No reason to panic- says local NPR report : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

WCBU, Peoria Il. Saturday Jan. 23, 1999

In a news report about Y2K, a bank rep. said that the banks were in good shape.

The rep. from the local phone company said that customers can expect to get a dial tone on Jan 1, 2000. He did warn, however, that there was a risk of system failure "if everyone gets on the phone and try to call each other."

The station's reporter stated that Illinois utility companies "almost had the Y2K problem under control."

The bank rep. said that "there is no reason for panic. We need to educate the public to prevent public panic."

My question is, if remediation is going so well, why do they fear panic so much?

-- Sue (, January 25, 1999


If they think we need reassuring, then why do so many of the reps make such empty statements, rather than give precise documented information ? Don't they know they are a main source of our anxiety ?

-- curtis schalek (, January 25, 1999.

...and if they are in such good shape, then why do they need special legislation protecting them from Y2K failure-related lawsuits?

-- Arnie Rimmer (, January 25, 1999.

A. What good does panic do in any case?

B. Arnie - in a society where a million dollar award can be made for a cup of hot coffee - you don't need to ask your question. It answers itself.

-- Paul Davis (, January 25, 1999.

I do not advocate panic. If you are prepared, there is not reason to panic. I DO tire of endless undocumented statements from industry reps. assuring us that "all is well". I do tire of their implying that if we only knew the facts that we would not be alarmed.

-- Sue (, January 25, 1999.

The recent trend for juries to hand out large awards does NOT completely explain the passage of the law.

Why was is necessary to pass SPECIAL legislation for Y2K? Maybe because the insurance companies are not going to cover it? Maybe because the companies requesting the law know that they may have trouble making their case of "due diligence"? Maybe because they expect that the problem has the potential to be so disruptive in some areas as to taint the jury pool? I have read Congressional testimony where lawyers and others argued the reasons for the need for the legislation.

-- Sue (, January 25, 1999.

Paul --- You're right about "b" broadly but are over-simplifying something egregious and quite to the point of how Y2K politicization and PR trumps remediation. Arnie has made the point on another thread that our institutional "entities" want to have it both ways:

1. "There are no serious Y2K problems, folks." 2. "We need *special* Y2K legislation to protect us."

Nuisance Y2K lawsuits aren't going to see the light of day after the first few tries. Real ones (ie, institutional negligence by government or business) SHOULD see the light of day.

The courts will decide over time who should be responsible for what, including the constitutionality of these "special laws" anyway.

Obviously, 2. above doesn't "prove" that there are terrible Y2K problems being hidden, it simply underlines the way that organizations want to CYA their OWN uncertainty. Nothing wrong with uncertainty, per se, but what is wrong is the 1. and 2. above. This would be more acceptable:

1. "We don't know what consequences of Y2K are." 2. "We need *special* Y2K legislation to protect us."

Yes, I know, some institutions do say 1., but I am taking the matter broadly.

And even more germane, as I've implied: if institutions are doing their job, they don't have a need for any *special* legislation beyond that already on the books to cover business generally.

It stinks, Paul.

-- BigDog (, January 25, 1999.

Yes, folks, nothing to worry about. No need to make unnecessary preparations. Trust us. Weren't they saying something like that on the Titanic? :/

-- Noah Simoneaux (, January 25, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ