Slashdot Mirror


Halliburton Moving HQ To Dubai

theodp writes "Much-maligned defense contractor Halliburton is moving its corporate headquarters from Houston to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. Dubai's friendly tax laws will add to Halliburton's bottom line. Last year the company earned $2.3B in profits. Sen. Patrick Leahy called the company's move 'corporate greed at its worst.' Halliburton, once headed by VP Dick Cheney, has been awarded contracts valued at an estimated $25.7B for its work in Iraq."

27 of 555 comments (clear)

  1. What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? by BWJones · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Honestly, given the companies past alleged illegal/unethical behavior, the first thing that came to my mind was.... "what is coming down the pipe that they are trying to avoid?" Specifically, by moving the corporate HQ out of the country, are they avoiding some potential legal action because of illegal or unethical corporate behavior? After all we do know about lots of no-bid contracts they were awarded, not to mention the overcharging of contracts and more. It should also be noted that Haliburton is trying to off-load KBR. But fundamentally, regardless of ones political bias, even if there is no forthcoming news of illegal activity, because this corporation has benefitted so much from contracts awarded by the US government, moving off shore to avoid paying US taxes is simply an additional insult.

    P.S. Remember when Cheney refused to sell his Haliburton stock when appointed VP? He also resisted placing it into a blind trust and if I remember correctly, continues to receive compensation from Haliburton. Also, the content of Cheney's energy task force demonstrated that companies (Haliburton included) had direct input into the official federal energy plan, effectively allowing corporations to dictate US policy.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Get your facts staight.

      Cheney has NOT been paid by Halliburton since he began running for VP almost 8 yrs ago.

      Politicians normally put any personal assets in blind trusts when they take office. So why don't you ask John Kerry why he didn't do that, instead of hammering Cheney for following protocol.

      Corporate interests have dictated or had significant input on Government policy for decades. The hire people called LOBBYISTS to "express their views" to the House and Sentate. Or have you been under a rock the last 35 yrs?

      Asking industry "experts" (NOT LOBBYISTS..they are different) for advice is actually good Government. Having worked with Government agencies for many years, I found they often think too highly of thier own knowledge and refuse to get outside help or to listen when advice is given thus making mistakes. Listening and acting on expert information would be a nice change of pace.

    2. Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? by Linux_ho · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that the US has no extradition treaty with Dubai.

      --
      include $sig;
      1;
    3. Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? by iPaul · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is illegal for Halliburton to deal directly with Iran from the United States. While the UAE may find Iran odious, I'm not aware of a similar restriction. Is there anything in the UAE that would prevent Halliburton from dealing with Iran directly?

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
    4. Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? by stephanruby · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "[Dick Cheney] earned that money in years before 1999 due to performance incentives in his contract..."

      I completely agree. And I wish someone would mod you up, because your post brings us much closer to the truth.

      Dick Cheney got the job as CEO of Halliburton (his first job in the private sector) as a result of being Secretary of Defense. Before Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense, Halliburton was nothing -- his decisions as Defense Secretary made Halliburton wealthy. So if Cheney is getting paid now, it's because of the wealth he created Halliburton during his reign as Secretary of Defense -- not as CEO. As CEO, he implemented a very aggressive take over strategy of asbestos companies (after the scandal had already broken out) which basically got Halliburton to pick up many bargains -- but eventually led it to declare bankruptcy (i.e. Corporate Welfare).

      Now Hilary Clinton may be as corrupt as Cheney, may be, but compared to Dick Cheney -- Hillary Clinton is a freaking genius where it comes to business. Hell, even George W. Bush's failed business record is not as bad as Cheney's.

    5. Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? by DavidShor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You might not realise this, but labor is about as expensive in Dubai as it is in Houston.

    6. Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? by darkonc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There was a time when US companies and corporate leaders felt that it was worthwhile to care about the communities in which they exist. Er, um. No. There was simply a time when (with the US being the prime destination for goods as well as a prime source of raw gods), it didn't make much sense to do things like move out of the country.

      Back then you had companies dumping hazardous chemicals into aquifers, and exploiting workers as well as the Union contracts (or lack of a union), and labour market allowed. I talked to one lady who worked in an office environment in the early '70s.... When an important executive came into town, they'd pick a random receptionist to 'take care of his needs'. It was a case of 'put up or get out' and, for a young woman with few other prospects and the likelihood of a bad reference if she said 'no', there were some very hard choices to be made.

      It's long been case that your average large conglomerate was focused on making a profit -- by hook or croock. The difference was that -- roughly from the 60s to the 80s the electorate had a reasonable control of the government, which responded by setting laws and regulations which generally worked for the average citizen. Nowadays, big business has gotten their claws (back) into the heart of government.

      Instead of setting the rules and laws such that a corporation hellbent on making money would act in a way that (generally) worked for the populace, now the laws are increasingly being set so that a corporation hellbent on making a profit will be able to set the rules so that they work for the greater profit rather than the greater good.

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    7. Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? by cultrhetor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Speaking of "insurgents" - When will the US Gov't cut off dealings with Halliburton - remember the Dubai port security issue a few years ago? That was ports - this is our military. I suppose with Dick and Bush, the double standard will apply.

      --
      "Tu fui, ego eris" - Virgil
    8. Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? by Duhavid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      obstruction of justice


      Does a crime have to have been committed for a criminal investigation to
      be carried out? If so, then the tail is chasing the dog, and nothing
      ever gets started. So, there was an investigation. The jury believes
      that Scooter obstructed that investigation by not being honest ( kinda
      like Clinton was dishonest, perhaps ).

      And tell me truely, if a Democratic administration had disclosed the
      identity of a spouse of a critic of that administration that had held
      a similiar position, that the Republicans would have said "no harm,
      no foul, she/he/it was sitting at a desk, no big deal". You know in
      your heart that they would not. And you know what it was obstruction of.

      Not that I disagree with the summation that it is partisan politics, but
      be honest with yourself, it was on the border, and it looks from here
      like it was done out of spite.

      And on Cheney not getting nailed, most chief of staff type people are
      doing their master's bidding, so to suspect him should not be suprising.
      It is possible that Scooter had his own agenda, and that Cheney is
      as innocent as you believe him. It is also possible that Scooter is
      the whipping boy, and that someone has decided that Cheney cannot be
      named in this for political reasons, and due to political pressure.
      I am only disappointed to the extent that if he is guilty, he should
      take the hit and not Scooter. If he is not, then let it fall on the
      guilty party. I do find it interesting that he did not testify, but
      I dont know why he did not.
      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    9. Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? by serbanp · · Score: 2, Interesting
      If you are a Boeing, you may make the best airplanes, but you have a heavily government subsidized Airbus to go up against. In this particular case of course, Airbus, having nothing to lose but European tax payers money went way out on a limb with some bad technology and now Boeing is seeing the benefit. But several years ago Boeing outlook wasn't so certain, and several years from now (if Airbus gets their act together) that might be the case again. Very rarely though does our government step in to prop up a company that might be in trouble (Chrysler being a counter example), instead letting the chips fall where they may (as with Enron, Worldcom, etc.)

      Bad technology, eh?

      What a senile and misinformed view! Wow! Yes, it's very costly and risky to develop commercial aircraft products and, in the case of Aribus, the EU stepped in and funded part of the bussiness. B.t.w., from a strategic point of view it makes all the sense in the world to not have to depend on an American company in such an important field.

      OTOH, Boeing is a mamouth of a company with fingers in many pies, including the very generous subsidies for military development coming from the US Government. Guess who's paying for these? you and me and every individual who's paying taxes, that's who.

      Bottomline is, both companies are funded by the government, so whining about the unfair competition Boeing has to face in the commercial aircraft arena is pointless. Take a look at the different approach they have in developing new products and you'll understand why, despite setbacks regarding the A380, Airbus will win in the long run (i.e. in 20-30 years).

    10. Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? by Saffaya · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > If you are a Boeing, you may make the best airplanes, but you have a heavily government subsidized Airbus to go up against. In this particular case of course, Airbus, having nothing to lose but European tax payers money went way out on a limb with some bad technology and now Boeing is seeing the benefit.

      It gets tiring to see the same US propaganda, again and again. And again. ad nauseum.

      Airbus gets nil interest loans. That means it has to reimburse every cent back.

      Boeing got whole airplanes for free. All expenses re-imbursed.
      You don't believe me ? Then check who has payed for the flagship of Boeing's fleet, the 747 jumbo jet.

      NASA.
      That means the US taxpayer's money paid for eveything in the design of the 747 and Boeing sold it for pure profit.

      And there's another thing called the FAA.
      It's purpose is to promote and give advantage to the american air industry by tailoring rules and specifications.
      Don't believe me ? Then check it yourself, it is written in all words in its official creation statement.

      Small example : ETOPS.
      ETOPS regulation defined how long at maximum should an airliner be able to fly with only one reactor operational. Other airplane makers strove hard to meet this requirement, and succeeded.
      When Boeing couldn't, well, the FAA just reduced the length requirement. Easy as pie.

    11. Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? by Yocto+Yotta · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Costco is the best company I have ever worked for, and I've worked for what I believe is some very inspiring management elsewhere. My warehouse had 220 employees and I wouldn't doubt 95% of them loved their job with a passion.

      --
      A B A C A B B
    12. Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? by stephanruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...a critic that was spreading open lies about them that the NY Times was lapping up.

      Oh pray tell, what did Wilson lie about? That he should have known that his wife had recommended him for the job, I'll give you that one -- but that's about it (and good luck proving it by the way). Joseph Wilson is not the anti-war liberal hack know-nothing that the republicans are trying to make him out to be. And the extreme-right bloggers that make him out to be a former Clinton aid who was against the war are just as guilty as the Bill O'Reilly's show which tried to imply that Mark Folley was a democrat -- instead of a republican.

      In fact, if you look at Joe Wilson's resume, you'll find that every time the republicans were in power, he had a promotion, and during the time Clinton was in office -- he was demoted to a lesser rank. So if he was the lapdog of anyone in particular, he was the lapdog of Bush Senior. Furthermore, he wasn't just against the war in Iraq as I've read a hundred times already, he was against the *second* War in Iraq -- the first War -- he was for it -- just like George Bush Senior. I believe this is a distinction that's too often omitted in these discussions. Not to mention, that when his credentials come up, his lack of experience in the country of Niger is cited, but his experience in Iraq or his experience with another Uranium rich country like the Gabon are seldom even mentioned.

      And I'm barely even scratching the surface here, I've heard many half-truthes and deliberate omissions regarding Joe Wilson. So if you have anything to say about him, please go on -- I'll be happy to verify whatever you've heard about him.

    13. Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? by Chrisje · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're not a brick-layer with five kids and an ex wife, are you? You're not a coal miner, Iranian cab-driver, unemployed single mother or, god forbid, school teacher or nurse, are you? Because if you were, you'd not be so quick to say that you'll pay for your own vaccinations, condoms or pills and whatnot. Honestly, this is the typical knee jerk reaction of the relatively well-paid right winger that thinks no government is good government. But it's also a skewed reaction.

      Furthermore, there are plenty of good alternatives. The Swiss, Swedes, Dutch and Israeli have a system where every citizen is insured per default for health-care. The thing is that in these countries, you can still choose which doctor/hospital/dentist you go to, and the medical industry is payed per-patient.

      This means the government steps in and ensures everyone has the proper basic medi-care insurance (which includes abortions, birth control, vaccinations and a whole array of other preventive means) while the EXECUTION is left either to subsidized or private institutions. This mix may vary between the countries I've mentioned, but the basic gist is the same.

      I don't see how such a program "limits" the "freedom" you think you have. Furthermore for once it's a system that doesn't screw over the Maroccan grand-mother, whose husband died after doing 30 years of low-wage work as an immigrant, and doesn't have 5 cents to scratch her ass with.

      "the market" isn't holy. It doesn't automatically magically optimize itself to provide the best care for all. It's money-driven, and we can't have that in health-care.

      I would argue you should take a long, hard look at the level of health-care in Cuba. Their system is innovative, does more with less, is totally free for everyone in the country and life-expectancy is up *in spite of* 40 years of economic sanctions by y'all in the US. I'm not for communism, but health-care is the one thing Cubans do better than the US administration, way I see it.

      The values of a society are reflected in the way they treat their weakest links.

    14. Re:What are they avoiding (besides paying taxes)? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Libby DID in fact lie. Armitage MAY have been the original leaker, but Libby was still involved in calling people in the media and dropping Valorie's identity (who cares if he didn't use her name but just Joe Wilson's wife?). The whole point of this investigation is that he lied to protect Cheney. They had hoped the charges would make him squeal, but he's being a Good German probably in exchange for a pardon. Very frightening how easily and quickly Conservatives have been convinced that this case was bogus (while somehow completely forgetting that they impeached a PRESIDENT for lying about a blow job).

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  2. Dubai has no extradition treaty with the US by Scareduck · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Per Wikipedia (either as Dubai or as the United Arab Emirates).

    --

    Dog is my co-pilot.

  3. Not only taxes by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What of data retention laws? It's more difficult to audit their paper trails when their HQ is in Dubai than if it were in New York. Minimum wage laws for the average janitor are probably a little more exploitable.

    Heck, with all of the crap which has been going on lately, it may even be a security move: in that the execs may actually feel safer in Dubai from the revenge of the people they've ruthlessly swindled in the US.

    --
    the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
  4. sounds legitimate to me by sentientbrendan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    what's more sensible than an *oil company* relocating to the *middle east*? Dubai isn't just some random village in the middle of nowhere, it's a major economic hub http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai

    A lot of people have mentioned the Halliburton contracts in iraq, but Halliburton is spinning off it's military division anyway and is likely to be distanced from iraq. Aside from that, I don't think anyone at Halliburton takes the notion seriously that they will be sued when an ex-CEO is practically running the country... if they were ever afraid of that the abuses wouldn't have happened in the first place.

    Also, a bunch of people have mentioned criminal charges. A lot of the problems with Halliburton, Halliburton can't really be held responsible, since the problems originated in the fact that we negotiated such crappy contracts with them. If you're contract has holes in it, you're pretty fucked when it comes to trial.

  5. According to the company... by mi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They want the HQ to be closer to the majority of the fields they operate and to the bulk of their customers, which is Asia. Their main business is "oil services", mind you. And the biggest oil fields are around the Gulf...

    Not sure, why all this is /. material, though...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  6. Re:why do liberals hate america? by iPaul · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm ululating in the street with joy as my wife dances in her burka.

    --
    Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
  7. Let them leave then cancel ALL contracts! by TheRealStyro · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The US government should offer the advice that this move is not a good idea. If they leave any and all remaining assets (and any profits) will be taxed 500% for 10 years and ALL contracts will be canceled as they will become a foreign corporation and cannot have contracts that may/do have implications for national security.

    To make things fair, these and more rules should be applied to any US company that leaves.

    On another note, what does this topic have to do with the usual technology issues on Slashdot?

    --
  8. Re:Global CO2 by iPaul · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Funny you should bring this up. The UAE is in the process of building a multi-multi-billion dollar office, retail, entertainment development right on the water's edge. Only problem is it's not much higher than sea-level. From what I understand the sea levels don't have to rise much before they'll need hip-waders to walk into the buildings.

    --
    Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
  9. Re:Cheney's retirement? by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've got bad news for you. The folks running Washington don't have your (or my) best interests in mind when they make business decisions. For the record, that would include all 535 suits at the opposite end of the mall from the oval office.

    Thing is, there is essentially nothing you can do to stop them - you* voted them in. Twice. All you can do is vote them our next time - preferrably by a wide enough margin that there is no question as to who won.

    *The you I am referring to is the collective, American you, not you-singular. You may have voted for someone else, but clearly you didn't convince enough people to vote with you (maybe you should have a few more pen pals in battleground states?). I'm guilty, too. I didn't vote for him (else I'd be complaining about tomato and vinegar subsidies, I suppose), but I also didn't convince enough of my Virginia bretheren to vote against him. I will take credit for voting out Allen, though. And for keeping Boucher in office. Might as well take some credit as well as the blame. If it makes you feel better, my other half - who did vote for him - has finally come to her senses and realized that she made a horrible mistake. And if those nuts in Iowa don't all get drunk and vote for Hillary, she just might correct that mistake next time.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  10. I'd pick Dubai over Houston any day of the week... by PenguinBoyDave · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As as American who has traveled extensively throughout the Middle East, Dubai is perhaps one of my favorite cities anywhere. It is a world class city with all the "modern" things you'd want and a touch of class that makes it a true gem.

    I know the issue isn't which city is better, but Dubai is like a New York. If you're in the financial business, go to Manhattan. If you're in the tech world, go to san Jose. If you're in the oil business with 90% of your work in the middle east, go to Dubai. I see nothing wrong with this, especially if they say they are going to pay US taxes and remain a US corp.

    --
    I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
  11. Re:I'd pick Dubai over Houston any day of the week by clambake · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It is a world class city with all the "modern" things you'd want and a touch of class that makes it a true gem.

    A very large population of indentured slaves, for example.

  12. Re:I'd pick Dubai over Houston any day of the week by PenguinBoyDave · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Care to back that one up? Bahrain potentially has that situation, as might Saudi Arabia. However, the prince who runs UAE is exceedingly cautious of the way his country is viewed by the outside world, and I don't think your statement is accurate.

    --
    I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
  13. Re:I'd pick Dubai over Houston any day of the week by GodInHell · · Score: 2, Interesting
    And.. 30 seconds of googling "UAE labor conditions" brings us - this.

    The UAE labor law does not cover domestic workers. Many are physically and sexually abused. Stories abound of housemaids who try to escape their employers' homes knowing neither the address nor the phone number, nor even the family's full name. Some end up in hospitals, victims of rape. Rarely is an employer prosecuted. Authorities are threatening to shut down Dubai's only shelter for women and children survivors of violence, including women domestic workers who have suffered abuse by their employers. The best that an abused domestic worker can hope for is an airline ticket back home and a lifetime of shame. Which also had this quote which reminded me of our own H1B indentured servants

    A Qatari citizen--the sponsor--procures a visa for a worker and thereby controls that worker's movements for the duration of his or her contract while in Qatar. Just because we're not in the middle east, dosen't mean we don't like to enslave indiana tech workers. Check out the H1B.. it's bloody evil.

    -GiH