posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
giogio at 07:18am on 03/08/2007
giogio at 07:18am on 03/08/2007Let me try and put this in terms people might find a little less incendiary and easier to comprehend: approximately 4/5 of my daytime job entails being the barrier of reason between suppliers and the other departments within my company, trying to troubleshoot problems and disagreements and negotiate solutions that don't screw either party and are legally defensible (that last part is very important, bear with me).
My industry is heavily dependent on federal funding. As such, there are certain federal laws/regulations we not only have to adhere to, but that we also have to pass on to our sub-suppliers. For example, fair employment/non-discrimination laws, DBE requirements, child labor laws, the provisions of the Buy America act, etc. And we do get audited on adherence to these regulations quite frequently. What it boils down to is: I cannot enter into a contract or implied contract with a company that will not sign up to these terms and/or use that company for a contract that is wholly or partially funded by the FTA. Moreover, should I find out that even though that company signed up for those terms but is not following the law in the matter, I'm in really hot water. And here's why: not only could the FTA withdraw all funds for the current job, but they could also blacklist my company from bidding on projects funded by the FTA for a number of years were we found to have been guilty or complicit in an egregious enough violation of the law such as it is. If that were to happen, my company would be out of business. Permanently.
Do I like all the laws I have to follow and I have to ensure my suppliers follow? No. My life would be very much easier if I didn't have to. Do I think some of them are outright stupid, phrased too loosely, open to misinterpretation, and generally a bunch of horse shit? Yes. Do I have to ensure that a supplier is willing able to adhere to those legal regulations and provisions before entering into a contract? Yes. Do I have to take action when it is brought to my attention that my supplier is breaking the law or violating the provisions of our contract? Yes. Does that include terminating the contract with that supplier? Probably.
And no, intent or statements that someone isn't breaking the law don't really count if there is evidence to the contrary. To give you another innocuous example: Say, for instance, I were presented with evidence that a supplier has laid off all their Hispanic workers, but none of other races (even though they were hired later/they represent a larger percentage of the company workforce/they perform the same job as the laid-off workers), do you think I should let the supplier influence my decision regarding disposition of our contract based on their statement that their action wasn't racially motivated? More importantly, do you think any court in the country should or would rule in the supplier's favor? Should I still be doing business with them?
Like it or not, any company is answerable to the authorities in its jurisdiction, and any US company has to abide by US law (however badly-written or stupid that law is). Any US company also has to make an effort to ensure that any agreements it enters into with suppliers, customers, etc. does not violate US law. And any US company has to take action when they find out a supplier/customer appears to be violating the terms of that agreements and/or US law because otherwise they themselves might be guilty of breaking the law.
And do you really want companies to be operating above the law? Really? Because then you can't choose which laws. If you want companies to ignore federal laws regarding child pornography, then presumably you are also quite comfortable with them ignoring child labor laws, non-discrimination laws, employment laws, OSHA regulations, etc.
And now I go off for another 10 or 12-hour day of contractual damage control, because this week's been really fun that way.
My industry is heavily dependent on federal funding. As such, there are certain federal laws/regulations we not only have to adhere to, but that we also have to pass on to our sub-suppliers. For example, fair employment/non-discrimination laws, DBE requirements, child labor laws, the provisions of the Buy America act, etc. And we do get audited on adherence to these regulations quite frequently. What it boils down to is: I cannot enter into a contract or implied contract with a company that will not sign up to these terms and/or use that company for a contract that is wholly or partially funded by the FTA. Moreover, should I find out that even though that company signed up for those terms but is not following the law in the matter, I'm in really hot water. And here's why: not only could the FTA withdraw all funds for the current job, but they could also blacklist my company from bidding on projects funded by the FTA for a number of years were we found to have been guilty or complicit in an egregious enough violation of the law such as it is. If that were to happen, my company would be out of business. Permanently.
Do I like all the laws I have to follow and I have to ensure my suppliers follow? No. My life would be very much easier if I didn't have to. Do I think some of them are outright stupid, phrased too loosely, open to misinterpretation, and generally a bunch of horse shit? Yes. Do I have to ensure that a supplier is willing able to adhere to those legal regulations and provisions before entering into a contract? Yes. Do I have to take action when it is brought to my attention that my supplier is breaking the law or violating the provisions of our contract? Yes. Does that include terminating the contract with that supplier? Probably.
And no, intent or statements that someone isn't breaking the law don't really count if there is evidence to the contrary. To give you another innocuous example: Say, for instance, I were presented with evidence that a supplier has laid off all their Hispanic workers, but none of other races (even though they were hired later/they represent a larger percentage of the company workforce/they perform the same job as the laid-off workers), do you think I should let the supplier influence my decision regarding disposition of our contract based on their statement that their action wasn't racially motivated? More importantly, do you think any court in the country should or would rule in the supplier's favor? Should I still be doing business with them?
Like it or not, any company is answerable to the authorities in its jurisdiction, and any US company has to abide by US law (however badly-written or stupid that law is). Any US company also has to make an effort to ensure that any agreements it enters into with suppliers, customers, etc. does not violate US law. And any US company has to take action when they find out a supplier/customer appears to be violating the terms of that agreements and/or US law because otherwise they themselves might be guilty of breaking the law.
And do you really want companies to be operating above the law? Really? Because then you can't choose which laws. If you want companies to ignore federal laws regarding child pornography, then presumably you are also quite comfortable with them ignoring child labor laws, non-discrimination laws, employment laws, OSHA regulations, etc.
And now I go off for another 10 or 12-hour day of contractual damage control, because this week's been really fun that way.
There are 10 comments on this entry. (Reply.)