@3d0 totally agree with your take on the poor placement of management candidates. We can’t even use our own gas supplies for project Franklin (now Monaca) or invest in Norco or convent (RIP) to process the crude from gulf. We are not enterprise first by any means. That’s exactly where Exxon embarrasses us (citing the Beaumont invest to process the $BBs put into their Permian acreage. But your argument still isn’t sustainable. I interpret it as, well the incompetence of management made us hire more lawyers. Okay, that’s true. It still isn’t sustainable because legal isn’t a revenue stream.
8 replies (most recent on top)
@2ht this just shows you don’t understand the nature of legal advice. The rest of Shell is so bad at putting competent people into roles that are supposed to manage risks that things that never should have been sent to Legal ended up there because nobody else knew how to do them, and Legal management just ignored that and got bigger to take on that work until someone told them to cut costs. So, now, they are cutting the people that actually do know how to give advice that avoids litigation so that generalist business lawyers can just hire external counsel that will drag litigation out as long as possible to keep getting paid.
@2dd preventing litigation is the goal of shell not their internal legal support. Without such analyses they fall back on arguing how much is on their respective dockets to justify paying them and showing their value. Well if you aren’t helping to prevent litigation by managing risk and if Shell will have these lawsuits anyway, then why not outsource more legal support to save costs? That’s a little sensationalized but I’ve tried twice in my near 20 year career to solicit help from legal to look at such ways to help quantify loss through payouts and every Shell attorney had excuses on why we shouldn’t do that. Your demise is partially on you.
@1ep nobody in Shell business or legal management does those analyses. The Legal LT just cuts to meet the cost-cut quota without addressing the risk/benefit. Legal is one of the most poorly managed organisations in Shell and only provides value because the staff, for the most part, are good lawyers.The CLO is a joke. Legal could be significantly smaller and more efficient even after this last round of cuts, but not under the current bloated LT (CLO + 6 other SEG - all still here) who can’t manage their way out of a paper bag.
@1dq the “you’ll be sorry” argument without quantifying the loss potential (e.g. toxic tort modeling or another model to quantify pragmatically based potential loss) just isn’t sustainable in an environment where shareholders are forcing us to pay them back for cutting the dividend during COVID. It su-ks to be let go but what do you expect us to do when being held against hard metrics. If you feel that strongly, call into a shareholder meeting and say something otherwise, save your sanity and move on.
@ec - Wait until you say or do something stupid that costs Shell millions in fines or a lawsuit payout and you get fired or at the very least get deposed because you didn’t know or care what your legal obligations were and you didn’t have anyone competent left in Legal to advise you.
Legal has HR are destroying creativity and profitability…Shell can layoff 6% every year and still win.
US