This is how Japanese Top Execs take responsibility

[Ysc3]

Airline Boss Takes 20% Pay Cut in Penance for Drunk JAL Pilot

 

A drunk pilot has just cost the president of Japan Airlines 20 percent of his salary for a few months.

 

Taking responsibility for the errant cockpit crew member, the top executive at the carrier, Yuji Akasaka, will take home less pay December through February, while Toshinori Shin, a senior managing executive officer, will have his reduced by 10 percent. Both of them had already voluntarily given up a part of their salaries for November.

 

The pilot, who showed up for duty to fly the London-Tokyo route on Oct. 28, was found to have consumed excessive alcohol, following which he was handed a 10-month sentence in the U.K. Japan Airlines Co. apologized for the embarrassing incident and announced corrective measures, including better awareness and training for all its employees.

 

It isn’t unusual for top Japanese executives to take pay cuts in an act of contrition. After revealing improper vehicle inspection practices at their local factories last year, the chief executive officers of Nissan Motor Co. and Subaru Corp. announced a similar move.

[Vid]

Stupid lah...we will never do something like this. It is never our fault ok. We are sing ka por lang hor.

[Sosaria]

They really feel the shame!

 

But not too sure whether the same mindset still prevails in the younger generation of japs.

[13177]

Stupid lah...we will never do something like this. It is never our fault ok. We are sing ka por lang hor.

Should say it is never the boss fault. They no need to take responsibility when anything goes wrong.

[Neutrino]

But would the J exec have taken responsibility if the plane had crashed with loss of life.

 

I think we should be told.

[ER-3682]

Past & Present SMRT CEO should learn this.

[Watwheels]

Siang kah pager?

 

[DACH]

Compared to ours?

 

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/caas-launches-official-probe-into-sia-pilot-who-busted-alcohol-limit-first-case

[Kangadrool]

First case in 10 years???

 

Means what?

 

Before this, also got case or cases...???

[ER-3682]

Anyway,that Crazy Woman SMRT CEO,Ms Saw should go to Jail for causing Chaos in the SMRT...   earned so much $$$,somemore now still got good Job..

[Victor68]

Past & Present SMRT CEO should learn this.

Ours are american trained. They follow trump dealing with GM employees haha

[Playtime]

Anyway,that Crazy Woman SMRT CEO,Ms Saw should go to Jail for causing Chaos in the SMRT... earned so much $$$,somemore now still got good Job..

She did exactly what she was told to right? Increase profits.

 

The board and people who put her there.. they share equally big.

[Sdf4786k]

Anyway,that Crazy Woman SMRT CEO,Ms Saw should go to Jail for causing Chaos in the SMRT...   earned so much $$$,somemore now still got good Job..

 

Does the below example explians why we do what we do, because we were instructed to be accountable to the shareholders.?

 

 

Definition: Moral hazard is a situation in which one party gets involved in a risky event knowing that it is protected against the risk and the other party will incur the cost. It arises when both the parties have incomplete information about each other.

 

Moral hazard is a situation in which one party to an agreement engages in risky behavior or fails to act in good faith because it knows the other party bears the consequences of that behavior. For example, a driver with an auto insurance policy that provides full coverage, accident forgiveness, and no deductible may exercise less care while driving than someone with no insurance or a less generous policy because the first driver knows the insurance company, not him, pays 100% of the costs if he has an accident. In the business world, common examples of moral hazard include government bailouts and salesperson compensation.

 

The Great Recession

In the late 2000s, during the throes of a deep global recession, years of risky investing, accounting blunders, and inefficient operations left many giant U.S. corporations, all of which employed thousands of workers and contributed billions of dollars to the country's economy, on the verge of collapse. Bear Stearns, American International Group (AIG), General Motors, and Chrysler topped this list of struggling corporations. While many executives blamed the economic malaise for the woes of their businesses, the truth was that the recession only brought to light the risky behaviors in which they had already been engaging. Ultimately, the U.S. government deemed these companies too big to fail and came to their rescue in the form of a bailout costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars; its reasoning was that allowing businesses so important to the country's economy to fail would push the U.S. into a depression from which it might not recover.

 

The bailouts of AIG, General Motors, and others at taxpayers' expense presented a huge moral hazard, as it sent a message to executives at large corporations that any fallout from engaging in excessive risk to increase profits would be shouldered by someone other than themselves. The Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 attempted to mitigate some of the moral hazard inherent in too-big-to-fail corporations by forcing them to draw up concrete plans in advance for how to proceed if they got into financial trouble and stipulating that, going forward, companies would not be bailed out at the expense of taxpayers.

 

Salesperson Compensation

Salesperson compensation represents another area often rife with moral hazard. When a business owner pays a salesperson a set salary not based on performance or sales numbers, the salesperson has an incentive to put forth less effort, take longer breaks, and generally have less motivation to be a sales superstar than if the compensation is tied to performance. In this scenario, the salesperson is acting in bad faith by not doing the job they were hired to do to the best of their ability. However, the salesperson knows the consequences of this decision, lower revenues, are shouldered by the boss, the business owner, while the salesperson's compensation remains the same. For this reason, most companies prefer to pay only a small base salary to salespeople, with the majority of their compensation coming from commissions and bonuses tied to sales performance. This compensation style provides salespeople with incentives to work hard because they bear the burden of slacking in the form of lower paychecks.

Edited December 3, 2018 by Sdf4786k

[Kusje]

She did exactly what she was told to right? Increase profits.

 

The board and people who put her there.. they share equally big.

 

Wah. Cannot go all the way up la.

 

Might as well ask who put the those folks on the board and who put that woman in that position in the first place. It's monkeys all the way up.

[Playtime]

Wah. Cannot go all the way up la.

 

Might as well ask who put the those folks on the board and who put that woman in that position in the first place. It's monkeys all the way up.

Hahaha...

[Throttle2]

Hahaha...

[Victor68]

She did exactly what she was told to right? Increase profits.

 

The board and people who put her there.. they share equally big.

This world is always like that. When something goes wrong, you look for a scapegoat. The lower rank is easiest to deal. Safety officer or the worker not following instruction is a classic example. They rush by not going for lunch or relax to take a break to break the law? Nobody pushing them to complete by certain deadline due to profit?