Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 Jan 2000 21:45:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2339 times
|
| |
|
|
James Brown wrote in message ...
> > 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).
>
> 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?
I didn't say "is responsible", I said "is probably responsible." In this
case, perhaps not, however, anyone having the opportunity to observe that
someone is drunk does carry some responsibility to prevent the drunk from
doing harm. The problems of drunk driving are one reason I'm not sure that
companies should be serving alcohol (and if they aren't serving alcohol,
their responsibility for a drunk goes WAY down, though again, not
necessarily to zero).
> Maybe I'm reading this completely wrong, but this is how it comes across: • "If
> we can't actually find out who's fault this is, we'll blame that guy."
Assuming the company is at fault, the CEO is ultimately responsible.
> > If the CEO is not responsible for EVERYTHING done by the company, what the
> > heck is he responsible for?
>
> Anything he can be proven to have a hand in.
So all the CEO has to do to avoid responsibility is make sure he doesn't
know enough details to be responsible? Thank you, but I won't be buying
stock in that company. Where is the accountability as to how the company is
run? Responsibility for "accidents" is no different than responsibility for
the financial aspects of the company.
> And again, I don't have a problem with people getting charged with things • they
> are SHOWN to be responsible for. What I hear people saying is (in relation • to
> the above) "we have investigating this employee snapping, and can find no
> single discernable cause, therefore, it's the CEO's fault."
Well, if an investigation turns up no reason an employee snapped that is
related to the company, the company isn't at fault, and by extension, the
CEO isn't at fault.
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) Any CEO that keeps that much distance between himself and the company he's running won't be running it for long, and I wonder how he got there in the first place. If bad things happen while he's using his unique "hands off" approach to (...) (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
|
|
|
|
