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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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 ___.

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:

[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:

[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:

[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:

[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:

[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:

[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:

[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:

[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:

[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:

[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).

The person who made the ppt was immediately fired

[barlevg]

For using all 69 words. No exceptions, right?

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.

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 ...

[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 ...

[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 ...

[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 ...

[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: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.

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?

[Opportunist]

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

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?

[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?

[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]

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]

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

'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 :))

unexplained fires are a matter for the courts

[Joe_Dragon]

Canyonero!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[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?

[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: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.

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.

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...

John Oliver (NSFW words)

[bobstreo]

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

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. ;)

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?

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.