3 ms·

Executives serving actual jail time. Prohibited from joining the boards of public/private companies. Personal liability.

by xyst 3y ago

konschubert 3y ago
But this would have to be limited to cases where you can prove personal intent or personal gross negligence by the executive. Otherwise you’re effectively making companies illegal.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  > Otherwise you’re effectively making companies illegal. It's more like making illegal behaviour by companies to be illegal. There's a disconnect where behaviour that would result in jail time for people, doesn't result in jail time if performed by companies and that seems wrong to me. If an individual poisons a water supply, they're not going to be getting just a fine.
  - konschubert 3y ago
    I don’t think a lot of ppl would want to take a job where they are liable for the actions of others.
    - littlestymaar 3y ago
      Don't underestimate the appeal of a 7 digit salary and the position of power you get with it. There a orders of magnitude more candidates for CEOs positions than there are jobs, so it's not like we would run out of people to do the job if we increased the responsibilities.
    - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
      Isn't that exactly what is required of CEOs and executives? If a company doesn't have liability for upper management, then where's their incentive to not instruct employees to behave illegally?
      - Wolfenstein98k 3y ago
        Instructing employees to behave illegally is illegal
        ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
        That doesn't appear to be well enforced as otherwise companies wouldn't be able to get away (or at least maybe receive a fine at some point) with illegal activity. If a company is illegally dumping chemicals into the water, then there has to have been at least one instance where a higher up instructed employees to do so.
    - user_7832 3y ago
      In some (not all of course) of these discussions, the CEOs/other decision making executives have said things that were fairly explicitly "dangerous"/illegal. I'm not talking about "hold ceo responsible for something s/he wasn't aware of", I'm talking "hold them responsible when they instructed something even though they knew people would die" (eg see Ford Pinto).
    - ryandrake 3y ago
      It would be better for the world if those people do not take that job and tell/incentivize their employees to do illegal things. So win-win.
    - int_19h 3y ago
      It depends on the risk/reward ratio. It would certainly make megacorps non-viable, but I don't see why that is undesirable. If the average company size is scaled down to the level where such liability is actually manageable, it would also largely solve the problem with monopolies, so it's a win-win.
- panta 3y ago
  If you develop or sell something that has even a remote potential to kill someone, it's your responsibility to apply a cautionary principle and gather enough evidence that the probability of that outcome is negligible. Otherwise that IS gross negligence.
lumb63 3y ago
I’ve thought about this a fair bit. The idea of companies being a firewall for liability to protect individuals seems…off? Companies don’t make decisions, individuals do. Certainly there is some utility to the idea of limiting liability, but our current system seems to me to afford too much benefit to those running corporations.
- appplication 3y ago
  It feels off because it makes no sense and is a completely biased system towards a small group of people. Ultimately this is just more class divide. Corporate entities and the legal protection they provide are accessible to only the wealthy and elite. They are another mechanism behind which the wealthy can run afoul of the law and the entity absorbs the negative repercussions while passing through all of the profits.
  - andrewpolidori 3y ago
    This just isn't true though. Do you mean to say thay legal remedies are more accessible to the rich? Every single small business owner benefits from the liability protections of corporations. If my business burns down and it's not fraud or something then I am not personally liable, nor should I be.
    - yau8edq12i 3y ago
      Your business burning down isn't the same as you, as (I assume) ceo of your company, acting knowingly in a way that causes death and illness to other people. This thread is about the fact that limited liability shouldn't protect you from the second scenario. Your comment is off topic.
      - andrewpolidori 3y ago
        > Corporate entities and the legal protection they provide are accessible to only the wealthy and elite. This is the part of the previous comment to which I was responding, giving just one example of how it's not the case. Limited Liability corporations protect business owners of all wealth levels. Just correcting a patently false claim. I understand your concern about thread topic, but it's just not really applicable to my point above.

Executives serving actual jail time. Prohibited from joining the boards of public/private companies. Personal liability.

by xyst 3y ago

Executives serving actual jail time. Prohibited from joining the boards of public/private companies. Personal liability.

konschubert 3y ago

But this would have to be limited to cases where you can prove personal intent or personal gross negligence by the executive. Otherwise you’re effectively making companies illegal.

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
> Otherwise you’re effectively making companies illegal. It's more like making illegal behaviour by companies to be illegal. There's a disconnect where behaviour that would result in jail time for people, doesn't result in jail time if performed by companies and that seems wrong to me. If an individual poisons a water supply, they're not going to be getting just a fine.
- konschubert 3y ago
  I don’t think a lot of ppl would want to take a job where they are liable for the actions of others.
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    Don't underestimate the appeal of a 7 digit salary and the position of power you get with it. There a orders of magnitude more candidates for CEOs positions than there are jobs, so it's not like we would run out of people to do the job if we increased the responsibilities.
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    Isn't that exactly what is required of CEOs and executives? If a company doesn't have liability for upper management, then where's their incentive to not instruct employees to behave illegally?
    - Wolfenstein98k 3y ago
      Instructing employees to behave illegally is illegal
      - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
        That doesn't appear to be well enforced as otherwise companies wouldn't be able to get away (or at least maybe receive a fine at some point) with illegal activity. If a company is illegally dumping chemicals into the water, then there has to have been at least one instance where a higher up instructed employees to do so.
  - user_7832 3y ago
    In some (not all of course) of these discussions, the CEOs/other decision making executives have said things that were fairly explicitly "dangerous"/illegal. I'm not talking about "hold ceo responsible for something s/he wasn't aware of", I'm talking "hold them responsible when they instructed something even though they knew people would die" (eg see Ford Pinto).
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    It would be better for the world if those people do not take that job and tell/incentivize their employees to do illegal things. So win-win.
  - int_19h 3y ago
    It depends on the risk/reward ratio. It would certainly make megacorps non-viable, but I don't see why that is undesirable. If the average company size is scaled down to the level where such liability is actually manageable, it would also largely solve the problem with monopolies, so it's a win-win.
panta 3y ago
If you develop or sell something that has even a remote potential to kill someone, it's your responsibility to apply a cautionary principle and gather enough evidence that the probability of that outcome is negligible. Otherwise that IS gross negligence.

lumb63 3y ago

I’ve thought about this a fair bit. The idea of companies being a firewall for liability to protect individuals seems…off? Companies don’t make decisions, individuals do. Certainly there is some utility to the idea of limiting liability, but our current system seems to me to afford too much benefit to those running corporations.

appplication 3y ago
It feels off because it makes no sense and is a completely biased system towards a small group of people. Ultimately this is just more class divide. Corporate entities and the legal protection they provide are accessible to only the wealthy and elite. They are another mechanism behind which the wealthy can run afoul of the law and the entity absorbs the negative repercussions while passing through all of the profits.
- andrewpolidori 3y ago
  This just isn't true though. Do you mean to say thay legal remedies are more accessible to the rich? Every single small business owner benefits from the liability protections of corporations. If my business burns down and it's not fraud or something then I am not personally liable, nor should I be.
  - yau8edq12i 3y ago
    Your business burning down isn't the same as you, as (I assume) ceo of your company, acting knowingly in a way that causes death and illness to other people. This thread is about the fact that limited liability shouldn't protect you from the second scenario. Your comment is off topic.
    - andrewpolidori 3y ago
      > Corporate entities and the legal protection they provide are accessible to only the wealthy and elite. This is the part of the previous comment to which I was responding, giving just one example of how it's not the case. Limited Liability corporations protect business owners of all wealth levels. Just correcting a patently false claim. I understand your concern about thread topic, but it's just not really applicable to my point above.