
SEC awards $22M to Monsanto whistleblower - rch
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sec-monsanto-whistleblower-idUSKCN1152KG
======
josho
A corporate whistleblower gets a payday (a good thing). While whistleblowers
like Snowden that reveal illegal government programs risk the death penalty if
they ever sit foot in US soil again.

This is progress, but we've got farther to go.

~~~
BinaryIdiot
There is a huge difference you're ignoring. The act of whistleblowing on
Monsanto was unlikely to be illegal (at least I do not know what laws that
could be used against the whistileblower, ignoring any whistleblower
protections). Snowden, however, violated numerous amounts of laws in his act
of whistleblowing.

Now I'm not saying what Snowden did was right or wrong but these two are not
equatable.

Government protections for whistleblowers are important but protecting someone
who had to break the law in order to whistleblow versus someone who did not
are two very different things and I think mixing the topics may take away from
the importance of one versus the other (protection from retaliation through a
corporation versus being locked up due to the government) or worse simply
conflate them and their associated arguments.

~~~
rsp1984
> _There is a huge difference you 're ignoring... Snowden, however, violated
> numerous amounts of laws_

The difference that you are ignoring is that it's in the government's power to
legalize or even incentivize whistleblowing on a company while at the same
time it's equally easy for the government to outlaw whistleblowing on the
country. The government of a country _sets_ the laws. It defines what's lawful
and what's not.

Therefore when it comes to whistleblowing on a country it becomes borderline
irrelevant whether some laws are broken or not as long as the whistleblowing
otherwise aligns with universally accepted human values and ethics.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Loyalty to your oaths is part of "universally accepted human values and
ethics".

The problem is that loyalty to your team (Team NSA, say), and loyalty to your
oath, may sometimes conflict with loyalty to your country, which may itself
conflict with loyalty to the human race. When that happens, you have to decide
which loyalties you hold higher. Snowden did, and I can't say that he chose
wrongly. But there are no "universally accepted human values and ethics" that
determine what to do in that situation. It's often the stuff of literature
precisely _because_ the normal values and ethics are at war with one another.

~~~
nickff
I would argue that Snowden acted in a manner completely loyal to the United
States and the Constitution, though disloyal to the NSA. If one believes the
oath of allegiance (or the constitution) is more important than an employment
arrangement, Snowden seems to be in the right.

~~~
nosequel
Snowden didn't break an "employment arrangement", he knowingly broke the law
that everyone with a TS/SCI clearance is given. This isn't a one-liner you
sign and date the day before you start. Getting a TS/SCI clearance is a __long
__process, and you very clearly know you are __not __supposed to talk about
it, no matter what you hear or see.

Now, Snowden might have still be right, I'm not debating that, but chalking it
up to a breach of employment contract is naive.

~~~
Nullabillity
Okay, he didn't break an actual employment contract, he broke a glorified
employment contract. Happy?

------
MereKatMoves
"The SEC had said that Monsanto lacked sufficient internal controls to account
for millions of dollars in rebates that it offered to retailers and
distributors. It ultimately booked a sizeable amount of revenue, but then
failed to recognize the costs of the rebate programs on its books."

This is what happens when you take glyphosate and multiply the cost/production
price by well over 50x and package it as some miracle product. If your
marketing strategy is to mislead every single purchaser then it is no surprise
that you lose sight of how many strands of bullshit marketing you are running.

Roundup is a great example of one of those products that are cash cows for
companies that market themselves as "the best solution"

Every.Single.One of the roundup products is glyphosate, and that stuff will
kill anything and is very very cheap.

Dear readers be aware - glyphosate is a chemical that is present in all
weedkillers (except the really shitty ones) so buying the brand name is a
total waste of your money, and the amazing people at Roundup HQ know it. Buy
the no-name, unbranded stuff.

I can understand Coca Cola etc selling sugar water for huge margins, but I
pull my hair out when it comes to something like glyphosate. That's how I get
my roots under control.

~~~
mattgrice
As another poster has pointed out, there are many, many non-glyphosate
herbicides.

In the past, Monsanto has required farmers buying Roundup-Ready seeds to sign
license agreements stating that only Monsanto glyphosate may be used.

[https://www.ssjr.com/pubdigassets/presentations/lawyer_7/sbs...](https://www.ssjr.com/pubdigassets/presentations/lawyer_7/sbs_Patent_Licensing_Restrictions_Not_Regarded_As_Tying.pdf)

~~~
MereKatMoves
Do you have any "roundup ready" chemical study that can determine, for
example, what concentration of glyphosate (over the lesser killers) is in the
commercial "Monsanto glyphosate ready" products?

I smell a rat here - perhaps they are selling glyphosate as a name on the
product, but in reality there is so little of it compared to 'filler'
weedkillers that they can profit from that too.

the whole world knows that glyph kills it all, so "glyph-ready" seems like a
contradiction to me

source info comes from my time dealing with sugar cane producers who use pure
glyph to increase the sugar content in the useful end of the canes they
harvest

~~~
adenadel
I'm confused by your post. "Roundup Ready" plants are genetically engineered
to be resistant to the effects of glyphosate.

------
arca_vorago
I worked in bigag for a while, quit on principle when I understood what
Monsanto really was. They are super shady, and honestly they are very damage-
control aggressive, so I'm surprised this actually happened, but it's a start.
Now can we get SCOTUS to force Thomas to recuse himself from Monsanto cases?
Can we also get the FDA to purge it's ranks of Monsanto formers that are
subverting the FDA's mandate? How about we use some anti-trust laws to take
care of the backdoor deals between them and Dupont?

Don't beleive for one second any of the people claiming Monsanto is a force
for good in the world.

------
randyrand
I have nothing against Monsanto and think they are a great company, but I'm
glad to hear this. Whistleblower programs are important.

~~~
Rondom
Can you elaborate what makes you think that Monsanto is a "great company"? I
am genuinely interested.

~~~
CobrastanJorji
For one, their executives are known to report accounting improprieties that
they encounter to the SEC :)

~~~
tanderson92
That executive is somewhat less likely to report future accounting
improprieties ;)

~~~
hiddenkrypt
True, but imagine if you were one of the remaining executives. You just saw
that guy rat you all out and run off with 22M$. I think that they're going to
have to be on their toes, because now the rest of them know exactly what will
happen if there's any malfeasance.

------
ccvannorman
>A former Monsanto Co (MON.N) executive who tipped the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission to accounting improprieties involving the company's top-
selling Roundup product has been awarded more than $22 million from the
agency's whistleblower program, the executive's lawyer said on Tuesday.

Yes, please -- Let this be the default way it works at the high executive
levels of big corporations. The corp should be _terrified_ of committing fraud
because they should know that a whistleblower has every incentive to rat them
out and walk away a millionaire.

------
kiba
So the shareholders in that company got screwed, along with the whistle-blower
getting part of that settlement?

Doesn't that create bad incentive for whistleblowers not to do anything until
it's too late?

~~~
NTDF9
The incentive is clear. Whistleblow and you get a reward.

The whistleblowers are humans who can't really wait until later and later. It
risks being found out or losing the window of whistleblowing. Also, most
people are not this analytical. If they have the balls to whistleblow, they
will, usually right away (after some due diligence)

~~~
bagacrap
It seems like the incentive is to become an accountant and seek employment at
the shadiest big company you can find in hopes of hitting a whistleblower
jackpot.

~~~
NTDF9
That's a shitty bet to take in life, considering that the likelihood is as
good as winning the lottery. At least the lottery ticket costs just $10 and
not a few years of life.

------
tempodox
... as opposed to Obama, who just wants to put them in jail.

~~~
ryporter
Obama has not put any corporate whistleblowers in jail. We can debate the
merits of prosecuting those who leak government secrets, but that is a
separate issue from this one.

~~~
tempodox
Yes, he did. The NSA is as much a part of Corporate America as anything.

------
curiousgal
Excuse my language but holy shit!

This is more than enticing!

------
pjc50
Don't worry, I'm sure a company that misstates its earnings will be completely
honest about any possible negative side effects of GMO organisms.

------
atjoslin
Cool, he got paid and all, but keep in mind that's $22M of yours and my tax
money.

EDIT: Nevermind, I did not read the article before commenting. My mistake.

~~~
yalogin
Isn't it from the settlement money?

~~~
randyrand
Interestingly the settlement money still does a bit affect our taxes still.

Monsanto makes $80 million less in revenue this year due to the settlement.
~$80 mill less profit ~= $20 mill fewer taxes.

~~~
chipperyman573
Correct me if I'm wrong, but they don't make $80M less, they just lose $80M
from the amount they have made in the past (already taxed)

~~~
randyrand
This would be counted as a loss for _this_ years tax purposes. So they will
pay fewer taxes this year.

~~~
sokoloff
Settlements that are classified as penalties are generally not tax deductible.
Settlements that are classified as remedial/restorative generally are.

This was no doubt a topic of discussion and planning before the settlement was
entered into. The article repeatedly refers to it as a "penalty", but it's
unclear if that's colloquial or specifically informed language.

