Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Jan 2000 17:45:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2336 times
|
| |
|
|
<38850672.B6A753EE@eclipse.net> <FoK7Jv.LHr@lugnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
James Brown wrote:
> 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.
One thing - at the point where a liability issue is at hand, the
internal processes of the company become relevant to the issue at hand,
and certainly may be examined by the court. If the issue is big enough,
I don't even see a problem with them becoming matters of public record
(like the company (Exxon?) which talked about jelly beans in the board
room).
> 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.
Well, such liability would at least justify the huge compensation
company officers earn.
> The best summation is that I'm in favor of direct responsibility=direct
> liablility, but not indirect responsibility=direct liability.
But if we have this system, how do we deal with say a Bhopal? Sue the
worker who didn't close a valve orwhatever (I don't remember the
details, but I'm sure only a handfull of [non-management] people were
DIRECTLY responsibl) for the whole shebang? Wow! Companies would love
this. They could do whatever they wanted with no repercussions (other
than replacing a few low level workers). Gee, why even train them for
safety (beyond that training which is necessary so that they get a
reasonable return on the cost of hiring someone and having the job empty
while they hire a replacement).
Ultimately, the ONLY way to hold a company liable is to hold the company
officers liable.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) Granted. (...) Back up a sec. I never implied that liability shouldn't exist. The company would be liable for the bulk of any settlements, and any company that operated as you suggest above would get hit with lawsuits so often that it would (...) (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
|
|
|
|
