Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Jan 2000 01:45:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2395 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> James Brown wrote:
<snipped example - I could counter it, but that would lead to wheel-spinning>
> -- This is an example of why I don't think personal liability is a sufficient
> -- check. In any large organisation it is very difficult, bordering on
> -- impossible in some cases, to track down who exactly is responsible
> -- for any given event.
>
> Well, a system can only do so well. It would do as good a job as
> possible and sometimes justice would slip through the cracks. As with
> any system. What is a sufficient check?
>
> -- > That waste management facility should have the pants sued off it, and
> -- > management should be hung out to dry (if it really is true that they
> -- > have irresponsibly allowed leaks to occur, which they probably have).
>
> -- I believe it did/is. But as above, how do you determine that
> -- management is to blame? They're several layers removed from the source,
> -- and certainly not directly responsible.
>
> It is management's role in a company to coordinate details. Apparently
> some details were let slip and bad things happened. These people need
> to take dropping the ball seriously when lives are at stake. It seems
> weird to me that you wouldn't want to incent that. Or is it just that
> you want regulation in place too?
Hmm. That's not quite what I was getting at - I'm in favor of personal
responsibility and liability, in a general sense. However, in a large
organization, I don't think it's necessarily a good idea. If company officers
are suddenly liable, I don't think it will lead to better work processes, I
think it will lead to increased paperwork, disclaimers/disavowals, and a
general increase in the use of smoke and mirrors.
I'll endeavour to run through some of my thinking on this:
Most companies keep their business practises and work process confidential
- this is for a number of reasons(1) and I think it's probably a good thing,
and isn't likely to go away, especially under a Libertarian system(2). Given
that, any investigation into work processes to determine responsibility is
going to be internal, otherwise it compromises the companies right(3) to keep
it's information confidential. In the general case, where responsibility is
not clear (which I suspect the majority of issues will be with), it is my
opinion that blame will get diffused far enough to provide "reasonable doubt",
or will get shifted so that it makes the minimum impact on the company - i.e. a
scapegoat will be found.
I also have an issue with the possibility of mis-casting of blame if the
general view of "management is ultimately responsible" is held - I don't ever
want to be in management if I can potentially be punished for the
laziness/stupidity/malice/honest mistake of a subordinate.
The best summation is that I'm in favor of direct responsibility=direct
liablility, but not indirect responsibility=direct liability.
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
1:Which I won't go into here, take it as given, or take it up in another thread
2:Which is, unless I'm greatly mistaken, one of the premises we were arguing
under
3:I use the term hesitantly, but I can't think of a better one right now
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) Which is exactly what is already happening with the increased threat of litigation and the _very_real_ possibility, nay certainty, of getting fired if someone can prove, or even intimate, that you were the cause of such an incident. Jasper (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| <3884AEDA.9C6DA48F@eclipse.net> <FoJnnJ.2xu@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) -- How do you hold a company's officers liable? If company X spills toxic goo -- into a river, who is (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
473 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
