Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 Jan 2000 02:33:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2351 times
|
| |
|
|
James Brown wrote in message ...
> I understand the sentiment, but I don't understand the position.
>
> You(the collective you) appear to say that the officers of a company are
> liable for the actions of that company REGARDLESS of whether or not they • are
> personally responsible, or personally involved.
>
> That is just plain wrong, IMHO, and I can't get around it.
>
> How do you justify person X being responsible for person Y's actions? • Boiled
> down, that's exactly what you are claiming here.
>
> To put it another way, you are saying that lacking evidence to the • contrary,
> the CEO of any given corporation is guilty of any crimes commited by anyone • in
> that organization. That places the burden of proof in the wrong • direction -
> Guilt is assumed, and people have to prove their innocence. How does that
> jive with "people are essentially good"?
First off, the CEO is only responsible for the activities of his employees
which are reasonably related to their job. If one of your employees is
beating his wife at home, the CEO is not responsible. If the employee just
left a company party drunk, the CEO is probably responsible (this will hinge
on how the company was involved in promoting the party, a bunch of guys who
exchange e-mails at work to go out to a bar after work doesn't count, if the
secretary invites you to the boss's house, I would say that is a work
related function).
If the CEO is not responsible for EVERYTHING done by the company, what the
heck is he responsible for?
Now in many cases, the employee will be able to be held fully responsible,
and there won't be much for the CEO to worry about.
Also the EXTENT to which the CEO is held responsible will depend on
circumstances. We aren't going to be charging the CEO with murder just
because an employee blew his stack and shot someone in the office. But if it
turns out the company didn't do it's usual background check, or the company
ignored several obvious warning signals, or anything else which hints that
the company should have been able to prevent the murder, then the company
(and ultimately the CEO) is going to face the possibility of a civil
judgement (and if the situation was extreme, possibly even a criminal
judgement).
Perhaps it would be easier if we dealt with some scenarios. Why don't you
lay out a scenario which you feel you can justify why the CEO should not be
responsible (and you believe after reading the above, that I will unjustly
hold the CEO responsible), and lets see if we agree with you. You might even
try several. Note that you will need to give a fair amount of detail (try
not to assume too much - note that in my examples above, I have probably
assumed too much, so feel free to debate those scenarios also).
Frank
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) Just to clarify - I'm assuming that responsibility goes up the management tree in a serious case? Ie, the employee, his boss, his bosses boss.. the CEO. In a lot of cases, managers would claim that sub-managers hadn't informed them of a (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) I didn't mention that aspect, I took it as a given. Sorry. (...) Yoiks! So if I go to my boss' house, tanked to the gills but very good at hiding it, he's responsible when I kill someone on the way home? Maybe I'm reading this completely (...) (25 years ago, 26-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
|
|
|
|
