Documentation. Why keep it?
 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i3CZPJXvtZZ46SY9bcMupivluKswD9ETDST00

Microsoft also got nailed with that. Kinda like making you testify against yourself.


So, my question is why I would want to keep such documentation? If I noticed it could be bad, why not make it oral? That way I could say you misunderstood me or you took me out of context? Why would I want to keep a paper trail that I know could come back and damn me?

If you had a case against someone else you would want documentation backing you up. But data can be a 2 edged sword, like MS, it came back to bite them. Most companies have such a huge volume of electronic data, they can't purge "unwanted" material in real time. They either back up everything or nothing, and the idea of no backup is more dangerous from a business standpoint.

Plus, as an honest minded person, you should not approach life with the idea of trying to figure out how to squirrel out of problems that haven't even surfaced yet.

And would you go to work for a company that had a policy that was something like: 'be sure to delete all data related to anything that might get us in trouble"? Or imagine what it would be like if you geta bunch of employees to delete all data related to a specific issue. If i was asked to do that, i would be all over a lawyer before I did anything.

16 million is a drop in the bucket. If they have any common sense they'll pay it and accept defeat. I mean FFS, I'm willing to bet the CEO makes nearly twice that in just EOY bonuses.

Because 99.9% of publicly traded companies have a very strict legal obligation to do so.

What I am wondering is why someone wouldn't have it oral first before going to written if they think it could come back to bite them. Why wouldn't I go tell my boss orally of a problem first and he puts as little as he can on paper and try investigate it BEFORE committing anything to paper.

Perhaps so but are companies honest? Are the people running them honest? I think not.

I was wondering more along the lines of not committing it first. Commit to paper only when you have to or you solved the problem.

That could be. Just wondering why they don't find more ways to cover it up BEFORE someone finds out what goes on.

Just curious why is all.

I used to investigate things with the BIG oil company I worked for. The paper trail is only one thing that is looked at.

When a problem is first discovered no one really knows what the problem is. They just know it is a problem. One person sends a note to another to gather info or help.

When the paper info starts to show a gap there are other sources for the same info. You really have to know what you are looking for and the right questions to ask, but you can get the information.

Our company had a very strict policy on reporting problems. It did not matter what the facts were ,they had to be recorded as accuratly as possibly. ANY false recording, also known as telling a lie, would get a person fired.

Sometimes these documents are used against you in lawsuits, but this can work to your advantage. If you can show that you knew you had a problem and were trying to figure it out and not just blow it off or cover it up it can be helpful when making your case in court.

We would also, when we discovered a problem that involved another company, bring it to their attention and see if we could work out a solution. The paper trail here can keep you out of a long and costly court battle if you can show the court you found a problem and were trying to do the right thing.

You should perhaps ask that question to Professor Phil Jones. :D
(People keep emails, Phil:rolleyes:)


An old boss of mine once said, "If I didn't sign it, I didn't say it"

Tru Dat, but it's no way to operate a business, especially a manufacturing concern.

Or when the scuttlebutt says you are to be the fall guy.

Well but if the memo goes around it does prove that you knew something about it and hence you lose deniability.

Absolutely. Then it is CYA time.

Most large companies that are regulated by Federal agencies have Standard Operating Procedures which involve record retention. Periodically (usually once a year) each employee which has sensitive information in his/her files is required to examine the files and destroy anything not needed. If Microsoft or Toyota still have these documents then it is because under the record retention standards they were required to keep it.

Then you have to remember to destroy the memo that went around telling everyone to destroy all incriminating documents. :) Lying can be very time consuming and energy-intensive.

The 'memo retention' at my company was about 30 years. We rarely needed anything past 10 years, but by that time people who were involved with a problem were retiring or dying off. If we did not have the paper record to defend ourselves with we would have nothing.

And when we needed it in court there was nothing like documents from the time to defend ourselves with. As our lawyers used to say, "It is not hard to find 12 people that hate oil companies."

But as others suggested, documentation is a double edged sword. Like the couple of cases I cited, it can bite you. that is why I was wondering why managers don't instantly quash all memos when they think something is bad until they can make certain.