3 ms·
"I will only sign this contract on behalf of my company if you give money to me personally" is not in any way ambiguous in terms of morality. If you don't unde
by groby_b 5y ago
"I will only sign this contract on behalf of my company if you give money to me personally" is not in any way ambiguous in terms of morality.
If you don't understand why that's wrong, I strongly suggest maybe taking a few philosophy or ethics classes.
In short: He was supposed to be acting on behalf of his employer - that's what being an exec means. He instead used the resources of his employer (not his to use, except on behalf of the employer) to dangle a lucrative deal in front of a much smaller company - which, at this point, is akin to exercising quite a bit of force, because these deals can be make-or-break especially for small places.
He then made that deal contingent on enriching himself personally.
That's about as crooked as you can get without inflicting physical harm.
- ghaff 5y agoI'd add that this is an example of why many companies have those eye-rolling annual ethics mini-video classes that they make people take. Because I guess it sometimes does need to be said.
- poizan42 5y agoI don't think anybody is confused about the morality of "I will only sign this contract on behalf of my company if you give money to me personally". The problem is that this is never mentioned in the article. In fact at no point does the article say that the agreement was with the VP and not okayed by the decision makers at Netflix. It seems pretty clear to me why people are confused.
- groby_b 5y agoIt is right in the subhed? "Michael Kail will be sentenced Oct. 19 in San Jose for taking stock, cash and gifts from tech firms trying to do business with the streaming service." If nothing else, the "gifts" part makes it clear its personal.