Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Jan 2000 16:34:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2365 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
<snipped muchly>
> > 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.
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 blame is wrong.
> > 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.
Yup, that was clear. I don't quite get "the chain of management...follow" -
are you saying that the boss(es) of the scapegoat should also get punished?
> > 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?
That's exactly it. Even in this fairly simple scenario, responsibility
diffuses fast. What you're talking about (seems to me) is punishment WAY out
of proportion to the crime. If make a typo in a training document, that might
hvae lead to somebody getting killed down the road, I should get thrown so far
in debt I can't ever climb out? Even more extreme, I'm getting the message
here that my proofreader, who missed the typo, should get tossed down there
with me. And my manager, who didn't hire someone that doesn't make typos.
(Just to be clear - if my typo DID lead to someone getting killed, well, yes,
I should get thrown so far into debt my head spins - but that's it. MAYBE my
proofreader, if it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that they are also
negligent, but that's it.)
Punish the company, yes. Punish the people shown to be responsible *beyond
reasonable doubt*, yes. But punish everyone who might have had something to do
with it? That last seems to be what you're advocating, and I can't get my
head around that.
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| <38850672.B6A753EE@eclipse.net> <FoK7Jv.LHr@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I think I'm willing to largely agree that those things will increase also. Paperwork for sure...and that's a (...) (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
|
|
|
|
