4 ms·

Justice served would be jail time for execs or a corporate death penalty. Levying a fine means it's just a cost of doing business. And a billion dollars sounds

Justice served would be jail time for execs or a corporate death penalty. Levying a fine means it's just a cost of doing business. And a billion dollars sounds like a lot, but it's a drop in the bucket for these massive multinational corporations that have been in business for decades.

politician 3y ago
> a corporate death penalty So, no more Kevlar for police protection? The problem with the idea of a corporate death penalty is that it would shutter the corporation, shock the supply chain for critical materials, terminate the employment of thousands of people, and devastate their communities (e.g. because employees have families and those families consume food and stuff from the local economy which, in turn, supports other families). It's obvious why we haven't adopted it as a viable punishment.
- saiya-jin 3y ago
  There are tons of Kevlar alternatives, on cca same level of performance these days. Just because some company made a good product once or twice will make them invincible against the law with all the rest they ever did? You forgot 'think about the children' part, but in this case, it actually goes against that fucked up corporations. We may have to see half of our kids infertile in a decade or two and shitload of birth defects that can bankrupt any health services (in case of US rather half of population), no amount of thinking about Kevlar or Goretex (for which there are tons of great alternatives too and I stopped using their stuff in mountains long time ago) is going to fix that
- phkahler 3y ago
  Nah, the assets would be auctioned off. The shareholders would be screwed. But the employees would largely stick around and do stuff under new ownership. It would still be a shock, but after a few of these you'd see investors not willing to allow that kind of thing to happen because it's a huge financial risk to them. Not a great solution, but also not as ruinous as you might think. Companies shouldn't be "too big to fail" and most aren't.
- HWR_14 3y ago
  Chapter 11 bankruptcies allow corporations to continue operating. They just hose the investors.
  - politician 3y ago
    The shareholders aren't the ones manufacturing the PFAS. I think that I want the operating unit to be halted and dismantled. Not the shareholders, management, or other units. So, I don't think Chapter 11 is the right solution.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - alistairSH 3y ago
      I think Chapter 11 was just meant as an example of a "closed" company continuing to operate. No reason we can't dismantle Dupont in a similar fashion.
      - briantakita 3y ago
        Will it solve the problem though? Assets & IP would be auctioned off. Shell companies would be formed to handle liability. The problem lies with the people who made the decisions that led to the toxic materials being discharged into the environment & the people harmed. A Chapter 11 would allow the same staff who caused the problems to join the new companies. Unless the people who caused the problems are personally & criminally held liable, nothing would change.
        alistairSH 3y ago
        The idea is the owners/shareholders get punished. If we punish them, they'll stop hiring criminally negligent C-suites. I'd prefer we do both. Hold the actual bad actors accountable AND also kill the company and hurt the shareholders. Anybody involved needs to have incentive to stop the bad behavior. I'm tired of people using corporate shells as a get-out-of-jail card when they do things that are illegal and/or knowingly bad for society/environment.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > It's obvious why we haven't adopted it as a viable punishment. But we did. It used to be a tool that was implemented when a corporation behaved egregiously badly. At some point, though, we stopped (I think it was in the 40s, but I'm not sure). We really, really need to bring it back. There is no other way to hold them in check.
briantakita 3y ago
Perhaps the death penalty for the execs would cause some real reform. Japanese culture had the concept to Seppuku when someone brought shame to their position. They seem to take their jobs seriously.

politician 3y ago

> a corporate death penalty So, no more Kevlar for police protection? The problem with the idea of a corporate death penalty is that it would shutter the corporation, shock the supply chain for critical materials, terminate the employment of thousands of people, and devastate their communities (e.g. because employees have families and those families consume food and stuff from the local economy which, in turn, supports other families). It's obvious why we haven't adopted it as a viable punishment.

saiya-jin 3y ago
There are tons of Kevlar alternatives, on cca same level of performance these days. Just because some company made a good product once or twice will make them invincible against the law with all the rest they ever did? You forgot 'think about the children' part, but in this case, it actually goes against that fucked up corporations. We may have to see half of our kids infertile in a decade or two and shitload of birth defects that can bankrupt any health services (in case of US rather half of population), no amount of thinking about Kevlar or Goretex (for which there are tons of great alternatives too and I stopped using their stuff in mountains long time ago) is going to fix that
phkahler 3y ago
Nah, the assets would be auctioned off. The shareholders would be screwed. But the employees would largely stick around and do stuff under new ownership. It would still be a shock, but after a few of these you'd see investors not willing to allow that kind of thing to happen because it's a huge financial risk to them. Not a great solution, but also not as ruinous as you might think. Companies shouldn't be "too big to fail" and most aren't.
HWR_14 3y ago
Chapter 11 bankruptcies allow corporations to continue operating. They just hose the investors.
- politician 3y ago
  The shareholders aren't the ones manufacturing the PFAS. I think that I want the operating unit to be halted and dismantled. Not the shareholders, management, or other units. So, I don't think Chapter 11 is the right solution.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    I think Chapter 11 was just meant as an example of a "closed" company continuing to operate. No reason we can't dismantle Dupont in a similar fashion.
    - briantakita 3y ago
      Will it solve the problem though? Assets & IP would be auctioned off. Shell companies would be formed to handle liability. The problem lies with the people who made the decisions that led to the toxic materials being discharged into the environment & the people harmed. A Chapter 11 would allow the same staff who caused the problems to join the new companies. Unless the people who caused the problems are personally & criminally held liable, nothing would change.
      - alistairSH 3y ago
        The idea is the owners/shareholders get punished. If we punish them, they'll stop hiring criminally negligent C-suites. I'd prefer we do both. Hold the actual bad actors accountable AND also kill the company and hurt the shareholders. Anybody involved needs to have incentive to stop the bad behavior. I'm tired of people using corporate shells as a get-out-of-jail card when they do things that are illegal and/or knowingly bad for society/environment.
JohnFen 3y ago
> It's obvious why we haven't adopted it as a viable punishment. But we did. It used to be a tool that was implemented when a corporation behaved egregiously badly. At some point, though, we stopped (I think it was in the 40s, but I'm not sure). We really, really need to bring it back. There is no other way to hold them in check.

briantakita 3y ago

Perhaps the death penalty for the execs would cause some real reform. Japanese culture had the concept to Seppuku when someone brought shame to their position. They seem to take their jobs seriously.