Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Jan 2000 14:17:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2365 times
|
| |
|
|
<38850672.B6A753EE@eclipse.net> <FoK7Jv.LHr@lugnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
James Brown wrote:
>
> > 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 think I'm willing to largely agree that those things will increase
also. Paperwork for sure...and that's a good thing, stuff needs to be
kept track of. Disclaimers - how? Disavowals - we already have that
_every_ time something goes wrong so how can it increase? Smoke and
mirrors - sure. It will be in the best interest of the perpetrators to
hide when they do something wrong and since there would be personall
liability, they would feel compelled to hide like crazy. But if we make
the incentive srong enough, I think most people in those positions will
avoid the kind of bad decisions we're talking about in the first place.
> 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).
I'm with you so far.
> 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.
I don't believe that either currently, or under the Libertopian system,
they would have the right to keep their business processes a secret when
the courts have decided to investigate. The 'right' of which you write
doesn't exist in the face of grievous damages to innocent vicitims.
> In the general case, where responsibility is
> not clear (which I suspect the majority of issues will be with), it is my
I agree that direct responsibility will either be unclear or made
unclear in most cases. And I think the solution is to err on the side
of inclusion rather than exclusion. The point is to make people careful.
> 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.
If that happens, the scapegoat will be financially ruined, and the chain
of management up to the top will follow, and the company will still be
fined heavily to make up the difference. The company doesn't escape by
using a scapegoat.
In case it is not clear, I think that we should _add_ personal liability
to the current system, not replace corporate liability with personal liability.
> 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.
What if it's wildly rewarding as well as risky? People fly test
airplanes, work on high-rise construction, go to war, etc. The people
who are willing and able to take on that kind of responsibility will be
rewarded for it and those that can't or won't will do some other kind of
work. _Someone_ needs to be responsible.
> The best summation is that I'm in favor of direct responsibility=direct
> liablility, but not indirect responsibility=direct liability.
How indirect is indirect? Where's the line? If I hire someone who is
clearly incapable of doing a job safely, and that person screws up and
kills some folks by dumping uranium into a milk bucket or something,
who's at fault? I am certainly. Maybe the dolt with the bucket is,
unless they're really retarded or something. The manager above me who
hired me might be, if they were negligent in not assuring that I would
not be hiring criminals to get kickbacks, or my nephew who dropped out
of highschool, or whatever. Maybe the guy in charge of training who
colluded with me to get this guy on the job prior to really knowing how
to do it safely? In that kind of scenario, who do you think bears
direct responsibility?
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: <snipped muchly> (...) Ok, looks like this is our sticking point. I think that erring on the side of inclusion is bad. IMHO, if responsibility can't be traced fairly directly, then assigning (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) Using a country in the middle of ethnic cleansing as a comparison is hardly flattering. You can get shot in any country, but it's more likely to happen if you live in the US than say the UK. (...) I find it easy to believe, however I would (...) (25 years ago, 11-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
|
|
|
|
