5 ms·

Why punish the company, punish the executives! Putting a foam they knew to be dangerous into a medical product? Choices not to disclose? Prosecute executives

Why punish the company, punish the executives! Putting a foam they knew to be dangerous into a medical product? Choices not to disclose? Prosecute executives in jail for manslaughter. A few executives in prison for a decade or two, having to return all their assets gained, and we'll see less of this type of criminal activity. Corporate veils are important for some types of activity, but when it comes to the loss of life, and choices made, executives who make 1.5m USD a year (as the Philips CEO does) should be held to a very high standard.

sofixa 3y ago
> Putting a foam they knew to be dangerous into a medical product I doubt it's the executives deciding on the materials to use. Like in Boeing's case, it probably wasn't executives that decided not to use redundancy on a critical input. Both executives (command principle) and the actual engineers/designers and everyone else who received the reports or somehow knew about it deserves prison time.
- olliej 3y ago
  Literally the entire argument for board and executive compensation being grossly inflated vs the people who actually do real work for companies is the responsibility they have. If an executive approves a design that kills people, they should be responsible. If an executive approves a design that they can't understand kills people, why are they being paid more than the people who do ostensibly know what they're doing? Either the executives and board understand what they're doing and deserve both the up and downsides of their choices, be those financial or criminal, or they don't. The idea that the substantially lower paid employee who thinks "this looks like a reasonable choice" is more responsible than the ostensibly more competent, and again certainly compensated as such, that approves of the approach (and also determines compensation and bonuses on the basis of cost saving to those lower paid employees) is not is patently absurd. The entire compensation story for executives and the board is based on them being responsible for the actions of the company. If they are unwilling to stop illegal actions by the company, they should quit.
  - sofixa 3y ago
    > If an executive approves a design that kills people, they should be responsible. Do you really think it's executives approving design specifics such as materials used? > The idea that the substantially lower paid employee who thinks "this looks like a reasonable choice" is more responsible than the ostensibly more competent, and again certainly compensated as such, that approves of the approach Unfortunately competency in the actual field is never a requirement for management and executives. There are whole diplomas and schools founded upon the principle that management is management and business is business, regardless of the field and what is actually being managed. So thinking executives have any competencies outside of maybe managing people and business is misguided hope. Yes, executives should be held responsible for big failures at their companies (and not getting tens of millions of dollars in a golden parachute and retiring with yachts). But that doesn't mean that the people who actually designed, QAed, approved the design should get off free.
    - theshrike79 3y ago
      > Do you really think it's executives approving design specifics such as materials used? The executives approve and oversee the compensation structure that allows for stuff like this. They also foster a culture where whistleblowing about cancerous materials or reports about people suffering when using their devices isn't encouraged or protected. Yes, they should be held responsible. That's why they get paid millions and get huge option packages, because of the massive responsibility. (not really, they get paid $$$ because they know the right people and went to private school with them)
      - sofixa 3y ago
        All that you said is true, but that doesn't absolve the actual people who actually made the dangerous decisions of their responsibility. Regardless of your work environment, if you make a decision that you know is dangerous and kills people, it's your fault too, and you should be criminally charged alongside those above you that didn't catch it, or enabled it through shitty culture, or enforced it due to time/money pressure.
aaomidi 3y ago
There is a benefit for pushing the company. It impacts share holders too. This would cause a society shift in what companies we invest in, and what are the hard questions we ask. It would force the companies to not just put short term profits ahead.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- teamspirit 3y ago
  Then why not both? Shouldn’t all parties here suffer the consequences?
  - aaomidi 3y ago
    I agree with you, I wasn’t clear that I didn’t mean _only_ the company.

sofixa 3y ago

> Putting a foam they knew to be dangerous into a medical product I doubt it's the executives deciding on the materials to use. Like in Boeing's case, it probably wasn't executives that decided not to use redundancy on a critical input. Both executives (command principle) and the actual engineers/designers and everyone else who received the reports or somehow knew about it deserves prison time.

olliej 3y ago
Literally the entire argument for board and executive compensation being grossly inflated vs the people who actually do real work for companies is the responsibility they have. If an executive approves a design that kills people, they should be responsible. If an executive approves a design that they can't understand kills people, why are they being paid more than the people who do ostensibly know what they're doing? Either the executives and board understand what they're doing and deserve both the up and downsides of their choices, be those financial or criminal, or they don't. The idea that the substantially lower paid employee who thinks "this looks like a reasonable choice" is more responsible than the ostensibly more competent, and again certainly compensated as such, that approves of the approach (and also determines compensation and bonuses on the basis of cost saving to those lower paid employees) is not is patently absurd. The entire compensation story for executives and the board is based on them being responsible for the actions of the company. If they are unwilling to stop illegal actions by the company, they should quit.
- sofixa 3y ago
  > If an executive approves a design that kills people, they should be responsible. Do you really think it's executives approving design specifics such as materials used? > The idea that the substantially lower paid employee who thinks "this looks like a reasonable choice" is more responsible than the ostensibly more competent, and again certainly compensated as such, that approves of the approach Unfortunately competency in the actual field is never a requirement for management and executives. There are whole diplomas and schools founded upon the principle that management is management and business is business, regardless of the field and what is actually being managed. So thinking executives have any competencies outside of maybe managing people and business is misguided hope. Yes, executives should be held responsible for big failures at their companies (and not getting tens of millions of dollars in a golden parachute and retiring with yachts). But that doesn't mean that the people who actually designed, QAed, approved the design should get off free.
  - theshrike79 3y ago
    > Do you really think it's executives approving design specifics such as materials used? The executives approve and oversee the compensation structure that allows for stuff like this. They also foster a culture where whistleblowing about cancerous materials or reports about people suffering when using their devices isn't encouraged or protected. Yes, they should be held responsible. That's why they get paid millions and get huge option packages, because of the massive responsibility. (not really, they get paid $$$ because they know the right people and went to private school with them)
    - sofixa 3y ago
      All that you said is true, but that doesn't absolve the actual people who actually made the dangerous decisions of their responsibility. Regardless of your work environment, if you make a decision that you know is dangerous and kills people, it's your fault too, and you should be criminally charged alongside those above you that didn't catch it, or enabled it through shitty culture, or enforced it due to time/money pressure.

aaomidi 3y ago

There is a benefit for pushing the company. It impacts share holders too. This would cause a society shift in what companies we invest in, and what are the hard questions we ask. It would force the companies to not just put short term profits ahead.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
teamspirit 3y ago
Then why not both? Shouldn’t all parties here suffer the consequences?
- aaomidi 3y ago
  I agree with you, I wasn’t clear that I didn’t mean _only_ the company.