The 69 Words GM Employees Can Never Say

bizwriter (1064470) writes "General Motors put together its take on a George Carlin list of words you can't say. Engineering employees were shown 69 words and phrases that were not to be used in emails, presentations, or memos. They include: defect, defective, safety, safety related, dangerous, bad, and critical. You know, words that the average person, in the context of the millions of cars that GM has recalled, might understand as indicative of underlying problems at the company. Oh, terribly sorry, 'problem' was on the list as well."

Comments

Corporate speak

[just_another_sean]

Of course they don't need to use any of those words. Everyone knows GM vehicles are doubleplusgood!

Re:Corporate speak

[JaredOfEuropa]

Actually, avoiding certain words makes sense if those words bolster a legal case against GM, as a partial admission of guilt. Same reason your side mirrors still bear that stupid warning about objects being closer than they appear. Fix your silly legal system that allows anyone to sue anyone over anything, and if their case has any merit, gives them a chance to win the damages or out of court settlement lottery.

Our own legal system mostly awards actual damages (which can still be quite high in injury suits), and orders only small awards for stuff like "mental anguish". Moreover, we do not have the notion of punitive damages, instead companies can be fined, with the proceeds going to the state, the object being to punish, not arbitrarily reward a wronged party.

Re:Corporate speak

[JazzLad]

That's ok, here most of the moneys go to the lawyers anyway.

Re:Corporate speak

[Anonymous Coward]

Our legal system isn't "silly". It's based on a different set of beliefs about the relationship between the individual and the State than yours is. You're able to have "faith" in your State because your population is most likely more homogeneous than that of the USA -- just like most people in the USA have more faith in their state governments than they have in their national government.

"Avoiding certain words", DOESN'T make sense, because it is STRONG internal evidence that you've got a MAJOR issue you're ignoring. If you have to start "circling the wagons" to keep engineers from SPEAKING THE TRUTH, then you should have been dealing SIGNIFICANTLY more aggressively with the problems. This is a major management failure at GM, and every middle manager that had ANYTHING to do with the cover-up should be summarily dismissed and made an example of.

Re:Corporate speak

[countach]

Yes, as Orwell observed, if you remove the vocabulary necessary to commit thought-crime, then thought-crime becomes impossible. In this case GM doesn't want to be convicted of actual crime.

Re:Corporate speak

[turning in circles]

I think - in extension to this point - that the lawyers suing GM are too lazy/unable to read every document GM could produce in discovery and therefore they simply do word searches among the documents for the 69 words. The other alternative for protecting yourself from lawsuits (besides never using the words the lawyers will find) is to delete all copies of all emails, memos, and presentations that are more than 6 months old. I have heard about a company that tries to use this method to reduce its legal exposure.

Re:Corporate speak

[Anonymous Coward]

You're able to have "faith" in your State because your population is most likely more homogeneous than that of the USA

This is the 21st century, there is no more 'homogeneous' populations. And that's a good thing. It would be even better if fucking cunts like you would get their heads out of their asses and stopped with the groupthinking.

Re:Corporate speak

[LordLimecat]

If you're coming from Europe, you have your share of legal problems. Let me know when you figure out what "free speech" is, and why allowing revisionist censorship (sorry-- "right to be forgotten") is a terrible idea.

Orwell would be proud, actually.

Re:Corporate speak

[Minwee]

>

"Avoiding certain words", DOESN'T make sense, because it is STRONG internal evidence that you've got a MAJOR issue you're ignoring.

And that major issue is that somebody is going to sue you four eighteen quadrillion dollars if you suggest that there might be a problem with their car, and use the fact that you said "problem" as evidence against you.

Re:Corporate speak

[rogoshen1]

groupthink.. irony intensifies :(

Re:Corporate speak

[Opportunist]

"Mental anguish" gets tossed routinely by judges around here. You get reimbursed for real damage only. That may include time, provided you can somehow show that the time it took you to do what was necessary to mitigate the problem should have been spent by the other party, or that other party could have spared you that "expense" of time by simply doing what was right (that includes the time you spend in court for the whole bullshit).

Re:Corporate speak

[orasio]

Actually, avoiding certain words makes sense if those words bolster a legal case against GM, as a partial admission of guilt. Same reason your side mirrors still bear that stupid warning about objects being closer than they appear. Fix your silly legal system that allows anyone to sue anyone over anything, and if their case has any merit, gives them a chance to win the damages or out of court settlement lottery.

With great power, comes great responsibility.

In Europe, or here in some parts of Latin America, the government will stand in the way of business, certifying what you can and cannot do, forcing you to meet certain safety standards, and to provide specific warranties for customers. Even customers or workers can have a say in what companies can and cannot do. Civil responsibility when something goes wrong is not so high, because the company can use their compl|

In the US, people don't like government meddling in the way of companies and business are a lot freer to do business as they see fit. The most important thing standing in the way of a company harming their customers or others, to improve the bottom line, is the threat of losing a whole lot of money in a lawsuit. If you remove that part, there would be nothing to balance the profit vs safety equation.

Re: Corporate speak

[AvitarX]

I'm pretty sure a policy that prohibits frank discussion is exactly what will open them up to punitive damages (which a judge needs to approve the pursuit of, and gets to reduce to what they deem appropriate if the jury sets them too high).

This policy will royally fuck them I suspect, not reduce the admission of guilt, any reasonable person can see it as a policy to avoid admitting that there are indeed problems, rather than fixing them (and in the US, a policy of finding and fixing problems goes a long way in a legal defense ).

Re:Corporate speak

[Linzer]

Having lived on both shores of the Atlantic, I very much believe that both systems would have a lot to learn from each other.

That is, if there was a substantial discussion instead of all the name-calling.

I know, this is slashdot, but in real life it's not that much better.

Re:Corporate speak

[Anonymous Coward]

> Let me know when you figure out what "free speech" is,
Good idea, then we can tell you all about privacy as well,

Re:Corporate speak

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, avoiding certain words makes sense if those words bolster a legal case against GM, as a partial admission of guilt.

Isn't that what criminals do while they talk on the phone?

Re: Corporate speak

[gstoddart]

I'm pretty sure a policy that prohibits frank discussion is exactly what will open them up to punitive damages

Was coming to say something similar.

Essentially GM has banned its employees from speaking the truth, and instead have set themselves up to apply marketing spin instead of saying what happened.

If they knew the issues and were barred from honestly saying what happened ... I would hope that gets them into a lot of trouble.

Re:Corporate speak

[Anonymous Coward]

Please elaborate on your criticism; as you wrote it one can't know if you have anything insightful to contribute, or if you're just stupid.

Re:Corporate speak

[penix1]

The other alternative for protecting yourself from lawsuits (besides never using the words the lawyers will find) is to delete all copies of all emails, memos, and presentations that are more than 6 months old. I have heard about a company that tries to use this method to reduce its legal exposure.

There's a better alternative... Don't make fucked up shit that has to be recalled to protect people's lives. If a recall is necessary, do it as soon as the problem is identified. Don't wait for years to pass in the typical bean counter fashion in the hopes that less people will be hurt than product sold. Don't cover it up and pretend the problem never existed.

In short, do the right thing and fix the damned thing before more people lose their lives. That is, after all, what we are talking about with most car recalls.

Re:Corporate speak

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it matter what they say or don't say? They are too big to fail and would just have the government pay off whatever lawsuit might be "detrimental" to their business.

Re:Corporate speak

[Lightning McQueen]

Jared, is this how they do things on Europa?

Re:Corporate speak

[Lightning McQueen]

Wow, I am indifferent to the AC's comment. But then I read yours. I'm curious what lead you to name calling?

Re: Corporate speak

[AvitarX]

Punitive damages basically exist to punish this kind of behavior, and I'd say for good reason.

Re:Corporate speak

[Lightning McQueen]

A sensible response! But I'm not giving up my U.S. Constitution. Although there seems to be a large mass of people living here / moving here that feel the need to change it. I say to them: Go start your own country if you think you have all the answers! Quit trying to change mine!

Re:Corporate speak

[sexconker]

"moneys", "monies", "sheeps", and "fishes" are all valid plural forms of their respective nouns.

Re:Corporate speak

[penix1]

"Mental anguish" gets tossed routinely by judges around here. You get reimbursed for real damage only. That may include time, provided you can somehow show that the time it took you to do what was necessary to mitigate the problem should have been spent by the other party, or that other party could have spared you that "expense" of time by simply doing what was right (that includes the time you spend in court for the whole bullshit).

Mental anguish is routinely tossed but punitive damages for willingly committing an act is often awarded. The idea being to punish the wrong doer, usually a corporation, where it hurts them most... In the wallet.

Re:Corporate speak

[rmandevi]

GM can't be convicted of actual crime. It isn't human. It can only be sued to death, and that's not likely to happen to a company that size. After all, it's too big to fail. Being a corporation gives you the rights of a person in the US, not the responsibilities.

Re:Corporate speak

[manu144x]

If you think there are no more homogeneous populations you clearly haven't visited North Korea, South Korea, China, Russia, northern europe (norway, finland, all that) lately...they are 99.99% homogeneous. The places you speak of are probably capitalistic global countries like Singapore, Shanghai, US of A, Canada, and all others, where local traditions don't exist, and this mix of all cultures from all over the world who are there because of the economic situation.

Re:Corporate speak

[just_another_sean]

Here, I'll have a go. Groupthink

Re:Corporate speak

[plopez]

People forget Orwell was just as afraid of and disturbed by corporations and their newspeak and memory holes.

Re:Corporate speak

[Anonymous Coward]

Lack of privacy was part of the problem in Orwell's dystopia. Freedom of speech *needs* privacy.

Of course search engines are not the government, but please don't overlook the possibility that it's not only the government that can have a chilling effect on free speech. Does it really make a lot of difference if a government limits your ability to find a good job or the fact that every potential employer tends to look up every stupid thing you ever did? If this goes too far and it sinks in with the masses that you can't safely speak your mind anymore because someone near you is likely to tweet about it or post it on Facebook (I've met people who amazed me by doing that all the time, without even wondering whether or not the people they post about might object), so that every potential future employer might read it, or that any homophobe in your neighbourhood might make your life hell just because the record of your sexual preference can't be removed from the internet, then free speech is in trouble too.

Orwell would be proud if you would figure out what "privacy" is ;-).

Re:Corporate speak

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with our legal system, is it has to award money to cover medical and mental health bills. So, large awards can be necessary for people to be properly compensated.

Re:Corporate speak

[lgw]

Fishes is interesting: it's 2 fish in the sea, but 2 fishes on the dinner plate (in addition to it's use meaning species of fish).

Re:Corporate speak

[Opportunist]

Courts in the EU seem to accept more and more the idea that the time of people is worth something. Wasting someone's time can get pretty expensive by now.

Re:Corporate speak

[Anonymous Coward]

What about cars that don't need to be recalled but whose prototype had a safety defect that was caught and corrected before mass production. Lawyers will just take these emails talking about the safety problems of the prototype and present them to the jury as proof the mass produced vcars were also defective.

Re:Corporate speak

[Anonymous Coward]

Valid only because somebody (with social status) was mistaken and others mindlessly repeated the error. That's how all grammatical errors become "standard". One man speaks in error; a hundred repeat it as correct.

Re:Corporate speak

[LordLimecat]

Solid response worth the +5 mod.

It just bugs the heck out of me when I see countries going down a terrible path regarding speech, start recommending we ditch this and that amendment because then we'd be more like Europe. Sometimes the anti-american sentiment on the internet is palpable.

Re:Corporate speak

[LordLimecat]

The "freedom to be forgotten" is a fancy way of mandating revisionistic censorship. If something happens, it absolutely should be out there. Or, to quote a fictional book character, "truth is generally preferable to lies".

I find it nothing short of absurd that someone can be gagged from talking about Trifigura's crimes over a libel suit, forbidden from talking about someones past felonies or bankruptcies due to a "right to be forgotten", shut down on your website for providing default router passwords because of "security concerns" in Germany, and arrested in the UK for tweeting something that offends someone else.

For all the flaws we have over here, at least we can say fairly nasty things about our president and not worry about the jackboots kicking down our door and declaring our mode of thought as "undesirable".

Re:Corporate speak

[Anonymous Coward]

You are confounding with doublethink. In newspeak terms, you are very intelligent.

Re:Corporate speak

[alexo]

A sensible response! But I'm not giving up my U.S. Constitution.

You don't need to, your government already did.

Re:Corporate speak

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm curious what lead you to name calling?

Frustration. The world is filled with people commanded by fear. Anything that is outside their narrow scope of knowledge is seen as something bad, something to be avoided, not trusted. That certainly helped while human were evolving, but holy fuck how that hinders the progress of our society. And how much suffering this kind of behavior brings.

There is no 'homogeneity' anywhere. If you live in a snowy place, you will find 40 types of snow. Same thing with people. Even if everybody was white, or everybody was green, or whatever, people would find ways to segregate. That's in our genes, and it can only be stopped with education. Unfortunately a lot of people (high correlation with those commanded by fear) are against education, and against viewing the world from others' points of view. Consequently the vicious cycle continues. Therefore my frustration.

Re:Corporate speak

[SuricouRaven]

The crime thing is quite common in Europe. It's a rehabilitation thing - once prisoners have been out for long enough (Exact time depends on crime) they are able to keep their criminal past a secret even from employers (With some exceptions). It's intended to avoid the problem of unemployability forcing them back into crime again to make a living. Compare to the US, where it's very, very difficult for a felon to get a job - the only real possibility is if they personally know someone who will look past the big black mark on their record. That means for many who have served their time, the options are crime or starvation.

Re:Corporate speak

[Darinbob]

As a GM employee, I take ___ at the idea that we're all ___ over here. In reality we ___ very hard to make the ___ possible ___ for the American ___. Many of our ___ have spent ___ developing the ___ automobiles in the ___. To ___ the hard working ___ of __ is an ___ to the ___ workers here. But no, the ___ at Slashdot think it's ___ to laugh at the ___ even though they ___ in the same situation. Ever since being taken over by the ___ at the US government during the ___ out we have been held ____ to the highest ___ of excellence by our ___ overlords in ___ DC. No matter what automobile you own, whether it be ___, ___, ___, or even a fine ___, you should be proud of the ___ at ___.

Re:Corporate speak

[Anonymous Coward]

doubleplus ungood; send him to Room 101

Re:Corporate speak

[Anonymous Coward]

>In short, do the right thing and fix the damned thing

You are a naif. Do that and get fired for busting the budget and making a problem known.

Live in your world of unicorns and rainbows, just don't expect to make much money in industry that way.

Re:Corporate speak

[Hategrin]

You obviously live in a homogeneous society, either that or you have your head in the sand. Here's some "radical thinking" for you. Different people from different parts of the wold have different traditions and cultures. OH MY GOSH!

Re:Corporate speak

[Anonymous Coward]

find it nothing short of absurd that someone can be gagged from talking about Trifigura's crimes over a libel suit,

It is. Fortunately that specific problem doesn't apply to all of Europe. As The Guardian wrote:

It's true that the company has also threatened journalists in the Netherlands and Norway, but the law is less kind to such plaintiffs in those countries, and its threats were taken less seriously.

Having read sites like Groklaw it seems to me that you have your own share of frivolous law suits that only huge corporations can afford to defend themselves against. Your legal system can be devastatingly unfair too. We all have our flaws.

[someone] forbidden from talking about someones past felonies or bankruptcies due to a "right to be forgotten"

I have some trouble seeing the automatic generation of a search index by computers owned by a huge corporation as being the same as *someone* *talking* about something. Although the ruling has pretty vague wording, it is clear that not all references to this person/situation are te be removed from the internet, just the search engine index, that a person has to make a request to remove it, that the information must not be recent, and that it applies to searches on the person's name, and other conditions. The way Google processes the data makes it fall within the criteria for processing personal and private data.

I'm not at all sure that this is a good decision, although my perspective is European enough to think that privacy matters a lot (also as a prerequisite for freedom of speech) and that conflicting rights should be weighed against each other. What you (and many others) seem to be missing is that a ruling like this will worry a lot of people within Europe too, including politicians, and that legislation may be amended to repair unwanted consequences of the current laws. I don't expect this ruling to be the final outcome.

shut down on your website for providing default router passwords because of "security concerns" in Germany, and arrested in the UK for tweeting something that offends someone else.

I don't know about those.

For all the flaws we have over here, at least we can say fairly nasty things about our president and not worry about the jackboots kicking down our door and declaring our mode of thought as "undesirable".

So can we about our own politicians, you're extrapolating our flaws into problems we don't have. If I were to do the same with your country's flaws your country would probably scare the hell out of me.

Re:Corporate speak

[Anonymous Coward]

dafuq?

Re:Corporate speak

[kwbauer]

Actually, it does make a huge difference whether the government is doing it or some nameless corporation is doing it. you see, when the government does it the only real recourse is to move to a different country. If some nameless corporation does it, then I can talk to all the other nameless corporations. What? You mean all the other nameless corporations also dislike that behavior? Well, maybe people will figure out that engaging in what the majority considers as wrong behavior and then publicizing it will cause them problems in the future and then the problem self-corrects. Or, maybe, those same people could actually start providing jobs for themselves and others just like them.

Re:Corporate speak

[kwbauer]

Yeah, businesses run amok all the time here in the US and the government does absolutely nothing to stop them. Move to the US and start a business and find out exactly how wrong that sentiment is in reality.

Re:Corporate speak

[kwbauer]

You, all the lefties and their fearless messiah said it was too big to fail. Most on the right wanted to let it fail and be reborn according to the laws put in place to govern how to let companies fail and be reborn.

Re:Corporate speak

[TapeCutter]

So what you are saying is that American's believe a pound of financial devastation after the fact is preferable to an ounce of regulatory prevention before the fact? I don't think that's really how it works, I'm pretty sure engineers are legally held to account for due diligence issues in the US under criminal laws (such as manslaughter), just as they are in the rest of the western world. If it can be shown the company directors ordered their engineers to ignore due diligence matters then they are in even deeper legal shit than the engineers who (illegally) complied with the order.

Re:Corporate speak

[penix1]

Well, disregarding the fact that you would have documentation showing the defect was fixed and when, an attorney for the defense should get that email tossed as evidence well before any trial based on the fact that it is the prototype and not the production vehicle. Apples and oranges comes to mind.

Re:Corporate speak

[penix1]

Wow... Just wow! Methinks someone needs more ethics training...

Re:Corporate speak

[northernfrights]

But nobody here is saying that we don't understand why they would do it. We just think it's a bad thing for a company to limit it's liability in the cases where liability is warranted. Yes, our legal system sucks, that's why we discuss legal issues on the internet. Is it all making sense now?

Re:Corporate speak

[LordLimecat]

big black mark on their record.

I guess my take on it is, the black mark is deserved. Society punished the person by depriving them of freedom, but its still well deserved to treat the person with some degree of mistrust-- they did in fact show themselves to be untrustworthy, and statistically past offenders are more likely to be repeat offenders.

More than that, the "black mark" is an opinion thing, and I dont see how its healthy to try to legislate to change people's opinions.

Re:Corporate speak

[LordLimecat]

The "nasty things" and "UK tweet" comments were regarding a the hate speech laws in the UK which recently resulted in the imprisonment of someone over a racially charged tweet. Here in the US you could use some pretty nasty slurs on the president and while you might get fired or have other social consequences over it, the state itself wouldnt really have anything to say about it.

I appreciate a balanced post, and you're right that we have our own issues; I personally wonder why we dont institute loser pays as in the UK (though that, too, has its own abuses) to avoid some of the one-sidedness of situations in the US vs large corporations. But I guess my take is that Im far, far less worried about about one individual's rights getting trampled by a corporation, than I am about the state going full Fascist / Communist / Socialist / other Murderous Regime. I see free speech as incredibly important in fighting this tendencies of governments-- and its worth noting that the governments of that sort during the 20th century ALSO feared (and continue to fear) unrestricted speech.

I think thats probably a good way of summing up my whole take on politics in general, actually. Individual plight just isnt as big a concern as a government run amok to me.

Re:Corporate speak

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, no Free Speech Zones over here in Europe, you've got that one right.

On the other hand, we do have the right to protest pointless wars, aka. "shouting fire in a crowded theater"-

Re:Corporate speak

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess my take on it is, the black mark is deserved.

That's not where the disagreement is.

Let me ask it this way: Does the rest of society deserve giving ex-criminals no choice other than returning to a life of crime?

It's not whether or not he deserves a job, but whether or not you deserve getting robbed at gunpoint, when the alternative was letting him earn his money in a regular job, even if he doesn't deserve it.

Re:Corporate speak

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction... Our legal system was ONCE based on a set of beliefs. We have strayed so far from the original concepts and foundations that we are left with only a legal system, and no justice system at all.

Re:Corporate speak

[kmoser]

"Great seller, would buy again, A++!"

Re:Corporate speak

[bhiestand]

True in theory, but... honestly, how often are directors held accountable? At best, it's usually just a company-paid settlement with no admission of guilt.

I'm willing to bet some money that no CxO or board member will serve jail time or be fined more than 50% of their net worth, despite direct knowledge that their negligence caused deaths.

Re:Corporate speak

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a better alternative... Don't make fucked up shit that has to be recalled to protect people's lives.

There's an even better alternative:
Don't bail out companies that are on life support because they make poor management decisions just because their members pay Union dues that end up in a political parties coffers.

Re:Corporate speak

[CmdrTamale]

Go start your own country SOMEWHERE ELSE if you think you have all the answers! Quit trying to change mine!

FTFY.
--
I have gone to look for myself, if I should return, before I get back, keep me here.

Re:Corporate speak

[turning in circles]

Slap! Haven't unlearned all my lawyeristic ways, even though I stopped practicing 20 years ago. Slap! Must! Not! Think! like a D?&%!

Note to myself:

[TheDarkMaster]

Never buy a car from GM. A company that practices this type of policy can not have my confidence in any way.

Re:Note to myself:

[ColdWetDog]

Be careful about over-wide proscriptions - walking is good for you, but a bit limiting.

Re:Note to myself:

[CanHasDIY]

Never buy a car from GM. A company that practices this type of policy can not have my confidence in any way.

Got bad news for ya - they all practice this type of policy; GM just happens to be in the spotlight right now, and that's why you're hearing about their list of no-no words, rather than Ford's, or Chrysler's, or Toyota's, etc.

Re:Note to myself:

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't want a car from a company that tries to refrain from ridiculous internet-like hyperbole and tries to focus on clearly and concisely discussing problems?

Granted, it's completely ineffective in the face of willful malfeasance, but the effort in itself is not wrong.

Re:Note to myself:

[Rob the Bold]

Never buy a car from GM. A company that practices this type of policy can not have my confidence in any way.

All you know from TFA is that GM has a list. What you don't know is whether other automakers -- or manufacturers in general -- have similar lists. Given that all companies of any size have lawyers whose job it is to reduce potential legal liability, I'd have to assume that GM is not alone in having such a policy.

Re:Note to myself:

[i kan reed]

Not to worry, no one buys GM cars, except by accident anyways.

Re:Note to myself:

[Lumpy]

You also get the benefit from protecting yourself from the worst made cars in the USA. GM made = designed to fall apart after 5 years.

Re:Note to myself:

[LifesABeach]

The only thing cheaper than the pathetic moron that said, "ya, this is good idea, do it." And then emailed it to the new CEO is the parser that will run against the emails with the phrases reversed back.

This would be a interesting application using AIML.

Re:Note to myself:

[tbuddy]

I'd personally feel comforted if someone referred to the auto I was in an accident in as a "rolling sarcophagus". We need more frank honestly like this which could be potentially damning in courts. I'm sure KIA refers jokingly to their cars as Killed in Action when presented with queries about their safety. When Ford employees refer to their vehicles as rolling death boxes I'm sure whoever uses that terminology gets super not fired too.

Re:Note to myself:

[TheDarkMaster]

Well .. As a curiosity, soon we will have so many cars on the streets that everyone will not be able to transit anymore, then will have to walk as I :-) (but do not worry, I understand your point)

Re:Note to myself:

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately GM is not a monopolist.

Re:Note to myself:

[TheDarkMaster]

Spoke a manager from GM :-). I prefer companies that are open about their problems than companies that try to hide problems with "disguised words".

Re:Note to myself:

[kick6]

Never buy a car from GM. A company that practices this type of policy can not have my confidence in any way.

So all of them. Hope you work from home!

Re:Note to myself:

[thaylin]

you used the word problems, you are fired!

Re:Note to myself:

[drinkypoo]

If you've worked on GM cars, you know what he's talking about. They are mostly underbuilt and they are not built to be maintained, they have a severe love of rivets. They are also well-known for paint failure. The paint is one of the most important parts of the car, it protects the body which I am sure you will agree is a significant part itself.

The up side of GM is parts interchange, which is by far above the other domestics. They also have some fantastic engines. The down side is everything else.

Re:Note to myself:

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Sure, "cataclysmic" doesn't belong in an engineering email, but "always", "never", "critical", "serious", "safety", "safety-related", "dangerous" and (best of all, IMO) "problem"? That isn't engineers avoiding hyperbole, that's lawyers avoiding the truth.

Re:Note to myself:

[cheesybagel]

Ask Apple about it. They never have problems or bugs and seldom have 'issues'.

Re:Note to myself:

[PPH]

This is a good point. Although I think publishing an (internal) list is a pretty simplistic way of dealing with this.

When I worked in the engineering department at Boeing, we were expected to write all of our memos clearly and concisely, using proper technical terminology, avoiding hyperbole and lots of adjectives. And to confine our writing to our area of expertise. For example, we could write that such-and-such an event could lead to the failure of some critical function or component. We would not write that the result would be an airplane crash. Because even if the tail falls off the airplane, ... I mean the empennage departs the airframe, a skilled pilot may still be able to land sucessfully.

Re:Note to myself:

[Bobfrankly1]

A company that practices this type of policy can not have my confidence in any way.

Good luck being Amish.

Re:Note to myself:

[NatasRevol]

Fine. Buy a Tesla. Quality has a price. Your car or your money.

Re:Note to myself:

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Witness how the GM list doesn't actually subsume George Carlin's list, i.e., while a GM engineer isn't allowed to write "our cars are dangerous", he can opt for "our cars are shit" instead.

Re:Note to myself:

[ultranova]

Given that all companies of any size have lawyers whose job it is to reduce potential legal liability, I'd have to assume that GM is not alone in having such a policy.

I would assume it is, actually. This list is hard to take as anything but an effort to actively hide evidence. The only things it'll accomplish is make any defects seem a result of deliberate conspiracy, rather than a simple error, and lower the bar of evidence needed to show it more likely than not that GM knew about them. In other words, epic fail.

It seems Pointy-Haired Bosses aren't confined ot technical departments.

Re:Note to myself:

[Anonymous Coward]

In before APK's retardation!

Re:Note to myself:

[Gr8Apes]

They also have some fantastic engines. The down side is everything else.

Fantastic engines? Compared to what? Ford Escorts or a 90s Hyundai? Fantastic engines would be those 4-cylinder Toyota, Subaru or Honda engines that run efficiently for 200K miles, or diesel engines from mercedes or volvo that can go 500K. Not some 70s style inefficient powerplant that reliably falls apart pre 100K in some way and requires half a rebuild at a minimum, provided the rest of the car is still functioning.

I've owned and driven quite a few cars into the high mileage territory (i.e. ~200K) and the 3 domestics I had didn't make it to 80K without significant trouble. To be fair, the absolute worst was a Renault, needing significant engine/transmission work at 50K. I currently have 2 that are about to cross 100K, one will need a valve cover gasket replacement when the spark plugs are done as a non-standard maintenance piece. I suspect both of these will cross 200K without a problem. Neither is domestic. At this point, I'd need to see a reliably reported $0 maintenance cost over 100K miles domestic at least 20% cheaper than an import's price for an equivalent vehicle before I'd even consider it. That means all maintenance covered for 100K miles, except tires, and maybe brakes, although several imports cover the later also for 40-50K.

Re:Note to myself:

[darkain]

Not just that, but we even have an RFC to deal with keywords within RFCs. Its not just exclusion lists, but also required usage lists.

https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc21... http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc...

People are simply getting bent out of shape because GM defines their language and set of standards for usage of said language. This is true of ALL large companies, and not just in these types of documents. In the tech world, we live or die by these requirements, so why is it a surprise that other industries use them too?

Re:Note to myself:

[Kielistic]

I don't think I have ever seen a grammar pedant fail as badly as this before. Even by Slashdot standards this is bad.

Re:Note to myself:

[Anonymous Coward]

That's proper usage, they are implying Ford's list, toyota's list...

u r teh dumm

Re:Note to myself:

[Dins]

Don't know what you're on about, but the 's was used correctly in the GP.

Re: Note to myself:

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at that s car go!

Re:Note to myself:

[gl4ss]

ford escorts go 200 no problem like any other european car.

buut.. the gm engines are fantastic for buying in a box and having large amounts of aftermarket options. so they're great for building a weekend drag racer.

seriously though who the fuck made this list of words? how the fuck do they communicate in emails that some design is bad because it causes problems that causes them to lose money? or that it is bad because it's unnecessarely complicated and can have critical failures when they could instead be using a known design with no problems?

Re:Note to myself:

[sycodon]

While I have ditched GM for Ford (will always love my Mustang) I had a Lumina that went to 218k miles with nothing more than one alternator and one spark plug changes plus a few belts and hoses. Compression was still good right up to the day it was taken to the auto auction.

Re:Note to myself:

[DocSavage64109]

Not some 70s style inefficient powerplant that reliably falls apart pre 100K in some way and requires half a rebuild at a minimum, provided the rest of the car is still functioning.

Er yeah, I just sold my old 1977 Chevy pickup with a 350 (5.7l) V8 with god only knows how many miles on it (the odometer rolls after 99,999 miles) and it was still running relatively well. I'll admit the rest of the truck was rusting to death, but I dare you to find even one Japanese car still on the road from even the 80s for every 10 American cars you can find.

Re:Note to myself:

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple products have no issues. Just the users hold them the wrong way sometimes.

Re:Note to myself:

[Opportunist]

Old joke: Other manufacturers guarantee that your car won't get a rust hole anywhere within 7 years.
GM guarantees that there will be some car left after 7 years. Provided you don't get it wet, of course.

Re:Note to myself:

[Anonymous Coward]

GM is not the only one doing this. I just had a lower control arm fail on a 2003 Hyundai Elantra and the drivers side passenger tire and suspension went with it leaving the car dragging to a stop. Luckily we were only going about 15 MPH when it happened. Google searches show people have died from this. Turns out there was a safety recall for this but only if you lived in certain states.
http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/c...

Hyundai and the NHTSA determined that if your car was registered in certain states that put a relative high amount of salt on the roads in the winter, you were at risk and your car was recalled. I live in VA and we were not on the list for the recall. Northern VA most certainly does get snow and most certainly puts salt down. DC, MD, WV all were on the list. I work in DC and take many trips to PA. My failure was exactly as described in the recall. Luckily no one was hurt in my case but I think the NHTSA and Hyundai were negligent in not at least informing everyone regardless of where you lived. My ball joints and tie rods are still perfect on the car, no design should have the control arm physically failing before those parts do. What studies and justification did they use to determine which places on the map where the car is registered were at risk and which ones were not? No accounting for where you actually travel, where your car goes in the winter and how often. Their criteria it determining risk is FLAWED. I should have at least got a letter in the mail and I would have done due diligence and checked it myself or paid someone to look at it above and beyond the annual state inspections. It rusts from the inside out and is not visible or obvious during a normal inspection. More people are going to die from this defect. Hyundai knows about it and the NHTSA knows about it.

Re:Note to myself:

[CanHasDIY]

Fine. Buy a Tesla. Quality has a price. Your car or your money.

Wait until Tesla is building tens of millions of cars a year; they'll have their issues as well, and will likely develop a corporate culture of trying to shove as much as possible under the rug, just like everyone else. Manufacturing consistency is easier for a boutique than an industrial giant.

FWIW, I've owned & driven Chevy trucks for pretty much my entire life, and never had any sort of issue caused by a manufacturer's defect. The closest I ever came was when I was a kid, and my dad got a recall letter for the seatbelts in his 1989 GMC Jimmy.

Re:Note to myself:

[Linzer]

Or, if marketing to some segments of the population: "our cars are motherfuckers".

Agreed, "our cars are tits" doesn't sound that good.

Re:Note to myself:

[drinkypoo]

Fantastic engines would be those 4-cylinder Toyota, Subaru or Honda engines that run efficiently for 200K miles, or diesel engines from mercedes or volvo that can go 500K

Neither exists any more. Those Japanese engines are all interference designs with timing belts now, and the diesels that would make those kind of miles without major mishap are long, long gone.

Re:Note to myself:

[drinkypoo]

I dare you to find even one Japanese car still on the road from even the 80s for every 10 American cars you can find.

That's not because they're not built at least as well, though the 80s were a dark time for everyone. It's because they're not worth maintaining, like an 80s corolla which is a beastly thing to drive, or because they're fun to drive fast and got wrapped around trees, like an RX-7 or a 240SX.

Re:Note to myself:

[praxis]

Never buy a car from GM. A company that practices this type of policy can not have my confidence in any way.

So all of them. Hope you work from home!

There are commuting options other than driving and VPN: walking, bicycling, public transport, private jet, personal submarine and many more I am forgetting. Walking, public transport and bicycling are very popular, probably more popular than driving.

Re:Note to myself:

[Lightning McQueen]

Didn't they just get in trouble for an ignition switch failure. Looks like there's even more now. http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/1...

Re:Note to myself:

[RobertLTux]

gee what would they call it when a chunk of WING falls off the plane?? (this assumes said "chunk" is not the entire left/right wing)

and how would this be called into the ATC?? "Tower 957A this is flight 9754 requesting immediate landing we are currently at 15 minutes of fuel and have lost a portion of our left wing please advise..."

Re:Note to myself:

[sexconker]

GM is not the only one doing this. I just had a lower control arm fail on a 2003 Hyundai Elantra and the drivers side passenger tire and suspension went with it leaving the car dragging to a stop. Luckily we were only going about 15 MPH when it happened. Google searches show people have died from this. Turns out there was a safety recall for this but only if you lived in certain states.
http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/c...

Hyundai and the NHTSA determined that if your car was registered in certain states that put a relative high amount of salt on the roads in the winter, you were at risk and your car was recalled. I live in VA and we were not on the list for the recall. Northern VA most certainly does get snow and most certainly puts salt down. DC, MD, WV all were on the list. I work in DC and take many trips to PA. My failure was exactly as described in the recall. Luckily no one was hurt in my case but I think the NHTSA and Hyundai were negligent in not at least informing everyone regardless of where you lived. My ball joints and tie rods are still perfect on the car, no design should have the control arm physically failing before those parts do. What studies and justification did they use to determine which places on the map where the car is registered were at risk and which ones were not? No accounting for where you actually travel, where your car goes in the winter and how often. Their criteria it determining risk is FLAWED. I should have at least got a letter in the mail and I would have done due diligence and checked it myself or paid someone to look at it above and beyond the annual state inspections. It rusts from the inside out and is not visible or obvious during a normal inspection. More people are going to die from this defect. Hyundai knows about it and the NHTSA knows about it.

So you followed through and filed suit, correct?
Or did you just make up a story for the internet?

Re:Note to myself:

[Ulthanash]

We should have let them go bankrupt.

Re:Note to myself:

[NatasRevol]

You're awful fucking lucky then.

http://www.autoblog.com/2014/0...

General Motors can't seem to get its name out of the "bad news" column. Two more recalls were announced late Friday evening that will see The General calling in 490,200 fullsize pickup trucks and SUVs, along with 172,000 Chevrolet Cruze models.

For those keeping track, General Motors has issued recalls for an alarming 4.8 million vehicles so far since last month.

The Chevy Silverado 1500, Tahoe and Suburban, GMC Sierra 1500 and Yukon models from the 2014 and 2015 model years are being recalled for a flaw in their transmissions wherein loose oil cooler lines may cause a fire. The automaker said in a statement (see below) that it knows of three incidents of loose transmission lines causing problems, but no injuries. We can't confirm whether it was this transmission issue that caused the widely publicized blaze that consumed a 2015 GMC Yukon that was being test driven in California.

Re:Note to myself:

[PPH]

gee what would they call it when a chunk of WING falls off the plane??

Normal operations?

Re:Note to myself:

[R3d M3rcury]

Actually, Apple has a set of forbidden words. Macs don't crash or hang, they "unexpectedly quit" or "stop responding." Things are not "supported", they are "compatible." However nothing is incompatible--they just don't work with Macs.

Re:Note to myself:

[Anonymous Coward]

Like theres anything new (or rare)in a company saying "we dont have problems, only challenges" which this is just a codification of (dont call it bugs, call it features) If a person did this we would call it denial.

But you could probably not get by very well if you avoided all such companies (but being against corporate run countries, i appluad you for trying)

Re:Note to myself:

[Anonymous Coward]

but I dare you to find even one Japanese car still on the road from even the 80s for every 10 American cars you can find.

I'll grant you the 1980s, but anecdotally, I see a lot more mid-90s Civics and Corollas than I do of any mid-90s domestics.

Re:Note to myself:

[pla]

Fine. Buy a Tesla. Quality has a price. Your car or your money.

Not knocking on Tesla, because yes, they make a damned fine car. Wish I could afford one!

But to address your deeper point - Three different makes available in the US offer a 10 year / 100k warranty on cars that start under $20k. Another three offer it on cars under $35k. Strangely, not one of those companies bases its operations out of America.

And GM? Well now! They'll let you pay extra for a whopping six years of no rust. I would love to see the accounting tricks that led to them somehow showing a profit post-bailout. And no doubt I will, when SarbOx II bans them.

Re:Note to myself:

[HeckRuler]

They have curves, everyone wants to get their hands on them, and their size has social status impact.
People learn how to handle them when they're teenagers.
Some are full of plastic.
In some cases, if you squeeze them, juices come out.

Sex is an easy sell. Give it to a marketer, they could work their magic and spin that statement into a full-fledged ad campaign.

Re:Note to myself:

[lgw]

Or, you know, a Ford. Ford has made huge strides in quality in the past 20 years. Government Motors, not so much.

Re:Note to myself:

[X0563511]

It is when said policy is so painfully ridiculous.

Re:Note to myself:

[GNious]

Note to you: GM is FAR from the only company taking this kind of step to reduce its legal exposure

Re:Note to myself:

[slapout]

Must be tough for HR.

Hi Ted, you should come to work for GM. Our cafeteria always has good food. They've never had a health rating below 95. Our plants are not dangerous, like the ones in some other industries -- we haven't have a safety-related issues in years! I hope you'll give the job offer serious consideration.

Re:Note to myself:

[dj245]

Fantastic engines would be those 4-cylinder Toyota, Subaru or Honda engines that run efficiently for 200K miles, or diesel engines from mercedes or volvo that can go 500K

Neither exists any more. Those Japanese engines are all interference designs with timing belts now, and the diesels that would make those kind of miles without major mishap are long, long gone.

When is the last time you ruined an interference engine by failure of the timing belt? I don't even know anyone who that has happened to. This fear is a lot like a fear of flying- yes the consequences of failure are disastrous, but the probability of something more common ruining your day is much higher.

Re:Note to myself:

[Anonymous Coward]

The Honda engines, at least, have been interference with belt since the 70s.

Re:Note to myself:

[CanHasDIY]

That only applies to the two newest model years (which are, themselves, an all new platform); considering how many not-two-newest-model-year Chevy trucks are on the road today, and have not been recalled for major safety issues, I'd have to say that luck has nothing to do with it. Feel free to keep grasping.

Re:Note to myself:

[Registered Coward v2]

Sure, "cataclysmic" doesn't belong in an engineering email, but "always", "never", "critical", "serious", "safety", "safety-related", "dangerous" and (best of all, IMO) "problem"? That isn't engineers avoiding hyperbole, that's lawyers avoiding the truth.

While I agree with your overall sentiment; "always" and "never" are terms engineers should not use since they generally are not true. They imply a certainty that usually does not exist yet can be used in a court as proof of a problem. For example, a number years ago I worked on a project that had a set of technical specifications that must be met in order to certify the design. In it, the engineers used absolute statements that implied certain equipment would "always" function or "never"be unavailable; conditions that one could not assure with 100% certainty. As a result, has we submitted the specifications as written we would never have been able to certify the design since you could find cases where certain equipment would fail or be unavailable. Even though those cases did not impact safety we technically could not meet the specifications and those legally could not operate. The engineers answer was "of course it's not 100% but who would expect it to be?" and our answer was "the lawyer for those opposed to our plant" since we said it would be and now can't assure that. Unfortunately, what a word means to an engineer is often very different to what how it may be interpreted in a court of law.

Re:Note to myself:

[MachDelta]

Happened to my 92 Plymouth Laser. I was driving home from work, pulled into the left turn lane, pushed in the clutch and brake to stop for the light, and she just died. I thought it had stalled so I tried to restart but it wouldn't turn over. Timing belt had about half a dozen teeth stripped off it, so the pistons were wedged up against some of the exhaust valves. I hadn't put a lot of miles on that belt (short commute) but it hadn't been replaced in about 5 years and so I guess that was enough time to weaken it. Took a lot of hours to remove and reinstall the head, and having the valvetrain fixed wasn't cheap, but she lived for a few more years before I had to let her go.

Still miss that car though. She was buckets of fun to drive. Sometimes I daydream about finding an old 1G DSM to restore, but there just aren't that many kicking around these days. Oh well.

Re:Note to myself:

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny. I worked for AT&T at one time and they used to train their support people to always use issue instead of problem.

Re:Note to myself:

[HiThere]

If the list of forbidden words includes "problem", then I'm not going to trust the company.

Re:Note to myself:

[kwbauer]

170k on my GM engine and still working great. the salt on the northern roads is starting to take its toll after 14 years though. you do realize that GM stopped using 70s style engines somewhere in the 80s don't you? I'm sure mommy will let you look under her hood once she let's you out of the basement after nap time if you ask nicely.

Re:Note to myself:

[kwbauer]

Boeing does not really care how their customers (customers' employees) talk to ATC nor did anyone suggest they do.

Re:Note to myself:

[kwbauer]

He may be telling the truth. Probably is. Stuff like that does happen.

Re:Note to myself:

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the recall link I posted. The car is sitting in my driveway on a jack stand. This just happened two weeks ago. I have no desire to sue. I would accept the car being fixed by Hyundai but that seems it is not going to happen. Based on some searches, some people got the actual control arm fixed for "free" but not the axle that pulled out, not the tie rod that busted off and not the fender that was damaged or the washer fluid bottle that sits in the fender that was smashed from the tire and who knows what else as the bottom of the car hit the pavement. I am constantly getting the run around from different dealers and Hyundai US customer service on the phone. It's hard for a company to admit there is a problem because of the potential lawsuits. My "actual damages" are minimal (about $1000 to repair) and the price for a tow 100 feet to my house. It's just not worth it to me to sue. If my daughter were on the highway and was seriously hurt? You but your ass I'd be filing a lawsuit. She was driving out of our cul-de-sac at 15 mph when it broke. What is MORE important to me now is that people with these cars should be notified of the potential problem and they expand the recall to more areas or all areas. I have filed a safety indecent with the NHTSA at https://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/...

At least my indecent will be on file for reference.

Re:Note to myself:

[Anonymous Coward]

When the event probability is analyzed by engineering, clear and concise technical terminology shall be utilized. When it actually occurs, flight crews are authorized to revert to verbal embellishment to convey a state of trepidation.

Re:Note to myself:

[drinkypoo]

you do realize that GM stopped using 70s style engines somewhere in the 80s don't you?

Well, that's true and it isn't. The LS series engines have pushrods and two valves per cylinder...

Re:Note to myself:

[drinkypoo]

When is the last time you ruined an interference engine by failure of the timing belt?

Ruined an engine? Relatively rare. Ruined valves? It happens to a lot of people. The only engine I've ever owned with interference and a belt is this A8 I own, and that's happened to a whole bunch of people. A few of them ruined pistons, too. I had an Impreza for a while, but it was a 1993 so it had a belt, but it was non-interference. I probably shoulda just kept that car, if I'd built it into a WRX-hopup-parts frankenturbo with 2.2 heads and STi injectors the 1.8 (and a 5 speed swap) it would be out there smoking WRXs right now. Instead I sold it to a friend and he got hit in it on the freeway, rolled five times, and walked away.

Timing belts don't just necessarily fail instantly, they also can fail gradually and cause the engine to run poorly before they're even detected.

I miss my KA24E. That's got a lifetime timing chain, and they mean it. But I couldn't keep the 240SX it was in while living in this county, which is murder on lowered card.

Re:Note to myself:

[penix1]

That's why I have a recall right now on my Lincoln Towncar for steering rod corrosion that could cause loss of steering. Also why I am number 42 in line with the dealer working on number 3. They have to order the parts one at a time for some reason. At least that is what I was told. So keep on believing that Ford is better... Whatever the voices tell you.

In the meantime, if it does lose steering ability because of this they too will find themselves at the nasty end of a lawsuit.

Re:Note to myself:

[mjwx]

They also have some fantastic engines. The down side is everything else.

You've lost me here. I dont know how GM only manages to get 300 KW out of a 6.2L V8 LS1. Europeans get more than that out of 4.5L V8's. Every other engine they make is pretty weak, both mechanically and performance wise. The 3.5L alloytec (AKA: High Feature V6) became known for timing chain failures after just a few years, as such they need replacement at 100,000 KM like a timing belt. This is bad because timing chains are meant to last the life of an engine. A 20 yr old Nissan SR20DET will be running like a boss on it's original chain and they haven't made an SR20 in 11 years. My mum unfortunately owns a Holden Cruze (Chevy in the states and Vauxhall in the UK) and I can believe that the engine is the best part of it.... but the engine is still complete shit.

They are also well-known for paint failure.

I guess they use different paint in the US, because the best thing you can say about a 15 yr old Holden (GM's brand in Oz) is that the paintwork is still good.

Re:Note to myself:

[mjwx]

buut.. the gm engines are fantastic for buying in a box and having large amounts of aftermarket options. so they're great for building a weekend drag racer.

The one good thing you can say about GM engines is that they are easy to fix. Which is a very good thing because they break often.

A Honda K20 will be more difficult to fix, but chances are it will never need to be opened in it's lifetime. Same with a Toyota 2GR.

If you really want a weekend racer, a Honda K20 with a supercharger kit or Nissan SR20DET with a bigger turbo will be cheaper, easier to fit and more reliable. Most kit cars end up being built on Mazda MX-5s (Miatas) because they are that damned reliable as well as being light. However if reliability is not a concern, you cant go past a Mazda 20B rotary for racing fun.

Re:Note to myself:

[mjwx]

Fantastic engines would be those 4-cylinder Toyota, Subaru or Honda engines that run efficiently for 200K miles, or diesel engines from mercedes or volvo that can go 500K

Neither exists any more. Those Japanese engines are all interference designs with timing belts now, and the diesels that would make those kind of miles without major mishap are long, long gone.

You'll find a lot of these engines have timing chains which last the lifetime of the car. The Japanese know how to build an engine to last, even an interference design. I agree about the diesels, they've gone very cheap and commodity but Europe has a thing about making you replace your car every 5 years. A 90's Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla will keep going for 500,000+ KM if you change the timing belt every 100,000 K's. Nissan cars with the SR20DET have run since 1989 on the original engine because they had chains instead of belts.

I cant say the same for a Holden (GM) car. A 2004 Holden Astra is a car to avoid like the plague. A 2010 Holden Cruze is still a car to avoid. Hell, I dont even want to get into a 2014 Holden Barina (Spark).

Re:Note to myself:

[darkain]

And for anyone that has filed a bug report... if you simply list the bug as a "problem", you're doing it wrong. Detailed descriptions, please! Why should it be any different for automotive? Words like these are subjective. Simply stating: "The brakes are having a problem" doesn't say anything about what is really wrong. Stating: "The brakes failed to engage when X pressure is applied to the pedal" says a hell of a lot more.

Re:Note to myself:

[Anonymous Coward]

Being a skilled pilot myself, I can honestly say that if you lose two of your stabilizers, and are left flying with the most destabilizing part of your aircraft that you are gonna die

Re:Note to myself:

[doomday]

Perhaps that means we should change how a word will be interpreted in a court of law?

Re:Note to myself:

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet it is the only major car manufactorer that still has major rust issues. French and Italian brands (which used to be very bad in this respect) have solved this long ago and even with Opel rust is becoming somewhat rare on most models, but Focuses, Fiestas and Modeos very often start rusting significantly in structural parts within the first five years. This seriously affects lifespan and resale value, as extensive (and thus expensive) welding may be needed to pass the annual vehicle safety inspection.

Re:Note to myself:

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to disagree with you... manufacturing consistency typically grows EASIER at scale, or at least economies of scale make the production process cheaper (and thereby lift the unit-cost constraint such that you could substitute resources toward increasing consistency). Corporate culture is idiosyncratic, and what GM has is one with high spending on liability defense. Another route you could take is high spending on quality management (note you can always botch this and spend a lot on shite management).

If I had a company, I would never ban words like this. I'd encourage my engineers to speak frankly, do my own email scans of our company servers for exactly these words, and audit whether or not the "problems," "deficits," "failures," etc. are getting proper attention. The best defense is to nip liability in the bud before it becomes a lawsuit. This presentation shows GM doubling down on liability defense: not only do they not want to be suable, but they increase the likelihood that lawsuit-worthy problems will crop up by neutering the ability of their engineers to communicate that there is a problem in the first place.

Re:Note to myself:

[drinkypoo]

You'll find a lot of these engines have timing chains which last the lifetime of the car. The Japanese know how to build an engine to last, even an interference design. I agree about the diesels, they've gone very cheap and commodity but Europe has a thing about making you replace your car every 5 years. A 90's Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla will keep going for 500,000+ KM if you change the timing belt every 100,000 K's. Nissan cars with the SR20DET have run since 1989 on the original engine because they had chains instead of belts.

Dude, Nissan cars with the CA18DET are still running and they have belts, not chains. It's not because the SR has a chain, it's because it's a great goddamned motor. Ditto for the KA. Which, by the way, has timing chain guide failure problems which must be corrected or it will grenade itself one day at high RPM. But the SR has been gone for a long time...

Re:Note to myself:

[drinkypoo]

You've lost me here. I dont know how GM only manages to get 300 KW out of a 6.2L V8 LS1. Europeans get more than that out of 4.5L V8's.

The LS1 makes big, big torque any old time you want it. I appreciate the allure of a 4 liter V8, which is why I bought an A8. It's a motherbitchofelectricalfail. I think that's the German word for it, anyway.

Re:Note to myself:

[lgw]

Anecdote, evidence, etc. I suspect there are more towncars with 200k+ miles on the road in America than any other luxury brand, driven by people who care very much about maintenance costs.

Re:Note to myself:

[HiThere]

The specific requirement appears to be that the word, e.g. problem, not appear in an e-mail. Sorry, but that's something I find unacceptable. More specifically, it's frequently useful to specify something as a problem in areas (e.g. the subject line) where readable text is limited.

Another place it's useful, and nearly mandatory, is when making repeated references to a problem which has been described at length elsewhere...either earlier in the same e-mail, or in a prior communication. And since they seem to have gone to much trouble to also eliminate all synonyms....no thank you, I don't think I'll trust them.

Re:Note to myself:

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahah ahahahahahahah hee hee hee hehehehehe heee hee hahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahaha ho ho ho ho ho ho ho hahahahahahhahahahah ahahahhahahahahahh

Ha. Whew. Oh man, I really needed that. Thanks.

Re:Note to myself:

[mjwx]

You'll find a lot of these engines have timing chains which last the lifetime of the car. The Japanese know how to build an engine to last, even an interference design. I agree about the diesels, they've gone very cheap and commodity but Europe has a thing about making you replace your car every 5 years. A 90's Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla will keep going for 500,000+ KM if you change the timing belt every 100,000 K's. Nissan cars with the SR20DET have run since 1989 on the original engine because they had chains instead of belts.

Dude, Nissan cars with the CA18DET are still running and they have belts, not chains. It's not because the SR has a chain, it's because it's a great goddamned motor. Ditto for the KA. Which, by the way, has timing chain guide failure problems which must be corrected or it will grenade itself one day at high RPM. But the SR has been gone for a long time...

I meant to say the SR20's are running for 20+ years on the original chain.

Some motors have timing chain issues due to port design, the GM Alloytech (High Feature V6) is a prime example. The chains have such serious issues they need to be replaced at 100,000 K's. However, issues like this are not typical for all timing chain motors. Most timing chains last the life time of the motor... which can be over 40 years in some cases.

Re:Note to myself:

[toddestan]

GM has good engines, and they have bad engines. The Chevy 350 is a great engine, so is the Olds 307. The 3800 lasts forever, but the 3100 was a bit more fragile. Then you have some engines like the Cadillac HT4100 which was a disaster.

It's much the same with the Japanese brands. Toyota has had some sludge problems with some of their recent V6 designs. Subaru's are notorious for weak head gaskets (though most Subaru owners won't admit it).

Re:Note to myself:

[drinkypoo]

Most timing chains last the life time of the motor... which can be over 40 years in some cases.

Right, but that's my point, because more and more engines have belts now instead of chains or gears which can reasonably be expected to last the life of the engine. And changing the belts often requires fancy tools...

Re:Note to myself:

[PPH]

Right. But engineering isn't supposed to put it that way. 'Impaired or no control authority over aircraft pitch and yaw' would be technically accurate.

Re:Note to myself:

[Gr8Apes]

I have yet to see a belt that requires fancy tools (I don't buy those cars, can't work on them) A belt won't last the life of the engine, for sure, but neither will the rest of the car. I have yet to kill an engine. The rest of the car? More than once.

Re:Note to myself:

[Gr8Apes]

Some people have never opened a hood (excuse the gp). What's funny is my first 2 vehicles were 7x year models, neither made it to anything near 100K. And that's in miles, for others that are posting. Hell, only one made it to 100K km. I've owned/driven multiple cars from every decade since from every major manufacturer out there, and quite a few across the 100K mile point. GM's 3800 was still a major engine at least up to 2000. It's a major POS, from an efficiency standpoint, although it does keep on trucking, at least through 80K. I have a Toyota V8 with at least 250HP and torque to match. It gets 18 mpg in the city and has been as high as 27 on the freeway, although normally it's closer to 24 (SUV). GM gets they claim 15 except we have 10% ethanol, so it's probably closer to 11 for them in city driving.

I have had various sports cars all with over 200HP that run between 30 and 40 on the freeway, roughly 20-25 in the city. Domestics are nowhere close to any of these ratings. Their engines are all shit, and we won't even get into a discussion about the quality of the rest of the vehicle construction. If I want cheap and reliable, low end Toyota or Kia. If I want something slightly nicer, either Toyota or VW. If I want something high end, Audi, BMW, Mercedes. If I want high end but lower maintenance because I can't/don't want to do it myself: Lexus. If I want a rust bucket that will run 200K, an american SUV/truck might do it, but it'll cost me in maintenance and gas and it won't be trouble free. It won't go much further unless I drive a lot more than average.

It's not the imports that are killing the american car industry, rather the fact that the american car industry is still stuck in the 60s with bandaids to deal with new efficiency requirements. Maybe if they could look past the next quarter, and actually focus on their customer, they might produce a decent vehicle. Of course, they'd also have to ditch 99% of their dealers, and possibly their current brand(s)

Re:Note to myself:

[Gr8Apes]

FYI - I haven't touched a Toyota V6. Their V8 is pretty decent, but the stage 1 catalytic convertors were replaced about 9 months apart under the 8/80 required fed warranty. I fully expect to hit at least 170K with this vehicle as is. I've driven 2 others near the 200K mark, one with the original turbo still functioning well, although lag had noticeably increased. I've had 2 GMs, one to 45K with little issue (mostly under warranty) swapped for a newer version that went to 80K (3800) and started having issues. Those were not a single repair type issue, but the beginning of a long series of problems due to their choice of coolant. Glad I ditched it after the first repair.

Re:Note to myself:

[Gr8Apes]

That's awesome for you and you're lucky. What was the gas mileage on that one? With domestic, you usually get 1 of: cheap, efficient, reliable. You got reliable, and I doubt it was cheap for its time. If you get 2, you've hit a home run.

Re:Note to myself:

[Gr8Apes]

Considering I've had 3 Ford escorts in my family and none made it to 90K due to mechanical issues, I call BS. Granted, none were from this millennium. which only goes to show how a brand can ruin itself for a very very very long time. In fact, the last "good" ford I recall was an 88 model, with a drive train from Europe. None of the Ford's made since 2000 interest me except for the Ford GT. Do you have $200K you can spot me? I'm good for it, certainly!

Re:Note to myself:

[Ihlosi]

I dont know how GM only manages to get 300 KW out of a 6.2L V8 LS1.

They design their engines for the most common fuel in the US - regular gasoline.

Europeans get more than that out of 4.5L V8's.

In Europe, most cars run on premium/super gasoline, which makes it easier to get more power out of the same displacement.

Re:Note to myself:

[drinkypoo]

If I want cheap and reliable, low end Toyota or Kia.

They drive like shit.

If I want something slightly nicer, either Toyota or VW.

Toyota is not nicer than Toyota. VAG cars are unreliable heaps of electrical failures, just like a Chrysler.

If I want something high end, Audi, BMW, Mercedes.

Yeah, if you want something that will be in the shop extracting one to two thousand dollars out of your pocket every few thousand miles, by all means, buy a high-end Audi, BMW, or Mercedes.

If I want high end but lower maintenance because I can't/don't want to do it myself: Lexus.

Ah yes, Lexus, we take a Toyota and add asphalt and sell it to you for a jillion dollars. Or we make one of the best supercars ever, but we have to sell it at a loss because we can't manage cost control in anything other than shitboxes.

If I want a rust bucket that will run 200K, an american SUV/truck might do it, but it'll cost me in maintenance and gas and it won't be trouble free.

Yeah, most of those are shit, too. I'd prefer a good Toyota, or a Nissan Patrol. Toyota has fucked up all their trucks, though, the last good one was the T100. And you can't buy a Patrol in the USA.

but it'll cost me in maintenance and gas and it won't be trouble free.

You'll have less maintenance problems with an F150 than you will with any of that German shit you mentioned. There's a reason why the F-Series is the most popular vehicle in the world.

It's not the imports that are killing the american car industry, rather the fact that the american car industry is still stuck in the 60s with bandaids to deal with new efficiency requirements.

Yes, as always they would rather legislate than innovate.

Look, I believe in imports too, but they suck now as well. Renault has taken the reliability out of Nissan, the brush with Chrysler ruined the last vestiges of reliability at Mercedes, BMW is probably the best of the lot to be honest but they're not precisely known for being cheap to maintain either, high-end VAGs require massive piles of special tools (heh heh) and if you go to the dealer you will get raped. I think they have a special room for that in the Audi dealers, though, with quality German leather furniture. The kind that will hold up while you take a really good reaming.

The best cars of which I am aware all-around are the mid-nineties Subarus, Hondas and Nissans, before they got really big and heavy but after they discovered advanced engine management. The Subarus and Nissans in particular have a lot of the same Hitachi parts in common, which as it turns out were really quite good. They even shared a pretty good slush box with a lockup TC and auto rev matching. I don't fit in Hondas, so I have less to say about them. At 6'7" I have bought German cars, so I well know what that's actually like — nowhere near as rosy as you suggest.

Re:Note to myself:

[Registered Coward v2]

Perhaps that means we should change how a word will be interpreted in a court of law?

The problem is it's how the jury interprets the story the lawyers craft around the word, not the word.

Re:Note to myself:

[Gr8Apes]

Toyota is not nicer than Toyota. VAG cars are unreliable heaps of electrical failures, just like a Chrysler.

Sure they are, or are you saying a Yaris is as nice as a Camry?

Yeah, if you want something that will be in the shop extracting one to two thousand dollars out of your pocket every few thousand miles, by all means, buy a high-end Audi, BMW, or Mercedes.

I've owned the latter two, and if you take them to the shop for everything, yes, they will cost you more, but it's not every few thousand miles by a long shot. You can DIY for about the same as other vehicles, even a few classes lower.

You'll have less maintenance problems with an F150 than you will with any of that German shit you mentioned. There's a reason why the F-Series is the most popular vehicle in the world.

Except I don't want to drive a 12 mpg bucket of soon to be rust with all the excitement of a horse drawn carriage, unless, of course, I spend as much or more than one of those aforementioned imports. And honestly, I don't recall a well-running F150 above 75K that wasn't a constant source of repair work. They'll run without all that work, but not well. I personally didn't own one, but have several friends that do. The highest mileage one was around 120K.

I have bought German cars, so I well know what that's actually like — nowhere near as rosy as you suggest.

Perhaps I've just been lucky or by working on them myself, avoided some of what you've experienced? I'd say less than $2K spent across 100K miles excluding tires is not an unreasonable amount, on any of my last 3 vehicles. 100K is, admittedly a magic number, because that's when a whole slew of maintenance items come due, all pretty close together. If you combine them all, and DIY, you'll come out the other side for less than $2K and a weekend's work, resulting in what should be another 50+K of relatively maintenance free driving if you don't track your car (excluding oil changes). If you have the dealership do it all, well, let's just say it might be enough to pay for a new car.

The person who made the ppt was immediately fired

[barlevg]

For using all 69 words. No exceptions, right?

copy-pasta

[Anonymous Coward]

always, annihilate, apocalyptic, asphyxiating, bad, Band-Aid, big time, brakes like an “X” car, cataclysmic, catastrophic, Challenger, chaotic, Cobain, condemns, Corvair-like, crippling, critical, dangerous, deathtrap, debilitating, decapitating, defect, defective, detonate, disemboweling, enfeebling, evil, eviscerated, explode, failed, flawed, genocide, ghastly, grenadelike, grisly, gruesome, Hindenburg, Hobbling, Horrific, impaling, inferno, Kevorkianesque, lacerating, life-threatening, maiming, malicious, mangling, maniacal, mutilating, never, potentially-disfiguring, powder keg, problem, rolling sarcophagus (tomb or coffin), safety, safety related, serious, spontaneous combustion, startling, suffocating, suicidal, terrifying, Titanic, unstable, widow-maker, words or phrases with a biblical connotation, you’re toast

Re:copy-pasta

[SydShamino]

They left off exsanguinating.

Re:copy-pasta

[sexconker]

Never drink and drive.

Doubleplusgood

[Anonymous Coward]

Hail corporate for they are the giver of life and the rightful rulers of the land. Us worker serfs should be grateful for the words our corporate lords still let us use.

Re:Doubleplusgood

[Anonymous Coward]

Your mom called. She said she just got some more Hot Pockets, so you can go ahead and go home and stop leeching mine. kthxbye.

words

[serviscope_minor]

I like how the article explains to us the meaning behind the words Hindenburg and Titanic.

You know just in case we couldn't picture an engineer likening the powder keg of a rolling sarcophagus spontansously combusting in an apocalyptic grenadelike explosion, mangling and impaling the hapless ocupants like Curt Cobain flying the Challenger into the Hindenburg.

On the plus side you could use the result to cook you're toast at the end of it all.

Re:words

[ColdWetDog]

I'd hire you as my technical writer anytime!

Re:words

[Anonymous Coward]

I like how the article explains to us the meaning behind the words Hindenburg and Titanic.

I wouldn't be surprised if some folks don't know the story behind these words. I mean some folks don't know the difference between "your" and "you're".

On the plus side you could use the result to cook you're toast at the end of it all.

Re:words

[LifesABeach]

What?! No reference to WKRP?!

Re:words

[MadKeithV]

I like how the article explains to us the meaning behind the words Hindenburg and Titanic.

I wouldn't be surprised if some folks don't know the story behind these words. I mean some folks don't know the difference between "your" and "you're".

On the plus side you could use the result to cook you're toast at the end of it all.

If you're inside the car then you ARE toast at the end of it all.

Re:words

[UnknownSoldier]

Ha! Classic.

Is this the first reference to "Film at 11" at 2:10 ?

Re:words

[Zeromous]

Who, "Curt" Cobain?

Re:words

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi Bob,

I'm just reading the report on the defect related to the safety of the
air bags and engines. I've reviewed the international safety related
specifications and my conclusion is that as things stand, this issue is bad
if not dangerous. I'd rate the priority as critical.

With regard to the design of engine block, if this component is used in the
final product sold to customers, the outcome could be apocalyptic for
public relations and catastrophic for the stock price. We are likely to see
grenadelike vehicles traveling across the freeways and undergo
spontaneous combustion like the Hindenburg. Even worse, with the failure
of the acceleration control system, vehicles traveling over freeway
overpasses are likely to fly off the road explode in mid-air like the
Challenger, impaling and mangling everyone with the resulting shrapnel.
Vehicles in coastal areas with high salt erosion are likely to
fly off road and sink underwater never to be seen again much like the Titanic.

On the subject of the air bag, this fault is a powder keg. Tests have
shown that incorrectly pressurized gas cylinders are capable of
decapitating drivers in seconds, while the resulting fumes generated as the
airbag deflates are capable of asphyxiating everyone in the passenger
compartment in the most evil Kevorkianesque way possible.

The last thing we want is for our customers to refer to our product as
The Widow-maker, a rolling sarcophagus, or a Ford Cobain. If you don't
fix these issues you're toast!

Re:words

[Ol Biscuitbarrel]

Cobain actually varied the spelling of his name off and on to mess with people, "Curt" is found in some autographs.

Re:words

[tquasar]

Curtiss Cobain was some airplane guy.

Re:words

[Trax3001BBS]

What?! No reference to WKRP?!

I watched that when it was first shown, it was the funniest thing I thought I'd ever seen.

Re:words

[Anonymous Coward]

Save all the verbiage and just call it a Pinto.

Re:words

[Zeromous]

TIL

Could be worse.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike Tesla, at least they actually acknowledge their faults these days. Shame that they don't use open language to do so, but modern business is 80% psychology and 20% product.

Re:Could be worse.

[hsmith]

Could be worse? How many people died in fires from Tesla? GM covered this up for years. Their solution? Fire two engineers - no one in management who acted like it wasn't an issue.

Re:Could be worse.

[rioki]

... said Anonymous "GM PR Guy" Coward.

Re:Could be worse.

[CanHasDIY]

Unlike Tesla, at least they actually acknowledge their faults these days. Shame that they don't use open language to do so, but modern business is 80% psychology and 20% product.

To be fair, Tesla might not acknowledge their faults, but unlike GM, they act proactively and fix them before somebody gets killed.

Re:Could be worse.

[Anonymous Coward]

How many fire-related deaths per mile travelled in an urban car of similar age, please?

Re:Could be worse.

[bobbied]

at least they actually acknowledge their faults these days.

Only because the government is in the process of issuing fines to GM and a host of lawsuits are soon to hit for all the untimely deaths caused by the various design issues they have been forced to recall.

Everybody needs to understand exactly WHAT this is. This is a lawyer sitting in his office who realizes that as soon as he gets hit by a discovery notice, he's going to have to turn over electronic copies of E-mails, documents and such that might have something to do with a lawsuit. He's trying to make the real evidence hard to find, hard to explain and avoid the appearance of having a "smoking gun" E-mail or document that can be easily found using a text search. This is all about obfuscation.

But GM is FAR from the only company that does this.. I've worked at a few companies that had some interesting rules about stuff like this. I worked at one place where the document retention policy was *obviously* geared towards the company getting sued. Keeping something for more than a quarter required manager approvals and justification. It was just plain stupid and hard to work with so we generally ignored it. I found out why though at a later date. Apparently the CFO was doing some "shady" (or outright illegal by SEC standards) practices and was trying to cover his tracks.

Re:Could be worse.

[madro]

There are no fires. Only thermal events.

Re:Could be worse.

[HornWumpus]

Russian space agency: 'Unplanned burning of an oxygen generator.'

omitted from the list, but relevant

[nimbius]

Two more words,

"We're Sorry."

Re:omitted from the list, but relevant

[Anonymous Coward]

two words not on the list as well.

Fuck. you.

Re:omitted from the list, but relevant

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry.... *in the south park way*

Re:omitted from the list, but relevant

[bobbied]

Two more words, "We're Sorry."

Saying that is like handing signed blank checks to a host of personal injury lawyers. Especially for a company like GM which is seen as HUGE money pit. So the corporate lawyer reviewing the public statement is going to have kittens if the PR department tried something like this.

List in full:

[Anonymous Coward]

Them words in full: http://i.imgur.com/4VaHgh1.jpg?1

When you gag the enginers ...

[johnjaydk]

You get a Challenger disaster.

In my experience, You have to use exactly these words in order to get management to take problems serious. Turns out it was because they put management in a legal bind.

Any engineer who follows GM's edict should be flogged. Bad stuff happens because good men do nothing.

Re:When you gag the enginers ...

[Ihlosi]

You have to use exactly these words in order to get management to take problems serious.

Actually, you have to use words like "liability", "class-action lawsuit", "company stock price drops like a rock", etc.

At least when you're dealing with real managers, and not pretend ones that used to be engineers at some point.

Re:When you gag the enginers ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The class-action lawsuit won't get anywhere unless it can be demonstrated that management was aware of the problem - for example, by hearing the words "defective", "unsafe", or "fatal explosion" from the engineers. So if they simply prevent the engineers from using those words, they're fine!

Re:When you gag the enginers ...

[eth1]

Yeah... note to self: All the good engineers are going to leave, so all of GM's future cars are probably going to be well-described by all the forbidden words.

Re:When you gag the enginers ...

[jellomizer]

Playing devils advocate here

However the engineer, is often overly cautious, to the extreme, and sometimes have a fit if they don't get there way, and having engineers over exaggerating to get their point across isn't unheard of.

The words seem to be "Power Words" terms that get people to agree without only on an emotional basis. So an engineer can use them to get his way, without really backing himself up. And if his idea gets rejected and the media gets their hands on the email, there is a huge PR problem, where the email is taken out of contexts.

Lets just say this discussion was about the vanity mirror, the engineer wants it to be bolted on, vs. a plastic clip. His design is superior because the bolts will last longer. However other engineers find the plastic clip is good enough, and looks better. The engineer who proposes the bolts may fill a bit annoyed that they went with an other design. So he may complain to protest his point, and over emphasize the risks of the plastic clips, and toss in a few of those power words. To try to get his way. Then a few years down the line, there is an unrelated problem with the car, and there is a law suit. They find emails from an engineer discussing doom and gloom. Now the media will have a field day with that. Even though it was unrelated.

Re:When you gag the enginers ...

[bigpat]

Exactly. The Thiokol engineers knew that the air temperature at the launch pad was below the lower range operating temperature of the O Rings which was 40 degrees (or 50 degrees for the system as a whole). The O rings themselves were certified down to 40 degrees but the engineers were bullied by management who wanted proof that the system would fail rather than the other way around and then when the engineers couldn't prove that it would fail they were overruled. I think the comments that it would be "away from goodness" was just a really impotent way of saying something like "there was a potentially increased risk that the rocket would explode that can not be quantified because of lack of data", but saying the rocket might explode in such blunt language was probably a quick ticket to being fired shortly afterwards and the engineers probably knew that.

Language matters and the fact that GM was more worried about getting sued than about engineers accurately conveying concerns over safety is damning. GM is supposedly a new company after bankruptcy. Is it?

Re:When you gag the enginers ...

[bobbied]

Any engineer who follows GM's edict should be flogged.

How about we just put them in stocks in the town square. You do realize that if you ignore this order, you can kiss your job goodbye. For some, that's a serious problem because you don't want your wife and kids ending up homeless.

Now, if I worked for GM and this came out, I'd be seriously looking for another job, but while they write my paycheck I live with their rules best I can. Unless they are asking something illegal, in which case I'd be asking for instructions in writing, getting a lawyer, reporting it to every ethics hotline I could find and contacting law enforcement though my lawyer while I refused to comply. But what they are asking here is not illegal. It might look bad, but it's not illegal.

Re:When you gag the enginers ...

[frank_adrian314159]

Please explain how one gets from broken plastic clips on a vanity mirror to "rolling sarcophagus" in a way that wouldn't make any other engineer's (let along lawyer's) eyes roll.

Yes, engineers can become short-sighted, over-exaggerate and sometimes use immoderate language, but in general, I think you'd find less of that in engineering ranks than in any other department in the company.

Re:When you gag the enginers ...

[jellomizer]

A broken clip could cause the mirror to fall off during transit. Hitting the relatively hard steering wheel or dashboard, causing it to shatter and glass shooing up into the drivers eyes. causing an accident.

Re:When you gag the enginers ...

[avandesande]

It is cargo-cult management. Instead of engineering a car that would not elicit these words in a serious manner, they just ban the words.

Re:When you gag the enginers ...

[dcollins]

Of course, that example isn't the legal risk area, is it? The legal danger isn't when an engineer says something outrageous and the vanity mirror pops off (clearly unrelated if assessed in a court trial), the problem is when the engineer wrote "rolling sarcophagus" and later the car actually became a "rolling sarcophagus" (then you've got proof of advance management negligence).

That is: the legal risk for company management is when the engineer is actually telling the *truth*, so in response they want the engineers to *lie* (or at least obscure problems).

Re:When you gag the enginers ...

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Now the media will have a field day with that.

If the media want to have a field day with you, they can have it regardless of what you wrote.

Re:When you gag the enginers ...

[DerekLyons]

Exactly. The Thiokol engineers knew that the air temperature at the launch pad was below the lower range operating temperature of the O Rings which was 40 degrees (or 50 degrees for the system as a whole). The O rings themselves were certified down to 40 degrees but the engineers were bullied by management who wanted proof that the system would fail rather than the other way around and then when the engineers couldn't prove that it would fail they were overruled.

Sure it sounds bad - when you only tell the self serving half of the story that has made rounds in the cargo cult community.
 
The other half of the story is that the SRB's had been suffering from joint rotation and the consequent blow-by for years. For both management and engineers it had become an 'expected failure', and since the backup O-ring had never failed everyone thought it was safe to fly. Everyone, including the engineers that were developing a fix (which is why one was ready so fast - it had been in development for several years by that point) thought it was safe to continue to fly. Which is the whole point of Tufte's criticism of the engineering presentations prior to the accident - the engineers not only completely failed to realize the worst damage was actually well within normal temperature range, they completely missed the role of temperature entirely.
 
"Prove it will fail" was management's subtle way of asking "Why are you changing your story?".
 
The story of the loss of the Challenger is much more complicated than simply "stupid managers, saintly engineers", and there's a lot of blame to spread around all parties.

Re:When you gag the enginers ...

[sg3000]

Please explain how one gets from broken plastic clips on a vanity mirror to "rolling sarcophagus" in a way that wouldn't make any other engineer's (let along lawyer's) eyes roll

Quotes like this that make me miss the defunct Forum 2000. This sounds like a great quote from The Cube SOMAD.

I agree with the GP though. I recall a guy I used to work with who used hyperbole a lot. I recall that he once referred to a so-called "fiasco" which, upon deeper inspection, translated to him trying to schedule a conference call where he couldn't get the other people to agree on a time. Once I figured out his hyperbolic tendency, I could safely moderate the "disasters" he was warning of. I shudder to think what would happen if his emails are ever discovered for a lawsuit.

Re:When you gag the enginers ...

[johnjaydk]

The story of the loss of the Challenger is much more complicated than simply "stupid managers, saintly engineers", and there's a lot of blame to spread around all parties.

Sorry for using Challenger this way. It's borderline trolling/flamebait but an established, although incorrect example.

My point is that engineers need to take a stand. Our actions or inactions can put the public at risk and that is a burden we have to respect. We are the experts and we have to make certain that the best possible knowledge is put forth in a way that management can't dismiss easily.

Re:When you gag the enginers ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I use apocalyptic language with my boss, otherwise he thinks it's a minor issue.

"There's a chance that this will break and cause issues" reads like something he can live with.
While:
"If this goes wrong the production server will fall over and we won't be able to get it back for hours" read like something he should care about.

He should care about the first one, but he doesn't because managers are used to dealing with other managers who all lie and exaggerate.

It's their own fault.

Re:When you gag the enginers ...

[Registered Coward v2]

Please explain how one gets from broken plastic clips on a vanity mirror to "rolling sarcophagus" in a way that wouldn't make any other engineer's (let along lawyer's) eyes roll.

Yes, engineers can become short-sighted, over-exaggerate and sometimes use immoderate language, but in general, I think you'd find less of that in engineering ranks than in any other department in the company.

I would disagree. Engineers suffer from the same human frailties as the rest of humanity; and I've been in enough engineering meetings to realize that egos, disagreements, personal objectives, etc. play as much a part of the decisions as they do anywhere else in the company. The main difference is every engineer thinks he or she is smarter than everyone else in the room and needs to prove it.

Re:When you gag the enginers ...

[Anonymous Coward]

However the engineer, is often overly cautious, to the extreme, and sometimes have a fit if they don't get there way

Engineers ARE overly cautious and have fits when they don't get their way, especially if they are licensed. This is the big kicker for licensed engineers. The P.E. who signed & sealed the design is liable in the lawsuit if/when someone gets hurt due to that faulty design. Pardon us if we get that way because it won't be just the company named in the lawsuit. It will be the PE who certified that his or her design will not pose a danger to the health, safety and welfare of the general public.

They forgot the obvious two

[Begemot]

Dingleberries and pussy farts

Why bother?

[Lije Baley]

The NSA will be recording their voice conversations anyway. But seriously, this is a joke, right? If not, it's instant "Hall of shame" material, and my cynicism reaches a new height.

Don't worry

[Anonymous Coward]

Clusterfuck isn't on the list.

Not that irrational

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a natural consequence of the general public (slashdotters included) being morons and cherrypicking single words (not sentences, words) and basing all their decisions on those words. That's how you elect politicians whose only ability is being able to talk for three hours without actually saying anything.

Re:Not that irrational

[Mr D from 63]

It's a natural consequence of the general public (slashdotters included) being morons and cherrypicking single words (not sentences, words) and basing all their decisions on those words. That's how you elect politicians whose only ability is being able to talk for three hours without actually saying anything.

Exactly. I'm sure political speech writers have similar lists, and good technical writing guides will tell you to stay away from subjective modifiers and phrases.

Re:Not that irrational

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a natural consequence of the general public (slashdotters included) being morons and cherrypicking single words (not sentences, words) and basing all their decisions on those words. That's how you elect politicians whose only ability is being able to talk for three hours without actually saying anything.

Ah.. So it's only about who loads what into the teleprompter? I see...

Hey, no problem!

[Rambo Tribble]

Just say, "this may have negative marketing implications", and corporate will have the recall in effect by lunchtime.

It's not a death-trap

[Arancaytar]

It's a survival-challenging vehicle!

Re:It's not a death-trap

[Talderas]

SCVs? Fucking zerg wiping them out.

69 words

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess you're F**ked if you use any of them

Re:The person who made the ppt was immediately fir

[Rob the Bold]

For using all 69 words. No exceptions, right?

Obviously there are exceptions. "Quality and Safety" is one of the top level links on GM's website. And "Ignition Recall" is right there on the front page.

So how to report an actual problem?

[Immerman]

Rejoice! The fuel tank exhibits a delightful ability to consistently emit large cheerful conflations of thermal exuberance in response to mild percussive excitation. We recommend modifying the roof-rack to double as a full-length barbeque grill to maximize the occupants appreciation of this fortuitous feature.

Re:So how to report an actual problem?

[NatasRevol]

That's about the best MBA-speak I've ever seen.

Re:So how to report an actual problem?

[L4t3r4lu5]

"Synergies"? Nope.
"Paradigm"? Absent.
"Holistic approach"? No.
Dude, there isn't a "proactive" in there anywhere.

Now, if you'd have said this was a press release from Pyongyang, I'd have agreed with you.

Re:So how to report an actual problem?

[The Grim Reefer]

Rejoice! The fuel tank exhibits a delightful ability to consistently emit large cheerful conflations of thermal exuberance in response to mild percussive excitation. We recommend modifying the roof-rack to double as a full-length barbeque grill to maximize the occupants appreciation of this fortuitous feature.

Sorry, "the", "a", "and", "to". "I", "we", and "as" were all on the list too. But those were mainly added to decrease network, paper and toner usage.

Re:So how to report an actual problem?

[sycodon]

Is it MBA speak of Government speak?

Re:So how to report an actual problem?

[Opportunist]

So when do you start that CEO position again?

Re:So how to report an actual problem?

[Opportunist]

And no "cloud" either, so he ain't no consultant material.

Re:So how to report an actual problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a computer consultant and the only time I use the word "cloud" is when I'm talking to an MBA, telling him this is a meaningless marketing buzzword.

Re:So how to report an actual problem?

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

And the windshield turns into everyone's favorite toy form the 70's:

Bag of glass!

https://screen.yahoo.com/bag-g...

Re:So how to report an actual problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a high-end barbeque grill salesman speak. High-end barbeques are cheerful explosions of tasty meat exuberance.

Re:So how to report an actual problem?

[NatasRevol]

Dude, this isn't the 00's anymore.

Re: So how to report an actual problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

So they all talk like cavemen... And we wonder why GM is in shambles.

Re:So how to report an actual problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about, "This is fucked".

Re:So how to report an actual problem?

[WheezyJoe]

Lawyer speak. They are trying to make it difficult for investigators to find incriminating or "smoking gun" evidence through a word-search on their electronic documents (such as when they are forced to hand them over on discovery or under subpoena, or else leaked by a whistleblower or hacker).

Re:So how to report an actual problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

In that case, remind to never call you, because you obviously suck as a computer consultant.

Protip --->> Don't quit your day job, and stay close to your mom's basement.

Re:So how to report an actual problem?

[Opportunist]

This. A billion times this.

But ... you're a consultant, isn't it in your contract that you can't tell the truth? :)

Re:So how to report an actual problem?

[afeeney]

You forgot the passive voice.

I mean, "The passive voice was forgotten."

Re: So how to report an actual problem?

[jd2112]

This is the auto industry so they are typically about 5 years behind on technology matters. So it should be "with a mobile device".

Re:So how to report an actual problem?

[Belial6]

Yep, although if I was on a jury, I would see that list as evidence GM had premeditated any deaths caused be safety problems as well premeditated hiding evidence from the court.

Re:So how to report an actual problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

After reading my contract, I must answer "No."

Re:So how to report an actual problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can just imagine this going down well in court:

Hi Bob,

I'm just reading the report on the defect related to the safety of the
air bags and engines. I've reviewed the international safety related
specifications and my conclusion is that as things stand, this issue is bad
if not dangerous. I'd rate the priority as critical.

With regard to the design of engine block, if this component is used in the
final product sold to customers, the outcome could be apocalyptic for
public relations and catastrophic for the stock price. We are likely to see
grenadelike vehicles traveling across the frewways and undergo
spontaneous combustion like the Hindenburg. Even worse, with the failure
of the acceleration control system, vehicles travelling over freeway
overpasses are likely to fly off the road explode in mid-air like the
Challenger, impaling and mangling everyone with the resulting shrapnel.
Vehicles in coastal areas with high salt erosion are likely to
fly off road and sink underwater never to be seen again much like the Titanic.

On the subject of the air bag, this fault is a powder keg. Tests have
shown that incorrectly pressurized gas cylinders are capable of
decapitating drivers in seconds, while the resulting fumes generated as the
airbag deflates are capable of asphyxiating everyone in the passenger
compartment in the most evil Kevorkianesque way possible.

The last thing we want is for our customers to refer to our product as
The Widow-maker, a rolling sarcophagus, or a Ford Cobain. If you don't
fix these issues you're toast!

Re:So how to report an actual problem?

[Opportunist]

I'm torn between asking "are you hiring" and "can I commission your services"...

Re: So how to report an actual problem?

[Opportunist]

They're still at "wireless connection", give it time.

Re:So how to report an actual problem?

[DoubleJ1024]

You sir have properly executed a mastery of "diplomat speak." I would have modded you Funny but you are already at +5 Funny and my mod points just expired. You really are a Spaceball, you know that, right?

Re:So how to report an actual problem?

[sillybilly]

What's the difference between the Rolling Stones and a Scottish shepherd?
The Rolling Stones says, "Hey you, get off my cloud!"
The Scottish shepherd says, "Hey MacLeod, get off my ewe!"

Obligatory Fight Club...

[Anonymous Coward]

A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

Re:Obligatory Fight Club...

[HornWumpus]

Useless without context: That was the contents of the Pinto memo that got Ford's ass sued to hell and back. Thus breaking the formula by writing it down.

Quantum effects in lawyering.

How could they enforce this?

[blackwizard]

I'm thinking something like a pre-commit hook, only integrated into Microsoft Office. ;-)

Re:How could they enforce this?

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't need real-time enforcement. If and when an instance gets back to them they just fire people immediately. With at-will employment, their lawyers will justify it later with legalese.

Re:How could they enforce this?

[freeze128]

Use autocorrect to replace the word "failure" with "f-----e". The recipient might still be able to figure it out, and the lawyers searching for "failure" don't get a match.

Common sense in email

[gnasher719]

Just common sense. You don't write anything in an email that could be used as evidence against the company in a court case. Everything you write can and will be used against the company in a court case, no matter how much it has to be taken out of context. Much easier to just avoid some words.

If you know that writing "the car has a defect" can cost the company millions, while writing "the car has a condition" has the same meaning, and your fellow engineers know it has the same meaning, why would you want to write "the car has a defect"?

Re:Common sense in email

[Anonymous Coward]

We use different words to convey degree.

Defect sounds like it needs replacement or augmentation, whereas condition suggests that an over-the-counter ointment may be sufficient.

Ignition related issue? Try refilling the windshield wiper fluid. In court, they can say "we said 'try', we did not say this would address a specific 'condition'."

Re:Common sense in email

[TheDarkMaster]

Trying to hide a serious problem that can cause deaths is even worse for the image of the company to admit that it has a product problems. It is high time to send these managers to hell and start doing things right for a change.

Re:Common sense in email

[Torodung]

Bring on the "right way." Please.

- Your Personal Injury Attorney

Re:Common sense in email

[rwise2112]

Just common sense. You don't write anything in an email that could be used as evidence against the company in a court case. Everything you write can and will be used against the company in a court case, no matter how much it has to be taken out of context. Much easier to just avoid some words. If you know that writing "the car has a defect" can cost the company millions, while writing "the car has a condition" has the same meaning, and your fellow engineers know it has the same meaning, why would you want to write "the car has a defect"?

You know what would make more sense? How about resolving the "defect" or "condition" before shipping the product. If it's fixed, no one's getting sued.

Re:Common sense in email

[Anonymous Coward]

Trying to hide a serious problem that can cause deaths is even worse for the image of the company to admit that it has a product problems.

But training people to communicate a certain way, before there's anything to be hidden, avoids both problems.

GM's story here is over. The lesson for everyone else, is that you might have a car (or a software product or whatever) that doesn't have any major known defects and isn't causing any deaths. Start using the right words now, when discussing bugs. If a few years down the road one of your people starts to get suspicious about a possible problem, and later the evidence begins to mount, you don't want to have created a smoking gun that leads the public to believe you had a greater certainly about the severity, than you really did.

If something can be described in a non-inflammatory way, do it.

But that also means that when you see someone describing things in a non-inflammatory way, it might be a good idea to perceive their words in the worst possible light. When someone says a component passed 999999 of a million tests, you calmly stand up and walk over to the cabinet where you keep your wakizashi...

Corporate Culture Sucks at GM!

[Anonymous Coward]

A corporate culture that does not promote transparency and honesty is set to fail by internal struggles and miscommunication. This policy of censoring words is both ethically and morally bankrupt and might delayed solving problems before they snowball into deaths.

The GM board of directors needs to intervene in this matter as many investors will lose confidence by this news.

'problem' was on the list as well

[l3v1]

"'problem' was on the list as well"

Well, as everyone knows, there are no problems, only challenges :))

Re:'problem' was on the list as well

[PPH]

Well, as everyone knows, there are no problems, only challenges :))

Auto correct changed that to Challengers. Now I'm screwed!

Re:'problem' was on the list as well

[Anonymous Coward]

Not Challengers, though. They're made by Chrysler, and it's a forbidden word anyway.

It's a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

You damn well know that before the slide was shown in the engineer's meeting, there was another meeting. At this other meeting, people were laughing. There was a slightly-upper manager holding a piece of chalk or a grease pencil or something, pointing it around, "who's got another one? Johnson?" Someone slapped their knee when they heard the absurdly stupid (yet that also makes it clever) "Kevorkianesque," and then someone else smugly rolled their eyes thinking their co-worker less witty than themselves when they heard "rolling sarcophagus." By the time they got to "grenade-like" the laughs had died down, not because it was so serious but because people people were straining too hard, thinking all the low-hanging fruit had been plucked. And let's face it, half the people there, were enjoying poking fun at their own company's products.

I bet you the engineers laughed too. A manager doesn't tell a bunch of people "don't refer to our product as a rolling sarcophagus" without getting a few chuckles.

And nobody tell me "this is no time for joking, real people got killed!" Hey, there's always a time for joking. People have been killed by the mob but you can still laugh when Tony Soprano's father said he had an albacore around his neck. People got killed in 9/11 but you know plenty of jokes about it. We laugh about some of our mistakes at my workplace and you do the same at yours. (And if you don't, then IMHO you are a problem.)

There's an underlying seriousness here, sure. They already knew records were eventually going to be subpoenaed and they didn't want people leaving "smoking guns" around ("See? Their own engineers call it a sarcophagus!") and that alone suggests some guilt. The intent behind the list is cause for concern. The list itself, though: that's just people having fun after getting a memo from legal.

Re:It's a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know any 911 jokes...

unexplained fires are a matter for the courts

[Joe_Dragon]

Canyonero!

Bagel

[Len]

"There seems to be a bagel with the ignition switch that we should look into."

The emails and memos will still get written, and it's not like anyone will be fooled by the obtuse circumlocutions.

Of course you do.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even tiny, sub-20 person companies have shit they do not talk about via e-mail. Unless you're an idiot, you're well aware of the consequences of living in a society where written records are potentially durable forever.

Anyway, GP - if you want a real reason not to buy GM, go with Government Motors. Funny how there were car manufacturers who didn't need taxpayer funds to bail them out.

And before the loonies start in - I don't care what was paid back with what profit. "Too big to fail"? Same bullshit used to give our money to the banks. And it needs to stop. The very concept of 'too big to fail' needs to be dragged out into the public square and shot. What happens when, say, Comcast is 'too big to fail'?

Re:Of course you do.

[Anonymous Coward]

The very concept of 'too big to fail' needs to be dragged out into the public square and shot.

Also, get rid of too big to jail while you're at it.

Re:Of course you do.

[suutar]

Both of these, imho, need badly to turn into "too big to be left alone as a ticking bomb; break 'em apart."

Thank Ralph Nader

[tomhath]

The list is just examples of words a lawyer will latch onto. For the same reason doctors are instructed to never say they're sorry for a less than perfect outcome; it can be presented to a jury that they admitted guilt - whether they intended it that way or not.

Re:Thank Ralph Nader

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully you're not saying Ralph Nader was responsible for this mindset. He did a lot of good in increasing automotive safety by bringing the problems out into the sunlight. This is solely on the lawyers, 99% of which are worthless ambulance chasers.

Re:Thank Ralph Nader

[HornWumpus]

After making a carrier out of bashing the Corvair, he was forced to admit it was no more dangerous than any other car of the same era.

Challenges

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a Dilbert cartoon. Dilbert has to explain what the issue product X is having and has a list of words he can't use from the PHB.

Low power to education ratio

[pefisher]

Sometimes it seems that engineers have the lowest power to education ratio of any profession in the US. Lawyers and bean counters seem to spend their days making sure that any good that might be done by engineers is preemptively neutralized.

Re:Low power to education ratio

[50000BTU_barbecue]

Exactly. Which is why I would never encourage my kids to go into engineering. It's not the 1960s anymore, we've squeezed all we can out of engineering and we're coasting back to the historical mean of how humans behave.

Poorly worded headline

[damn_registrars]

The summary goes so far as to tell us that it is Engineering employees who cannot use those words in specific types of communications. People outside that division can use those words, and people inside that division can use them in communications that are outside that list.

GM has enough problems on its own without people distorting their message to make them sound worse than they are.

Half Right and Half Very Wrong

[el jocko del oeste]

It comes down to good engineering. Some of the words on the list are pretty reasonable. Telling your engineers not to use terms like apocalyptic and powder keg is fine--those aren't necessary to accurate technical writing. But defect and safety seem like words that an engineer needs. It's hard to believe that GM's engineers didn't object strongly to those restrictions.

Last Week Tonight: GM Ad

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6IZ2TroruU

It's the lawyers

[LarryWMSN]

If you've ever been deposed as part of a lawsuit, the lawyer will go through every email and key on those particular words to present them is the worst possible light. I had to go through this once and spent three days, basically, justifying every word I used. Now when a customer comes to me and says they have a problem or something is not working, I will ask, "what behavior are you expecting to see and what are you seeing?" When we resolve the "problem", we simply say they should see the expected behavior now and please get back to us if they don't. It sucks but that's the reality.

GM definitely knew they had problems and didn't fix them, but I'm sure there were many emails that were unrelated to their intentional disregard to the known problems that they had to defend along the way. Every little sentence or word that someone has to justify means more time with the lawyers racking up fees. You can't skirt around real problems with the change in words, but it makes it harder for the lawyers to bring in unrelated or insignificant facts into the mix.

Link to the actual artical

[Anonymous Coward]

If you'd like a link to the actual article, here it is : http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2014/05/16/the-69-words-you-cant-use-at-gm/

Addditionally, if you'd like the list:
 
always, annihilate, apocalyptic, asphyxiating, bad, Band-Aid, big time, brakes like an “X” car, cataclysmic, catastrophic, Challenger, chaotic, Cobain, condemns, Corvair-like, crippling, critical, dangerous, deathtrap, debilitating, decapitating, defect, defective, detonate, disemboweling, enfeebling, evil, eviscerated, explode, failed, flawed, genocide, ghastly, grenadelike, grisly, gruesome, Hindenburg, Hobbling, Horrific, impaling, inferno, Kevorkianesque, lacerating, life-threatening, maiming, malicious, mangling, maniacal, mutilating, never, potentially-disfiguring, powder keg, problem, rolling sarcophagus (tomb or coffin), safety, safety related, serious, spontaneous combustion, startling, suffocating, suicidal, terrifying, Titanic, unstable, widow-maker, words or phrases with a biblical connotation, you’re toast

revoke their professional licensing

[Anonymous Coward]

is it not not a requirement of the professional licensing to not only notify the managers when a product is unsafe, but when the warnings go unheeded to blow the whistle? At a minimum these guys that knew this stuff, if they wanted to do right by their fellow man should have sent the data off to the NTSB. If they didnt at least do that then I say strip them of their license and profession.

Re:revoke their professional licensing

[PPH]

That's a touchy subject in the engineering world. The duty to report life safety issues (particularly outside of the organization) often runs up against complying with an employer's policies and procedures. Since there is a manufacturing exception to license requirements in most states, pushing this issue would discourage companies from hiring P.E.s. I don't think you want to live in a world where potentially dangerous products are designed by people with an upper boundary on their knowledge and experience.

Oops. To late.

Point being?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty standard. Apple has a similar list including "Hack" "Problem" "Virus" (Unidentified system issues) "Burn" "explode" "leak" (Potentially dangerous hardware issue, etc.

69 Words

[Bobfrankly1]

In other news, the GM employees responsible for setting the length of the list will be attending sexual harrassment training.

Only Cowards Censor

[UnknownSoldier]

n/t see subject.

copy-pasta

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't use "always"?

"We should usually make cars with working brakes."

You can't use "never"?

"We should rarely make cars that spontaneously combust."

You can't use "problem"?

"Our cars come with many opportunities for repair."

Re:Note to governments:

[HnT]

Do not bail out GM and its subsidiaries and daughter companies like a chump like the German government did for Opel. You will get screwed in the worst possible way and GM will still close shop and move east the second they don't need your free guarantees anymore.

Re:The person who made the ppt was immediately fir

[NonUniqueNickname]

Someone complained and HR agreed that he intentionally stopped short of making the list an even 70. Fired for sexual harassment.

Could be worse.

[Anonymous Coward]

They are even allowed to use the word "faults"!

Nice view from the cheap seats?

[sjbe]

I prefer companies that are open about their problems than companies that try to hide problems with "disguised words".

Easy to say when you are not the one at the pointy end of a multi-billion dollar lawsuit. Lots of people have plenty of courage in a semi-anonymous internet post. While I agree with you in principle the way the laws are written it isn't nearly as simple as you or I think it should be. As much as I'd like to see engineers speaking freely about problems, the consequences of doing so can be catastrophic when they don't know what they are doing. And I don't know too many engineers who are up to date on their product liability law.

Fact is that NO lawyer worth his retainer would agree with you. The number of ways in which employees can get a company in serious financial trouble through even the most honest attempts to solve problems is HUGE. Employees can agree to contracts, "admit" to wrongdoing (even when there wasn't any), etc. There are VERY good reasons why companies tend to only let a few, carefully selected people who know what they are doing speak for the company. I've worked as an engineer at a large auto company and I had to get special permission to give a technical talk just due to the potential liability and trade secret issues involved.

Re:Nice view from the cheap seats?

[TheDarkMaster]

Fact is that NO lawyer worth his retainer would agree with you.

Please... In my humble opinion every single lawyer needs to be shot on sight . To me their opinion is worthless, their opinion is always on the side of the highest bidder and they damn the truth and the facts. It's a criminal profession that exists only below in vileness to bankers. Your opinion is worth as an engineer, but please do not ask me to accept the opinion of a lawyer.

Re:Nice view from the cheap seats?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

As much as I'd like to see engineers speaking freely about problems, the consequences of doing so can be catastrophic when they don't know what they are doing.

This should not be so. The law as it currently stands promotes thes kinds of irrational, destructive practices and behaviours. We need laws that punish engineers who obfuscate, and which protect engineers who speak openly and honestly.

The law is a tool which can shape the morals and behaviour of human beings. At some point in the last 30 years, the West has completely forgotten that the law is a tool for shaping public ethics and morality, and has instead regarded it as a pen an paper RPG which can be gamed, min-maxed, and generally ruined in spirit by twisting the meaning of its letters. The degeneracy of our insitutions, private and public, has its roots in the degeneracy of the courts and legal professions and their practices.

Re:Nice view from the cheap seats?

[amicusNYCL]

I prefer companies that are open about their problems than companies that try to hide problems with "disguised words".

Easy to say when you are not the one at the pointy end of a multi-billion dollar lawsuit.

GM completely deserves this lawsuit, they brought it on themselves. They saw problems, and they decided to ignore them. It's not really the engineer's fault for calling a problem a problem, right? That would be like a programmer not being allowed to refer to bugs as bugs. I once worked with a programmer who never had any bugs, his programs simply had "anomalies" that he could neither figure out the cause of nor fix. He didn't last very long.

It's the classic fomula - GM can either pay for the recall, or pay individual settlements as they come in. If the cost of the recall is expected to be higher, than they don't do the recall. They gambled on that and lost, even though lives were at stake they decided to not do the recall until the pressure was on them. Now they are on the hook for all of the lives lost when they could have informed the public and recalled the cars. Some policy of not using words like "problem" is just a way for them to try and weasel out of their liability (and it is their liability).

Re:Nice view from the cheap seats?

[Anonymous Coward]

We have said law, it's handled by punitive damages.

Re:Nice view from the cheap seats?

[Anonymous Coward]

i.e. a statement by an engineer should be evaluated by others in the same profession AND with full context. essentially a jury system where the jurors are knowledgeable about the topic. we already have the concept of expert opinion. the problem is that lawyers can twist even an expert opinion into something completely different.

Re:Nice view from the cheap seats?

[HeckRuler]

This is +5 insightful?

Easy to say when you are not the one at the pointy end of a multi-billion dollar lawsuit.

Yeah, the lawsuit makes it even easier. But as a potential customer I too prefer companies that don't feel the need to censor their own employees from talking about the products they make.

Let me make that clear: A healthy company that makes good products should be confidant that their employees can bitch and moan about whatever failings they can find with the product and still know that the product is well made, or at least that the problems have been dealt with correctly.

If the public comments of the employee are brought up in court, the company should be able to justify those comments:
"Yes your honor, Mr. Bob called the transmission of leaky cock-sucking sonnovabitch, and that falls in line with our public announcement on April 3rd about the a potential recall and memos to our dealers. There are problems and we dealt with them"

As much as I'd like to see engineers speaking freely about problems, the consequences of doing so can be catastrophic when they don't know what they are doing. And I don't know too many engineers who are up to date on their product liability law.

They're the engineer working on the problem, they are THEE expert on the subject. The company is liable for problems with the product. Not just problems that are found and proven in court, they are liable for ALL problems. The fact that the engineer might show where those problems are just brings such things to light. If you're operating with the presumption that a lot of shit and crap product will simply never be discovered, then you're running a scam and lying to your customers.

Fact is that NO lawyer worth his retainer would agree with you.

A lawyer wouldn't agree that companies trying to cover up their failings are shit? What?
I think you're trying to say that no lawyer would want engineers saying anything to anybody. That makes sense as it makes their job easier. If a lawyer ran the business, all communication would go through the legal department. But it does nothing to give me faith in the output of a company. Indeed, the deeper the lawyers have their hooks into a company, the less I trust said company.

There are VERY good reasons why companies tend to only let a few, carefully selected people who know what they are doing speak for the company.

You're right, but only from the perspective of the quarterly profits and legal fees. And that dominates our corporate culture. And so every company has an iron curtain between the makers and the users.

There are also very good reasons to let the engineers speak freely. It makes for a better product when the product managers know that anything they try and rush out the door will quickly come to light and reflect poorly on them. It lets the engineers have a bit more pride in what they do. It let's engineers make the thing that customers want. And it would make customers have more faith in the product and they'd BUY MORE. Unless, of course, the product is shit.

Re:Nice view from the cheap seats?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless the law can force companies to hire you, a good engineer who speaks up is probably out of work as soon as legally allowed and probably won't be hired elsewhere.

Re:Nice view from the cheap seats?

[Belial6]

Do you really think that it is the engineers are making the decision to hide defect? Really? Human shield busness tactics are half of our problem in getting companies to behave responsibly.

Re:Nice view from the cheap seats?

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as I'd like to see engineers speaking freely about problems, the consequences of doing so can be catastrophic when they don't know what they are doing.

This should not be so. The law as it currently stands promotes thes kinds of irrational, destructive practices and behaviours. We need laws that punish engineers who obfuscate, and which protect engineers who speak openly and honestly.

The law is a tool which can shape the morals and behaviour of human beings. At some point in the last 30 years, the West has completely forgotten that the law is a tool for shaping public ethics and morality, and has instead regarded it as a pen an paper RPG which can be gamed, min-maxed, and generally ruined in spirit by twisting the meaning of its letters. The degeneracy of our insitutions, private and public, has its roots in the degeneracy of the courts and legal professions and their practices.

Ha! And who decides what's "honest"? Who decides what's "obfuscate"? A company could use this to shield themselves from fault, by claiming that they were "honest" about it. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I think it's wrong for engineers to potentially get in trouble simply because of word choice, but it's easy to say "just change the law". Actually doing it, however, is incredibly different, and no matter what you change it to, companies will still find and exploit the loopholes.

Re: Nice view from the cheap seats?

[Anonymous Coward]

It really doesn't matter if a lawyer would agree. The continued existence of the company itself has to take a backseat to its obligations to its customers. If that means we lose a lot of companies, then either we change the laws, or good riddance. I don't see any of these companies lobbying to change the way we do liability in this country.

What they're doing doesn't stop being wrong just because it'd be difficult to do differently.

Re:Nice view from the cheap seats?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no _rational_ way to write a law that protects individuals versus organizations because of the simple matter than organizations are collectives of people.

You cannot govern one without affecting the other in two separate manners.

Lawyers are like liquid to a maze of law, they will eventually find a path to whatever goal they're seeking. People, and their standards of communication, are failable.

You can thank legal for that.

[SensitiveMale]

Years ago, I remember reading an interview with a GM former employee and he talked about advances in safety. He said, paraphrasing, that GM discovered hundreds of ways each year to improve safety related equipment through R&D and testing, but lawyers prevented from implementing the changes. The lawyers reasoned that the older equipment still passed safety regulations and implementing the improved equipment could open GM to legal action.

how did they publish the list?

[Anonymous Coward]

No one can write down the words that cannot be written down.

NOT emails & memos.

[asylumx]

According to the WSJ article that the AOL article is "borrowing" from (and sensationalizing) these limitations are only applied to "documents used for reports and presentations."

That's bad enough, but we really don't need to discredit them even more for limiting their employees ability to communicate with each other (which they haven't done). They are simply trying to keep emotion out of the official reports & presentations and stick to the facts. I actually don't blame them for trying to do this.

Just like UHAUL?

[50000BTU_barbecue]

http://www.dangeroustrailers.o...

Seems like SOP.

a rebuttal from George Carlin:

[Anonymous Coward]

shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits.

Example usage, fuck every one of those shitty GM cocksocker managers from top to bottom, back to front.

Glad to hear ...

[RivenAleem]

So they have no way of expressing something along the lines of: "We are very serious about safety. It is a critical concept to us"

Re:Glad to hear ...

[Torodung]

I think that statement would get through legal.

70th word

[maestroX]

bankrupt.
Only made it because General Motors is actually 2 words.

All 69 of them

[Anonymous Coward]

always, annihilate, apocalyptic, asphyxiating, bad, Band-Aid, big time, brakes like an “X” car, cataclysmic, catastrophic, Challenger, chaotic, Cobain, condemns, Corvair-like, crippling, critical, dangerous, deathtrap, debilitating, decapitating, defect, defective, detonate, disemboweling, enfeebling, evil, eviscerated, explode, failed, flawed, genocide, ghastly, grenadelike, grisly, gruesome, Hindenburg, Hobbling, Horrific, impaling, inferno, Kevorkianesque, lacerating, life-threatening, maiming, malicious, mangling, maniacal, mutilating, never, potentially-disfiguring, powder keg, problem, rolling sarcophagus (tomb or coffin), safety, safety related, serious, spontaneous combustion, startling, suffocating, suicidal, terrifying, Titanic, unstable, widow-maker, words or phrases with a biblical connotation, you’re toast.

It's not a strict list

[jones_supa]

It's a troll headline. Guys, it's not a strict list. Someone just crafted a bunch of examples for guidance. A few of those are even made tongue in cheek, such as "rolling sarcophagus".

The another page of the guidelines shows the general idea: just try to use neutral and professional expressions instead of scary words.

Nothing to see here, please move on...

Re:It's not a strict list

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just newspeak to make problems appear to not exist.

Re:It's not a strict list

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly, I'm a bit disappointed that Slashdot let something like this get through. I thought it was supposed to have accurate representations of important topics, not adding to the already ever-present inflational language that's permeating popular media. This /. article (and it's headline) is an excellent example of what GM is trying to prevent in their engineering reports.

These are the 98 words we don't say

[Anonymous Coward]

Like pee pee and poo poo and penis and gay...these are the 98 words we don't say.

John Oliver (NSFW words)

[bobstreo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Correct technical terminology

[PPH]

Its not 'Challenger'. Its STS-51L (not on the prohibited list).

And 'Cobain' excludes a lot of people sharing that same surname. Instead, please refer to the ex-husband of Courtney Love.

Re:Correct technical terminology

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok Mr. McHumorless, who pissed in your corn flakes this morning?

they're behind

[Charliemopps]

All this shows is GM is behind the times with regards to email. Most corporations changed their email policies after a court ruled a while back that they must keep email for a certain period of time so it could be used in litigation against them. As a result, most places installed chat programs to get general employee chatter off of email and then setup archiving and aged deletion rules to stop new emails being created off of years old threads keeping data around in-perpetuity.

Re:they're behind

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet another topic you're incorrect about. Saving emails under felony penalty was due to the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation enacted after the Enron, etc. fiascos. It forced accountibility in public companies so that they couldn't just say "whoops, guess those financial documents you wanted were erased. Sorry."

And yes, it does cause a *lot* of extra paperwork and expense for these public companies. But over $70 billion in shareholder equity was wiped out due to con men like Jeff Skilling, most from employees who lost their life savings. It's a tradeoff that protects the little guy and confidence in our public markets.

So no, it wasn't some "court" you just pulled out of your ass to sound "smart".

So...

[Anonymous Coward]

...tell me more about this Freedom of Speech of yours...

It makes sense as a testing report

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes sense to me. When a tester trash talks my hard work, it irks me; it's especially annoying if the report/defect/bug contains no more information than "Oh my god what a piece of trash, it failed". Good testing reports are dispassionate and informative and support the next improved iteration of the product, be it software or car parts.

Interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting that this summary says "emails, presentations, or memos", but when you go into the article it only says "presentations"...

I blame the lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

I work in a large aerospace manufacturer and we have a very similar policy. I don't blame GM for this policy; the problem are the lawyers who go on fishing expeditions demanding every corporate memo released and looking for inflammatory language that can be used as ammunition in their lawsuits. After a plethora of cases in which internal engineering memos are taken completely out of context due to the careless language used, it has made everyone more cautious about the wording of their communication.

Lay the blame on the lawyers - they're the ones who created a fear of honest and forthright communication.

Here's 8 words I'll never say

[Anonymous Coward]

I Just Bought A Car From General Motors

Probably they're legal admission of guilt

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason for the ban is probably that these words could be construed as a legal admission of guilt by the corporation, if anyone speaks for the corporation. We need a lawyer to talk about this. It's like when a corporation issues an apology to the press and doesn't say they actually did anything wrong if you parse out their words. This is legal protection taken to a silly extreme.

Re:The person who made the ppt was immediately fir

[barlevg]

I frankly can't understand how any business that does anything remotely technical can get away with not using the word "critical."

Hatsune Miku

[Anonymous Coward]

gift nor art - HSP&Tripshots ft. Hatsune Miku

I can think of a few others..

[Anonymous Coward]

Quality
Trustworthy
Integrity
Responsibility

So I guess this would be ok, then?

[Opportunist]

"Listen, motherfucker, we don't give a fuck about whether your shit works. You cunt better not have the tits to report it anywhere!

Piss off, cocksucker!"

After all, it ain't gonna be on TV...

everyone does

[Anonymous Coward]

I work at a completely unrelated company, but one you've bought products from. And we have the same policies. The concern is that lawyers take these words from the records they subpoena and hold them against the company. Juries and judges don't take the words necessarily in context, but instead put them into a context framed by the plaintiff/prosecuting attorney.

You won't find the policy at the company I work for written down, because the policy also applies to writing down the policy. And you see exactly why that is here.

Re:everyone does

[TheDarkMaster]

You and other commentators have made me reach to the conclusion that the problem is actually deeper. Problem actually are lawyers, and we need to get rid of them as we were rid of a cancer.

Re:everyone does

[kwbauer]

Many of us have known that for quite a while now. Unfortunately, they have more sway in legislatures around the US than any other trade or industry group.

Has potential recursion implications

[LordKronos]

Follow the first link in the article. It includes a slide of words/phrases you should use instead. So, instead of "problem", you should say "issue", "condition", or "matter". Instead of "defect" you should say "does not perform to design". OK, I suppose those make sense.

And what about the word "safety"? Well, it says that instead, you should use the phrase "has potential safety implications".

Re:The person who made the ppt was immediately fir

[Ecuador]

What about the people who made this nice GM ad seen in John Oliver's show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... ;)

Re:The person who made the ppt was immediately fir

[Anubis IV]

I remember this one odd incident from my college days. I and my roommate--who DJed for the college radio station and from whom I had picked up some random trivia about the business--had a friend over to hang out. We were shooting the breeze, and at some point my roommate excused himself to use the restroom. The friend and I kept chatting for a bit, until we found ourselves wondering just what exactly was going on in the bathroom, since we could hear my roommate laughing like crazy while presumably still occupied with relieving himself.

As it turns out, he was laughing because in all the years he had known me, he had never once heard me cuss, and yet, while in the restroom, the one thing he could hear from the conversation was me releasing a string of profanities as if I was a seasoned sailor. What he didn't know was that I never really had any problem with using expletives in a purely referential manner, and that our friend had asked if I happened to know the list of words that were banned on the radio.

Which is to say, no exceptions. ;)

just means you can sue over the new words...

[Anonymous Coward]

The next time this happens, plaintiff goes to the judge and says "It is common knowledge that in GM-speak, 'major design flaw' must be written as 'unforseeable coincidence'. We submit that in this email, the phrase 'Our cars keep bursting into flames due to unforseeable coincidences' should be interpreted accordingly."

Seems like punitive anything shouldn't benefit

[Marrow]

I don't think any of the parties involved should benefit from punitive measures. Let it go to a non-involved party. A charity or a independent body that does safety checks.
Neither individuals or the state should benefit from a punishment, because it taints the motive for the punishment. Was it punishment for profit?

Manipulation

[kilfarsnar]

When I say that the views and opinions of the American people are managed to a degree few can appreciate, this is what I'm talking about. In this instance we found out about it. But usually it is kept behind closed doors. People with agendas are constantly managing, shaping and manipulating the picture people get about the world around them. If they can control the information you receive, and the "spin" on that information, they can shape your opinions and perspective to their own ends.

Mind control is a loaded phrase, with certain connotations. So let's call it "opinion control", or "viewpoint control" (See what I did there?). As Obiwan told us, "Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." So if someone can affect your point of view, they can affect what you consider to be true.

There is an entire industry built around manipulating how you see the world. And most just take it for granted. Isn't it just natural that the PR and advertising industries try to get you to buy a product? But it goes way beyond selling products. It goes to matters of life and death, truth and untruth and that vast expanse in between. If all we know about reality is what we can perceive, someone who can manipulate that perception can manipulate reality itself.

Grenadelike but not Grenade?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Grenadelike some sort of offensive slang nowadays? Otherwise, I just can't see how Grenade is acceptable, but Grenadelike is not.

"piece of fucking shit

[AndyKron]

I didn't see "piece of fucking shit" in the list, so that means it's OK.

Note to GM engineers

[sootman]

You can evidently use Carlin's words (shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits) in notes and memos as needed because they weren't specifically listed.

"The ignition switch could go tits-up unexpectedly and crush the motherfucking shit out of the cunt unlucky enough to be driving. Replacement of this cocksucker is highly recommended. Not doing so would be double-plus ungood."

Grow up

[sjbe]

Please... In my humble opinion every single lawyer needs to be shot on sight .

What a mature attitude you have there. [/sarcasm] Better hope you never find yourself in need of legal assistance.

Re: Grow up

[TheDarkMaster]

Said the lawyer. Go fuck yourself.

Engineers share of the blame

[sjbe]

It's not really the engineer's fault for calling a problem a problem, right?

The engineers share some of the blame though the lion's share clearly seems to fall to management. The engineers are to blame to whatever extent they saw a serious problem and did not insist upon appropriate action being taken even in the face of management opposition. Saying "I was just following orders" is an insufficient argument to absolve them of their share of the blame for this fiasco.

Nice view from the cheap seats?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have the right to remain silent. The only legal advise that most people need, but usually ignore.

Obviously because of lawsuits

[EMG at MU]

This is obviously because when the company gets sued and the lawyers go through discovery they will look for anything that helps them show that GM knew of a problem. This doesn't mean that the engineers can't bring up problems, it means that they have to do it verbally or write it on a paper airplane and fly it across the room.

This is obviously unethical. However this is the state of the industry. I have worked at a company where we were told specifically not to write any invention related things down or anything that our competitors could use against us. We (company I worked for and competitor) would trade stupid lawsuits and each companies lawyers would get to read the other companies emails and although it is against law ethics to share proprietary information discovered in a lawsuit it happens every day anyways.

corporate crime

[Anonymous Coward]

"Engineering employees were shown 69 words and phrases that were not to be used in emails, presentations, or memos."

        Is there some reason we haven't nailed GM to the wall, as well as the people who pushed this behavior, after saving their asses in 2008 for doing something that any one of us would be charged with hiding evidence for. What they did is a federal level crime and should be handled as such. Corporations are public entities and should be policed as such. Anyone interfering with said transparency should see prison time and corporate level interference should face corporate dissolution, prison time, and lots of deficit correcting fines.

celle

Everyone has dealt with manufacturer's defects

[sjbe]

I've owned & driven Chevy trucks for pretty much my entire life, and never had any sort of issue caused by a manufacturer's defect.

I absolutely guarantee you have had maintenance as a result of a manufacturer's defect if you have truly had Chevy trucks for that long. It may not have been a showstopper problem like this ignition fiasco but it is virtually certain you have had at least one part fail due to a manufacturer's defect. I run a company that makes a lot of auto parts and I've worked for Tier 1 suppliers. They simply don't have the sort of bullet proof quality you might hope for. There isn't a manufacturer on earth that has never shipped a bad batch of parts and there isn't a manufacturer on earth that hasn't unintentionally accepted a bad part and put it into production.

Re:Everyone has dealt with manufacturer's defects

[CanHasDIY]

Nope.

To be fair, a number of them have been second-hand, and another number were older models that I stripped and hot-rodded, and all but the latest were 1989 model year or older.

I had an old '84 GMC longbed with dual tanks, and one of them leaked horribly if you filled it more than halfway, but I don't think that was a manufacturer defect (at least, I never found a recall notice or TSB for it).

My old '89 Sierra had some issues with the radio wiring that might have been from the factory, but that's not really a safety issue so much as an annoyance.

My current truck is an '07 model Chevy 4x4, and while I've heard of other people having issues with the transfer case in similar models, I haven't had any trouble myself, and it'll be crossing 90,000 miles within the next couple of months. Haven't seen any recalls or TSB's for this truck, either, so if you know of any by all means, pass the info along. I'd rather drive a defect-free vehicle than be right.

NOT emails & memos.

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the WSJ article ... are only applied to "documents used for reports and presentations."

They are simply trying to keep emotion out of the official reports & presentations and stick to the facts. I actually don't blame them for trying to do this.

You're joking, right?

Like trying to keep the emotion out of: always, critical, dangerous, defect, defective, failed, failure, flaw, never, problem, etc.? Those are not emotionally laden words in everyday language. To an engineer, it's craving out a massive gap into their vocabulary, and restricting usage of clear and simple terms that can have specific meaning in certain contexts such as in reference to published safety standards and testing.

It's about preventing any trace of any evidence that can be discovered when served by a subpoena or writ, that suggests such defects, faults, or safety issues should of been comprehended by a manager of near-average intellect such as the directors and VP in charge of product "safety" at GM in the event of a legal action that they can't bribe their way out of.

Who wants to bother knowing all those negative details and read all that pessimistic information? I mean it makes it less enjoyable spending all that profit. It's not like if they had of been actually doing their actual job or operating under basic tenants of morality and ethics that they would of changed anything that might interfere with their profit and personal wealth.

Genetically Modified Employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only person who read the title as "The 69 Words Genetically Modified Employees Can Never Say"?

And here I was amazed that they bred specific words out of people's vocabularies.

hurray for Thesaurus.com

[CosaNostra Pizza Inc]

exenterate...NOT on the list. *grin*

Tyler Durdon

[Hategrin]

A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

This Week with John Oliver

[mattack2]

This was made fun of on Sunday's "This Week with John Oliver".

Nice view from the cheap seats?

[Anonymous Coward]

And your thoughts are precisely why lawyers are not permitted to do engineering. They are not qualified and only subtract from the process.

If we are talking about external communications then you have a point. However the OP didn't say that. They said that all those words were forbidden. In any context!

Thank Ralph Nader

[Anonymous Coward]

Such an edict is an example of why people hate lawyers. What is a language restriction really about? Why it is to give GM a stronger defensive position should they be sued or investigated.

However what is that really about? It's about lawyers wanting to make their job easier and costing their employer less money. What it does not address is that allowing the engineers to do their jobs is a form of problem avoidance.

I'm not naÃfve. Lawsuits will happen anyway, both warranted and not so. However if the vehicle is a good quality one, you know, like engineers want to make (an issue curiously unaddressed by lawyers), then both the number of lawsuits and the number of successful lawsuits, not to mention the costs of the successful lawsuits, can all be expected to go down. Problem avoidance by competent product design and construction is easily, I would estimate, worth orders of magnitude more than any lawyer-inspired gag order.

Lawyers should practice the law. Engineers should practice engineering. Any time you have either party meddling in the business of the other you can expect negative consequences. That's not to say that internal discussions and requests are off base. Employee groups can request that certain behaviours be modified somewhat, so long as the professions are not fundamentally compromised.

This, to me, sound like something much more ominous. Speak not the truth and evil will not find us? I think not.

own up

[Anonymous Coward]

I long for a company that could stand up and say "we fucked up, we will fix it starting right now" hiding things and changes words etc just shows they aren't sincere and looking to dodge responsibility. GM stays off my list.

Re:Note to governments:

[mjwx]

Do not bail out GM and its subsidiaries and daughter companies like a chump like the German government did for Opel. You will get screwed in the worst possible way and GM will still close shop and move east the second they don't need your free guarantees anymore.

This is exactly what they did in Australia.

Government turns the taps off on the tax money, Holden (GM's Australian brand) starts shutting down all factories. Oh sorry, unless you subsidise us to the tune of half a billion a year, we cant stay.

Should of happened years ago. Open up grey imports on cars so we can pay Japanese and UK prices on cars.

So jesus would never ride in a GM

[Trax3001BBS]

That would be against the "phrases with biblical connotation"

In a related story...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here are three words I'll never say to a GM employee again:

"I'll take it."

(Actually it wouldn't be to a GM employee, but actually to an employee at a dealership that sells GM cars and/or trucks... but you get the idea. Since I can't afford a Tesla, all future cars I buy will have to be foreign. That's sad, don't you think?)

Propaganda complete, prepare to be assimilated.

[Anonymous Coward]

You've clearly developed your ideas about the American legal system through listening to Republican meme engines built by large US corporations. You're ready to be a dittohead now!

Fix your silly legal system that allows anyone to sue anyone over anything...

The United States does not allow "anyone to sue over anything". In fact there are more limits to lawsuits in the USA than in many European countries; for example, you cannot sue the government, or anyone working for the government, unless the government gives consent to the suit.

Furthermore the number of lawsuits per capita in the USA has been going down steadily for a very long time - like, centuries. The absolute number has been going up due to population increase. This is spun by the Limbaugh crowd as "America is lawsuit happy" for reasons I will explain.

...and if their case has any merit, gives them a chance to win the damages or out of court settlement lottery.

Out of court settlements are not a feature of the criminal justice system, they are part of international contract law. In most countries, a person can choose to drop a suit; this is not controversial. In most countries, corporations are free to use means outside of the legal system (such as cash settlements) in order to convince people to desist from legal actions. This is not a USA thing.

Product liability damages, on the other hand, can indeed be high in any minimally fair legal system. Because high amounts of damage can be done, obviously!. Nobody's winning any lotteries, my friend! The McDonald's coffee award story is mostly a myth - the woman was so severely burned by the coffee (which routinely being served at over 180 degrees fahrenheit, despite McDonalds being several times commanded by the court system to stop maiming people with their coffee) that she had to get skin grafts to her inner thighs - a situation that warrants a high damage award if there ever was one - but in the end she settled out of court for her medical and court costs, which were over $20,000.00. McDonald's did not have to pay the $3 million they were originally dinged for, as a punishment for repeatedly blowing off court orders to stop harming people with their lava-hot coffee, even though the woman did not magically lose the scars she will carry to her grave, and McDonalds continues to burn people to this day.

So why do political operatives spend so much time insisting that American lawsuits are out of control, when they objectively aren't, and why do they keep talking about "tort reform" to control punitive damage awards, when punitive damages are nearly always reversed on appeal? Because corporations want to be immune to lawsuit, or at least be immune from paying for the harm they do to the world. The asbestosis and polybutylene pipe class action suits established that companies that do large-scale harm can be retroactively prevented from profiting from such activities, and since the American business model is based on exploiting externalities, they are nearly all doing large-scale harm as a business tactic.

So keep repeating the "lawsuit-happy Americans" meme, and you too can be a part of the destruction of legal protection for private citizens harmed by large corporations! That's what it's all about, my friend. It's about making sure huge corporations can profitably create environmental disasters and stick taxpayers with the bill. Right now, there are still a few limitations on corporate criminality, but "tort reform" is scheduled to get rid of them.

Not disagreeing in the least

[DerekLyons]

I'm in violent agreement with you on your central point - engineers should take a stand. My point however is that while "established" version of the Challenger accident leaves the impression that they tried to take a stand - that impression is false. It hews too much to the stereotype of the saintly engineer and slimy management and covers up the failures of the engineers in question.
 
Their stand on the night of the 27th/28th was too little, too late. The time to take a stand was back in the 70's when the joint design (known to be flawed even then) was introduced, or when the Shuttle started flying and the primary o-ring repeatedly failed in flight.Then management might have listened to them when they brought up their concerns about temperature and the engineers would have a valid reason to claim they were the injured party when (if) management over-rode them. But they didn't. They accepted the continuing failure of a primary system, and thus were to some degree complicit in the accident.
 
Disclaimer - as a former submariner, I actually lived for weeks on end in an environment that demanded two layers of protection, and we did not treat routine failure of a primary layer as acceptable. That gives me a somewhat different point of view than most Slashdotters, who have no experience with such things.

No List, we have a code how to communicate.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think all corporations have a similar code how to communicate. Working at an automotive supplier, this is more or less the same here. A code about things that should not be said in emails and documents. It goes so far that in some kinds of crisis no emails or documents at all will be used. Everything will be by verbal communication only. Engineers have a very vivid imagination in constructing catastrophic failure modes and even more morbid fun in describing their effects. Dont write this stuff down!
Imagine a brake system failure in a car or an airbag malfunctioning. There WILL be an investigation.
I did failure analysis for the chips that control your airbag, anti locking brakes, ignition system, electric accelerator and so on. I never finished a report with a suggestion which manufacturing process may have caused a failure, even if I was absolutely sure about it. It always was a fault description only. Communicate the other stuff by phone. Be clear about it and tell (dont write) other colleagues, make yourself heard. Leave the rest to the people who were responsible for manufacturing the fault and let them deal with it. I dont want to have to testify against someone in court. There is to much crappy management involved in big companies and they will always point at the small engineer. Dont feed them.

So...

[NulDevice]

What about "Semprini?"

Doublespeak

[redbaritone]

Looks like George Orwell was off by three decades.

The real world isn't an engineering utopia

[sjbe]

But as a potential customer I too prefer companies that don't feel the need to censor their own employees from talking about the products they make.

That would be nice if employees always made accurate and fully informed comments that would be perceived correctly by all customers, media and stakeholders with no ulterior motive or ax to grind on the part of anyone. The real world however doesn't work that way. Even the most accurate and well intentioned statements can and will be used against the company. Customers are not always honest, the media is always looking for juicy stories regardless of whether they are true or not, ambulance chasers are always looking to extort money from a lawsuit, and employees sometimes are looking to make the company look bad whether they deserve it or not.

A lawyer wouldn't agree that companies trying to cover up their failings are shit?

Has nothing to do with lawyers covering anything up. While that does happen of course, there are plenty of problems that can be caused by employees talking to outsiders that have nothing to do with any illegal activity. The perception of wrongdoing, even when the actions are entirely appropriate, can cost companies large sums of money in defending frivolous lawsuits, brand tarnishing, lost sales, etc.

I think you're trying to say that no lawyer would want engineers saying anything to anybody.

Generally speaking that is correct though I wouldn't put too fine a point on it. Engineers (and lawyers) are generally NOT authorized to speak on the behalf of the company for some very sane reasons. That's not to say they cannot or should not every speak on the company's behalf when appropriate (or blow whistles when needed) but any lawyer who is doing their job is going to by default prefer that engineers not say more to outsiders than necessary. There is a sanity to that viewpoint even if it can be overdone.

There are also very good reasons to let the engineers speak freely.

While there are circumstances where letting engineers speak freely is fine, once product liability comes into the picture companies HAVE to be very careful or they are very likely to find themselves at the pointy end of some very expensive lawsuits. To not take some reasonable precautions regarding who can and should speak to people outside the company is irresponsible given the world we live in. Even small companies get sued all the time for all sorts of ridiculous reasons. That's not to say that engineers should be muzzled or anything - just that some reasonable care needs to be exercised.

Time for an application I think :-)

[Douglas Goodall]

Now that we have the words, it is possible to create an application the automatically generates a press release using all of them. There should be thousands of permutations possible. It could even find a home like the fortune cookie on Unix.

I'd have thought this would be The List

[Reziac]

Ford
Lincoln
Mercury
Toyota
Dodge
Chrysler
Plymouth
Honda
Hyundai
Yugo
Tesla
Studebaker
etc etc

A missing word

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the word - Recall :-)