3 ms·

Imagine surveillance being turned upside-down. Imagine a company unable to hire workers, because a union demands they first fire the CEO/management that looted

by deogeo 8y ago

Imagine surveillance being turned upside-down. Imagine a company unable to hire workers, because a union demands they first fire the CEO/management that looted company pensions at their previous company, or ran a predatory loan business, or tried to extort others through bogus patents. The world would be a much different place if corporate was held personally responsible for their actions the same way labor is.

expertentipp 8y ago
we need this
dnautics 8y ago
The thing is corporations exist precisely to limit liability. You don't have to start a corporation - you can run your own business out of your own pocket and accept all the legal liability. However, we make this activity undesirable through policy: (personal income is taxable in a much more punishing way than corporate income, and the legal system is incredibly expensive - the more customers you have, the more you are likely to be exposed to a crazy customer who is going to abuse the system and personally bankrupt you with frivolous lawsuits. Who would want to start a business in that climate?
- pavel_lishin 8y ago
  You're talking about legal liability; deogeo sounds like they're talking about social liability.
  - deogeo 8y ago
    Correct.
  - dnautics 8y ago
    one is free to start a company with those rules in the corporate charter. Heck, I'd even work there, but I'm wouldn't count on my job being around for long.
    - deogeo 8y ago
      Nor would a company be around for long if it were the only one respecting environmental protections, workplace safety standards, or anti-child-labor laws.
- spamizbad 8y ago
  I'm not sure how this applies in this scenario: It looks like workers, rather than the board, cast a vote of no confidence on the CEO. Publicly traded companies seem to operate fine with boards being able to remove CEOs, so what's the problem here?
lainga 8y ago
That is like the concept of sousveillance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance

by deogeo 8y ago

expertentipp 8y ago

we need this

dnautics 8y ago

The thing is corporations exist precisely to limit liability. You don't have to start a corporation - you can run your own business out of your own pocket and accept all the legal liability. However, we make this activity undesirable through policy: (personal income is taxable in a much more punishing way than corporate income, and the legal system is incredibly expensive - the more customers you have, the more you are likely to be exposed to a crazy customer who is going to abuse the system and personally bankrupt you with frivolous lawsuits. Who would want to start a business in that climate?

pavel_lishin 8y ago
You're talking about legal liability; deogeo sounds like they're talking about social liability.
- deogeo 8y ago
  Correct.
- dnautics 8y ago
  one is free to start a company with those rules in the corporate charter. Heck, I'd even work there, but I'm wouldn't count on my job being around for long.
  - deogeo 8y ago
    Nor would a company be around for long if it were the only one respecting environmental protections, workplace safety standards, or anti-child-labor laws.
spamizbad 8y ago
I'm not sure how this applies in this scenario: It looks like workers, rather than the board, cast a vote of no confidence on the CEO. Publicly traded companies seem to operate fine with boards being able to remove CEOs, so what's the problem here?

lainga 8y ago

That is like the concept of sousveillance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance