3 ms·

I propose another option: unless you can show clear written instructions, the ceo and the board are personally criminally responsible for the acts of their agen

by mcny 4y ago

I propose another option: unless you can show clear written instructions, the ceo and the board are personally criminally responsible for the acts of their agents, contractors, and employees at the course of their duty. If your branch manager incorrectly adds your teller to an industry wide list of do not hire, the board and CEO are personally criminally responsible for it. No hiding behind the corporate veil. I don’t know how to prove whether someone acted in their own and not on the instructions of the employer though. What I’m afraid of is equifax will simply create many companies and divvy up it into equifax backend web services llc that has fewer than 150 employees.

rglullis 4y ago
> What I’m afraid of is equifax will simply create many companies and divvy up it into equifax backend web services llc that has fewer than 150 employees. I'd argue that if the split child company ends up only working for the parent, it is easier for the governments to prosecute them. So the child company would have to get other customers and act as a real independent unit or would have to shut down altogether and the parent company would have to go back to the market to find a proper "web service" provider. I'd also argue that there is no way that a company like Equifax would be able to exist only with 150 people. The whole national level corporation would simply be broken down into many localized offices. Their databases would no longer be shared. The damage that each unit could make would be reduced, and their customers would be much closer to the managers responsible in ensuring that their data is managed properly. In other words, my argument is that Capitalism and market forces do work. We just need to have these systems deployed in the correct scale.
9dev 4y ago
Wouldn’t that result in the CEO and board being literal scapegoats, employed by the people actually in charge, to be beheaded if something goes wrong? They would even sell it as „giving control to the employees“ or something. I don’t believe in measures to radically change the world. That’s both a direct example of the Chesterton fence, and applied game theory - CEOs, board members, or investors, they are all gamers. Give them any set of rules, they will analyse and subsequently game them.

by mcny 4y ago

rglullis 4y ago

> What I’m afraid of is equifax will simply create many companies and divvy up it into equifax backend web services llc that has fewer than 150 employees. I'd argue that if the split child company ends up only working for the parent, it is easier for the governments to prosecute them. So the child company would have to get other customers and act as a real independent unit or would have to shut down altogether and the parent company would have to go back to the market to find a proper "web service" provider. I'd also argue that there is no way that a company like Equifax would be able to exist only with 150 people. The whole national level corporation would simply be broken down into many localized offices. Their databases would no longer be shared. The damage that each unit could make would be reduced, and their customers would be much closer to the managers responsible in ensuring that their data is managed properly. In other words, my argument is that Capitalism and market forces do work. We just need to have these systems deployed in the correct scale.

9dev 4y ago

Wouldn’t that result in the CEO and board being literal scapegoats, employed by the people actually in charge, to be beheaded if something goes wrong? They would even sell it as „giving control to the employees“ or something. I don’t believe in measures to radically change the world. That’s both a direct example of the Chesterton fence, and applied game theory - CEOs, board members, or investors, they are all gamers. Give them any set of rules, they will analyse and subsequently game them.