Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 31 Jan 2000 03:29:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2587 times
|
| |
|
|
I wonder if I stopped beating my head against the proverbial brick wall
whether my ear problems would go away????
Oh, well, I'll keep beating, maybe I'll break through...
Jasper Janssen wrote in message <3899b9ff.91276137@lugnet.com>...
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2000 02:18:01 GMT, "Frank Filz" <ffilz@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Because you can't put a company in jail if it refuses to pay the • judgement.
>
> You can sell all its assets, quite effectively reducing it to rubble.
True. And this will suffice in MOST cases. What happens if the company has
no (or insufficient) assets because of how it's been managed?
> > This is why a PERSON MUST have ultimate responsibility. If they don't, the
> > corporation can just disolve itself and avoid the judgement (note that in
> > current US law, while the liability of the CEO and stockholders is • limited,
> > it is not zero, so the CEO can't just take all the corporate assets and • say
> > "sorry", if he does, he's going to find himself in jail).
>
> If the CEO takes all the corporate assets when there is a fine
> outstanding against those assets, something criminal is happening that
> has _nothing_ to do with general management liability.
>
> > What is so hard about understanding that SOMEONE must always be • responsible?
>
> What is so hard about understanding that the person who should be
> responsible should, by golly, be the person responsible? Not his
> manager, let alone the CEO three levels higher?
So my manager shouldn't be responsible for ANYTHING I do? If I decide to go
into work tomorrow and start raping all the women, my manager should just
sit by and do nothing, until one of the women calls the police and they show
up?
My contention is that if the manager isn't responsible for what his
underlings do, he isn't responsible for jack.
I'm sorry that I don't have the buisiness training to properly explain this,
but the way I see things, the only reason the whole idea of a corporation
works is because each layer of management is responsible for those under
them. Does that responsibility mean that they have FULL responsibility for
EVERYTHING their underlings do? No. It means they have responsibility to put
systems into place, and MANAGE the company to minimize the amount of
irresponsible things their underlings do, and to make sure the system
effectively holds the underlings responsible for their screw ups.
My current job at IBM requires me to interract with a large number of
people, and to assign problems to them appropriately. Every once in a while
I call someones manager because I can't find that person, and there is no
apparent backup. I expect the manager to be RESPONSIBLE for where his
employees are, and to tell me who I should talk to about the problem.
Another thing you keep dodging. I keep saying that the ULTIMATE
responsibility lies with the CEO. That doesn't mean responsibility always
sticks there. It means that if NO ONE ELSE is held sufficiently responsible,
the final place responsibility sticks is with the CEO. Now one could argue
it should go one step further to the stock holders. I'm not sure, but that
doesn't diminish my point. My point is that if a low level employee can't be
held responsible, you try and hold his manager responsible, if his manager
can't be, you keep going up the management chain.
> > > Is anyone whose server gets hacked into delivering porn and/or
> > > copyrighted material automatically a criminal, because "they obviously
> > > didn't have enough protection in place"?
>
> > No, but if they don't immediately report it to the police after • discovering
> > it, and removing it as soon as the police have complete their
> > investigations, they would certainly be guilty of a crime. Assuming the
>
> So why aren't they criminals for letting it be there while they're
> reporting it to the police? It is currently illegal to host illegal
> material, regardless of how it got there.
Well, they need to not delete the files before the police have a look at
them, that's destruction of evidence. However, it might be prudent for them
to take the system off line, or even move the files, IF that will not
destroy any evidence. The police have the responsibility of responding quick
enough that the damage from not disturbing the evidence is minimized. The
community which is supporting the police have the responsibility to
sufficiently fund the police that their response time is reasonable.
> > The point I see constantly getting missed, and maybe I've not made it well
> > enough (Larry, help me if I'm confused here), is that while the CEO is
> > ultimately responsible, he also has the option of making an appropriate
> > response to whatever problem is at hand, and avoiding a personal lawsuit • or
> > a criminal trial. If someone in the company screws up badly, and the CEO
> > makes sure that the wrong is righted, and holds the person(s) who screwed • up
> > responsible, things are going to go well.
>
> That's not only a point that's not being made well, it's a point that
> has not been made at all, and in fact has been contradicted.
How has this been contradicted? Show me a Libertarian statement which says
that the CEO will go to jail even though he took prudent action to
investigate the situation, hold the appropriate people responsible, and make
sure that the victims are fairly compensated to the extent reasonable for
the corporation to be involved in compensating them.
> > If the CEO denies the problem, or
>
> What if he doesn't yet know about the problem at the time?
Why doesn't he know about the problem? If he doesn't know about it because
of some flaw in the organizational structure he's got some responsibility.
Now some problems will reasonably come to the attention of the CEO first
from someone outside the company. The hacker putting up some pornography is
one possible scenario. Here the test of corporate responsibility is:
- did the corporation have reasonable computer security (reasonable being
close to "average" or better).
- did the corporation act quickly to deal with the problem as soon as it was
brought to their attention (notifiying the police if it wasn't the police
who told them, initiating an investigation, etc.)
Now somethings foul at the corporation if the police come to the corporation
and say: "Say, did you know you've been hosting a kiddie porn site for the
past 3 months, some mother just called us and told us her kid said he's been
looking at it for at least that long." In that case, you've got to ask, why
the heck is the corporation not checking it's web site, and why isn't anyone
reading the complaint mail which must be coming in. Of course the answer
might be that the whole IT organization is corrupt, but then one has to ask
what failed in the corporation that a whole organization could be corrupt.
Tell me the CEO doesn't have some responsibility there?
> > covers it up, or stonewalls, he should find himself in court, and if he
> > fails to follow the court judgement, he should find himself invited for a
> > stay in the local lockhouse until he is willing to follow the court
> > judgement (or wins an appeal). What is so wrong with this?
>
> Nothing. But it's not what we're talking about.
>
> And even the CEO stonewalling or denying does not suddenly shift the
> blame from the person responsible to the CEO.
No, but the CEO has responsibility, especially for any additional damages
caused by the stonewalling.
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) Then it's gone, also quite effectively reducing it to zero. My point is that it's not a good thing to punish mismanagement as if it's the same thing as whatever things the mismanaged underlings get up to. (...) If your manager is a floor or a (...) (25 years ago, 6-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) You can sell all its assets, quite effectively reducing it to rubble. (...) If the CEO takes all the corporate assets when there is a fine outstanding against those assets, something criminal is happening that has _nothing_ to do with general (...) (25 years ago, 30-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
|
|
|
|
