4 ms·

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.

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.