3 ms·

GSK didn't make decisions, people made decisions, and those people need to be named and held responsible. Putting this on GSK means that the people who knowing

GSK didn't make decisions, people made decisions, and those people need to be named and held responsible. Putting this on GSK means that the people who knowingly sold a cancer-causing drug while hiding the risks get away without any consequences. Given this went on for 40 years, probably a lot of those people are retired, and won't even lose pay, bonuses, share price, etc. Meanwhile, assuming this leads to any sort of lawsuits, fines, and lost sales, the people who will pay the price if GSK is held responsible will be shareholders, who likely had no visibility into these decisions, and workers who will be laid off, again without having had any role in these decisions. This system is fundamentally broken. It's not just a small loophole that can be closed: the entire thing is a loophole that allows sociopaths to exit with the profits of wrongdoing while workers and shareholders pay the consequences. We need to stop letting bad people hide behind corporations. Name the people responsible, and hold them responsible.

maxerickson 4y ago
Occasionally dissolving anti-social corporations, instead of preserving jobs and protecting shareholders, would probably give remaining corporations at least a little incentive to keep their activities aligned with the goals of wider society.
- LBJsPNS 4y ago
  Pulling the corporate charter is the equivalent of the death penalty for corporations. This option needs to be exercised far more frequently.
- kerkeslager 4y ago
  Punishing those who aren't responsible harder doesn't solve the problem. In theory shareholders have the power to prevent this sort of thing, but they don't have the visibility into the daily goings on at a company to see when things like this happen. Likewise, the vast majority of workers had nothing to do with this decision. In a more general sense, I do think it's healthy to let companies fail rather than subsidizing non-working business models. But as a means of disincentivizing bad behavior, it's totally ineffective.

maxerickson 4y ago

Occasionally dissolving anti-social corporations, instead of preserving jobs and protecting shareholders, would probably give remaining corporations at least a little incentive to keep their activities aligned with the goals of wider society.

LBJsPNS 4y ago
Pulling the corporate charter is the equivalent of the death penalty for corporations. This option needs to be exercised far more frequently.
kerkeslager 4y ago
Punishing those who aren't responsible harder doesn't solve the problem. In theory shareholders have the power to prevent this sort of thing, but they don't have the visibility into the daily goings on at a company to see when things like this happen. Likewise, the vast majority of workers had nothing to do with this decision. In a more general sense, I do think it's healthy to let companies fail rather than subsidizing non-working business models. But as a means of disincentivizing bad behavior, it's totally ineffective.