crew members do not suffer any form of serious harm or injury in these ordeals. Nor do they typically suffer any form of inhumane treatment at the hands of the pirates.

That could change if there was an increase in cases of escalated confrontation resulting from the presence of armed security personnel.

 
• Possibility of accidents.

Misfired or stray bullets could easily result in serious accident, particularly where ships carry explosive material as cargo.

 
Over to you
In my view, the dangers presented by each of these risks far outweighs any deterrent benefit which the presence of armed security personnel on vessels which sail through pirate infested waters.

What do you think?

I have a question for you.

How and when do you think the world might have found out about a massive explosion which killed thirty-five workers at an illegal Chinese mine on July 14 last year?

Immediate reports from grief-stricken relatives? No. The mine owner acted very swiftly to purchase their silence.

Local officials? Not likely. They issued a false report after pretending to investigate.

Journalists? Nope – bribed also.

The mine owner? Naturally, no.

So how and when did the world find out? Two months later via some brave soul in an internet chat room, according to a report in the International Herald Tribune.

As a result of this brave soul, twenty-five local officials were fired, twenty-two of them now under criminal investigation.

The debacle described above highlights two important points:

• continuing problems in China with respect to accountability; and
• the constructive role which online media can play in terms of whistle-blowing.

 
China’s never-ending accountability problems
The fact that an incident like this was exposed only through an internet chat room shows just how diabolical the situation really is with respect to accountability and worker safety in Chinese coal mines.

Even at the official rate, according to the article, the average death toll rate for Chinese coal miners stands at nine per day – a staggering forty times more than America. The problem is most acute in small mines, many of which are illegal, operate in more dangerous areas and have little apparent incentive to invest in safety. Apparently account for three quarters of the deaths but only one-third of production.

And even then, these are only the official figures. They do not take into account the scores of deaths which go unreported because local officials and journalists are so easily paid off.

The situation is completely unacceptable and international governments and unions should continue to apply pressure on China to undertake some form of meaningful action to address this downright awful situation.

 
The whistle-blowing role of online media
But on the bright side, the episode also highlights the constructive role which online forms of media can play in terms of corporate accountability.

As access to online media expands, so too will the capacity of individuals to blow the whistle on cover ups. It is one thing to lock in the loyalty of local officials and media (using handsome financial incentives), but persuading every single person who has access to a blog or some other form of online media to do the same would be extremely difficult.

In the new world, online media provides a wonderful mechanism to support whistle-blowing, and in many cases it, is only a matter of time before someone exploits this capability to expose even the most intricately planned conspiracy.

Of course, online media can also be a platform to spread misinformation, perhaps with malicious intent.

And unfortunately, the sad reality is that some firms will continue to attempt cover-ups of various kinds in spite of the increase risk of being exposed due to online media. Cover ups are a reality today, and will continue to be a reality throughout the foreseeable future.

But even so, the benefits of online media in terms of a whistle-blowing mechanism cannot be underestimated, and I would think that these benefits would far outweigh any associated drawbacks.

Where other mechanisms of accountability fail, it is wonderful that the online media provides those who wish to blow the whistle with an effective medium to do so.

Especially with respect to a grave tragedy like this.  

 
Over to you
Do you think online media helps to promote better practices in terms of corporate governance? Why/Why not?