4 ms·
You're also assuming that execs necessarily knew about everything. There's a reasonable chance that the execs set the targets and feed it to the middle manager
by JonFish85 11y ago
You're also assuming that execs necessarily knew about everything. There's a reasonable chance that the execs set the targets and feed it to the middle managers who pass it along to teams.
Somewhere along the line I imagine there are those who are terrified of missing those targets and perhaps losing their jobs and resort to bending the rules a bit to hit their goals. And there's a very good chance that these people aren't at the top.
The same was most likely true in the subprime mortgages--I imagine that some of the worst actors in that weren't necessarily the people at the top, it was the guy who is decidedly mid-level who is looking to make a nice bonus to put in a swimming pool for his kids.
And to figure it all out is going to take years and years of investigations to assign blame (whether in this case or in the subprime case). By the time it's sorted out, it could be a decade after the fact, and even then people have moved on to other jobs, records are difficult to dig up, and at the end of the day, what has been accomplished?
Of course if there is blatant wrong-doing, execs should absolutely be punished (the peanut company CEO comes to mind [1]). But it's extremely difficult to pin down blame on any one person, exec or not.
[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/22/us-usa-georgia-salmonella-idUSKCN0RL24H20150922 http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/22/us-usa-georgia-sal...
- Karunamon 11y agoThe execs get all the credit when it goes right, they should get all the blame when it goes wrong. Lock a couple of these people up, and suddenly they'll start caring a lot more about the legality of what their underlings are doing...
- kbenson 11y agoYou can't just lock up the execs without evidence, that's unjust. You can't just investigate, the nature of large power structures is that some underling will take the fall. Breaking the rules for economic advantage should be met with new rules to force economic disadvantage. Put a 2% tax on total revenue for the next X years, possibly with the addition of a fee based on perceived past benefit. Honest players in the market will reap the lower cost of doing business, and better business practices will prevail.
- Karunamon 11y agoThe evidence is that X underling, which Y exec is directly responsible for the business conduct of, demonstrably broke the law in Z way. Vicarious liability I beleive is the term I'm looking for. Again - with taking the credit comes taking the responsibility. I'd like to see the law amended as such.
- aaronbrethorst 11y agoPut fear of prison into the people at the top and they'll find a way to prevent this, or subprimes, or—hell—Enron from ever happening again. The buck has to stop somewhere[1] [1] interestingly, this is apparently a misuse of the phrase as Truman used it. But popular usage, etc. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/10/buck-stops-here-clinton-obama-truman.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/10/buck-stops-here...
- r00fus 11y agoWell, if the trickle-down theory says that execs and management get the most shares of profit trickling down, maybe the punishments should flow the same way...?
- emp_zealoth 11y agoIsnt a CEO job to, well, lead? They certainly get a lot of monies for what they do. Maybe if some of them got hit with actual penalty, the rest would learn to pay attention? I dont understand the apologetic attitude.
- jo909 11y agoI would compare it to involuntary manslaughter vs first-degree murder. Inaction, negligence, lack of oversight etc that allows bad things to happen, when you were in the position to prevent it, should be punishable.