4 ms·

But you can't know all of that. Imagine some local wallmart having an issue with something (eg. a bunch of expired chemicals, that have to be disposed as denge

But you can't know all of that. Imagine some local wallmart having an issue with something (eg. a bunch of expired chemicals, that have to be disposed as dengerous), and they don't want to deal with that in a proper way, and some local manager tells some local worker, to just dump the chemicals into a stream behind the wallmart. Usually noone notices stuff like that, if the chemicals are not "too bad" (=fish die), the worker will lose his/her job if (s)he doesn't do it, and the manager will get someone else to do it. If the worker reports it, it's his word against the managers, the manager will just say it was leaked rainwater, and that they asked the worker to spill it in the gutter, so the worker has no real choice, if they want to feed the kids that night. People above the manager have no idea about that local wallmart, and that one time issue. Then, the worker dumps the chemicals into the stream, the chemicals just happen to be very dangerous, and a million fish die in the river downstream. Is the CEO really the guilty on here? Did he really know? On the other hand, you have the VW dieselgate, where a whole team had to work on the software, and atleast a few level of mangers had to have known about the issue. But on the corporate ladder, where every level is squeezing the level below it to "do more", "bring in more profits", it's possible that some manager in charge of something actually didn't tell the people above him, just how exactly he solved the exhaust issue, just that he solved it, and saved millions of euros (and got a huge bonus). On the other hand, coordinating a big team of coders, and such info not getting to higher ups or to members of different teams in the same company (with different managers) is probably unlikely. What i'm trying to say is, that blaming the CEO by default is bad, because in the first case, it's unrealistic to expect the CEO to even know that that local walmart exists.... and in the second case, that there should be a very thourough investigation just how high the knowledge went, and have the whole chain of comand held responsible.

canofbars 6y ago
The problem is management can just abuse this by saying something like "Dispose of these chemicals safely, you have 5 minutes to be back". The manager clearly said to do it safely but 5 minutes only leaves time to dump them unsafely. How do you assign blame to the manager or even higher systems which tell people to do these things without literally saying it.
- Chris2048 6y ago
  This just means there is nuance to correctly assigning blame.
beefield 6y ago
> it's unrealistic to expect the CEO to even know that that local walmart exists Maybe, just maybe we then should not have so large entities that nobody can be responsible for? Limited liability is a massive handout from society to the owners of the Limited liability company and should be priced accordingly. (I do not propose banning limited liability. I propose being more selective how and which operations actually deserve limited liability. And tax it appropriately.)
- ajsnigrutin 6y ago
  But this is true even with companies that have only two stores. Even one if it's open for more than one shift.
- Chris2048 6y ago
  > just maybe we then should not have so large entities that nobody can be responsible for But who says no one is responsible? There are clearly guilty parties, just not the CEO.
- Symmetry 6y ago
  That would be nice in a way but then we couldn't have complicated products like laptops or iPhones. Abstraction barriers aren't optional when managing sufficiently complex processes.
  - beefield 6y ago
    "I propose being more selective how and which operations actually deserve limited liability"
orhmeh09 6y ago
It is the duty of the CEO to demand the types of observability, monitoring, and training so that this scenario could be avoided.
tt217aa742 6y ago
In this case: The worker should be incarcerated for doing the act, whilst knowing that it was harmful to the environment, instead of reporting the manager to the authorities and higher ups. The manager should be incarcerated, for directly ordering the said act to be done and due to therefore also being responsible for it. The CEO should be incarcerated for failing to set up proper procedures so things like these can't happen (unauthorized dumps where just one party is trusted with these substances), for failing to set up mechanisms of oversight and control (which would terminate said manager from the company) and as an example to prevent systemic inaction due to noone caring and having no motivation to do proper implementations. The particulars of how long these incarcerations should be, however, could be up for debate. Financial penalties, as a function of net-worth, should also be considered.
avianlyric 6y ago
In this scenario the CEO should be able to point to a body of evidence that show the Walmart has strong and robust procedures for dealing with type of waste, and they provide enough time and training to employees to follow those procedures. Thus this specific act was the result of an employee failing to follow procedure, despite being given the training and time to do so. This is the exact burden of proof that is used for health and safety. When an employee is seriously injured, there’s a burden on the employer to demonstrate that took all reasonable precautions to prevent the injury. That mean procedures, training and evidence that those procedures and training is followed, enforced and enough time and space to provided for employees to follow them. This should exist through the entire chain of command, with each level ensuring that the level below isn’t cutting corners, and it part of a CEO responsibility to build that management framework. I mean it already exists for controlling costs and ensure health & safety in most successful companies, why can’t it exist for all legal and social obligations?
wpietri 6y ago
You are confusing "really guilty" with "really knows". The whole theory behind paying CEOs their current absurd salaries is that they are 5-D chess geniuses, responsible for the value created by up to millions of people doing actual work. How can a CEO be in control enough to deserve all of the profits but so out of control that they deserve none of the blame? The practical outcome is that high-level executives create plausible deniability. In your story, they issue edicts like "our chemical disposal bill is too high! Fix it!" or just "Our per-store costs are too high!" and ride roughshod over objections. "Don't bring me problems! Solve them!" The pressure rolls downhill. People trying to do the right thing get yelled at or fired; people doing the wrong thing skate on by, because the metrics look better. So everybody learns to do what the CEO implicitly wants: cutting corners to increase profits. If the CEOs don't know that's the natural outcome of their behavior then they're negligent or criminally incompetent. If they do, they're just criminals. But they have plenty of money to create enough deniability that they can walk away. Possibly using some lower subordinate as a scapegoat, when he was just responding to incentives that the CEO set up. In my view, whether or not a CEO has direct knowledge of a direct crime is irrelevant. At the CEO level, they don't have direct knowledge of anything, but they have power over everything. It's not clear to me positions like that should exist, but as long as they do exist, they should be responsible for the whole system that they have so eagerly taken charge of. Ignorance cannot be an excuse.

canofbars 6y ago

The problem is management can just abuse this by saying something like "Dispose of these chemicals safely, you have 5 minutes to be back". The manager clearly said to do it safely but 5 minutes only leaves time to dump them unsafely. How do you assign blame to the manager or even higher systems which tell people to do these things without literally saying it.

Chris2048 6y ago
This just means there is nuance to correctly assigning blame.

beefield 6y ago

> it's unrealistic to expect the CEO to even know that that local walmart exists Maybe, just maybe we then should not have so large entities that nobody can be responsible for? Limited liability is a massive handout from society to the owners of the Limited liability company and should be priced accordingly. (I do not propose banning limited liability. I propose being more selective how and which operations actually deserve limited liability. And tax it appropriately.)

ajsnigrutin 6y ago
But this is true even with companies that have only two stores. Even one if it's open for more than one shift.
Chris2048 6y ago
> just maybe we then should not have so large entities that nobody can be responsible for But who says no one is responsible? There are clearly guilty parties, just not the CEO.
Symmetry 6y ago
That would be nice in a way but then we couldn't have complicated products like laptops or iPhones. Abstraction barriers aren't optional when managing sufficiently complex processes.
- beefield 6y ago
  "I propose being more selective how and which operations actually deserve limited liability"

orhmeh09 6y ago

It is the duty of the CEO to demand the types of observability, monitoring, and training so that this scenario could be avoided.

tt217aa742 6y ago

In this case: The worker should be incarcerated for doing the act, whilst knowing that it was harmful to the environment, instead of reporting the manager to the authorities and higher ups. The manager should be incarcerated, for directly ordering the said act to be done and due to therefore also being responsible for it. The CEO should be incarcerated for failing to set up proper procedures so things like these can't happen (unauthorized dumps where just one party is trusted with these substances), for failing to set up mechanisms of oversight and control (which would terminate said manager from the company) and as an example to prevent systemic inaction due to noone caring and having no motivation to do proper implementations. The particulars of how long these incarcerations should be, however, could be up for debate. Financial penalties, as a function of net-worth, should also be considered.

avianlyric 6y ago

In this scenario the CEO should be able to point to a body of evidence that show the Walmart has strong and robust procedures for dealing with type of waste, and they provide enough time and training to employees to follow those procedures. Thus this specific act was the result of an employee failing to follow procedure, despite being given the training and time to do so. This is the exact burden of proof that is used for health and safety. When an employee is seriously injured, there’s a burden on the employer to demonstrate that took all reasonable precautions to prevent the injury. That mean procedures, training and evidence that those procedures and training is followed, enforced and enough time and space to provided for employees to follow them. This should exist through the entire chain of command, with each level ensuring that the level below isn’t cutting corners, and it part of a CEO responsibility to build that management framework. I mean it already exists for controlling costs and ensure health & safety in most successful companies, why can’t it exist for all legal and social obligations?

wpietri 6y ago

You are confusing "really guilty" with "really knows". The whole theory behind paying CEOs their current absurd salaries is that they are 5-D chess geniuses, responsible for the value created by up to millions of people doing actual work. How can a CEO be in control enough to deserve all of the profits but so out of control that they deserve none of the blame? The practical outcome is that high-level executives create plausible deniability. In your story, they issue edicts like "our chemical disposal bill is too high! Fix it!" or just "Our per-store costs are too high!" and ride roughshod over objections. "Don't bring me problems! Solve them!" The pressure rolls downhill. People trying to do the right thing get yelled at or fired; people doing the wrong thing skate on by, because the metrics look better. So everybody learns to do what the CEO implicitly wants: cutting corners to increase profits. If the CEOs don't know that's the natural outcome of their behavior then they're negligent or criminally incompetent. If they do, they're just criminals. But they have plenty of money to create enough deniability that they can walk away. Possibly using some lower subordinate as a scapegoat, when he was just responding to incentives that the CEO set up. In my view, whether or not a CEO has direct knowledge of a direct crime is irrelevant. At the CEO level, they don't have direct knowledge of anything, but they have power over everything. It's not clear to me positions like that should exist, but as long as they do exist, they should be responsible for the whole system that they have so eagerly taken charge of. Ignorance cannot be an excuse.