Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Jan 2000 21:13:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2323 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> <3885F82B.31DF@mindspring.com> <FoLIpw.MEu@lugnet.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> James Brown wrote:
>
> > I disagree, but that's nothing new. :)
> > What puzzles me about this whole argument is how you(in the general sense) • can
> > be advocating person x being responsible for person y's actions? If someone
> > else causes a violation of rights, how can I being punished for that if I'm
> > not directly linked to their actions? That seems contradictory to the
> > underpinnings of libertarian thought.
>
> Until August, I managed ~140 employees in a technical customer service
> setting. If one of them was rude to a client it was my fault. Period.
> I did what I could to personally apologize to the client and explain
> that the employee in question was being trained more thoroughly or is no
> longer with the organization. I would be less willing to take fiscal
> responsibility for them in the setting where I was, but I suppose a case
> could be made...
What if the guy who's rude isn't rude because of poor training, or anything
that *you* did/should have done/could have done? What if he's rude because he
just had a huge fight with his ex-wife, and took that baggage to work? If
someone working for you is rude when you've given them no excuse to be, then
their rudeness is their own fault, period. You may, in the interests of
customer service, *take* responsibility for it - that's your decision - but
there is no way on this earth that you should be *assigned* that
responsibility. Do you see the distinction I'm trying to make?
> The idea of being responsible for the behavior of your direct reports is
> nothing new. And it's not anti libertarian. As a worker, I'm allowed
> to sign up for whatever liability I want to. If I take a CEO position,
> I know that I have a big target on my back. If I don't want it there,
> then I don't take the job. It's a matter of choice.
I am perceiving (maybe I'm perceiving it wrong) that it isn't a matter of
choice. It looks like you are advocation assigning blame regardless of actual
responsibility.
> > Now, if said company officers can be shown beyond reasonable doubt to be
> > responsible, then heck yeah, throw the book at them! But if they're not
> > involved, why are they at fault?
>
> What is reasonable doubt?
Reasonable doubt is the determination by the legal process that something can
not be proven to its satisfaction.
If a company has slip-shop methods of safety
> and security verification, then the top decision makers are the ones
> responsible for not seeing that better methods are in place. The top
> leaders define the philosophy for the entire organization.
But unless a CEO is omniscient they don't know everything that's going on, and
are not involved in every decision. To hold them responsible for things that
they are not responsible for, and/or are unaware of is criminal, IMHO. An
analogy could be made that I am responsible for the actions of my grandchildren
(1) because I didn't teach my children to teach them right. It's the same
logic.
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
1:Which I don't have - it's a hypothetical situation.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| <3885F82B.31DF@mindspring.com> <FoLIpw.MEu@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Until August, I managed ~140 employees in a technical customer service setting. If one of them was rude to 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
|
|
|
|
