4 ms·
> Why aren't companies treated the same? It's more of a hostage negotiation. You want to hurt the company and it's owners, but if you sue too hard, you're l
by akira2501 2y ago
> Why aren't companies treated the same?
It's more of a hostage negotiation. You want to hurt the company and it's owners, but if you sue too hard, you're likely to just hurt it's workers and it's customers.
It's why preventing companies from reaching _anything near_ monopoly size is so important for corporate jurisprudence. "Too big to fail" is just the tip of this insane iceberg we've allowed to grow into our economy.
- trhway 2y ago>You want to hurt the company and it's owners No. What you'd really want if you really wanted to fix things is to hurt the top and mid-managers who decided to commit those offenses. Unfortunately it almost never happens.
- AmVess 2y agoThe only way to fix things is to drag the occupants of the c-suite into civil court and start dropping massive fines on their heads. Do that, and this type of behavior would vanish within days.
- mrcsharp 2y agoDon't forget the board. Top managers are made to break the law due to demands of infinite growth.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Top managers are made to break the law due to demands of infinite growth No, they’re not.
- BeFlatXIII 2y ago[ citation needed ]
- tick_tock_tick 2y agoNo they choose to because of the benefits it gives them. Realistically middle management are the ones who need to start going to jail to cleanup this kind of behavior.
- nine_zeros 2y agoI say, let the company be forced to be auctioned away and a ban on the executives from holding board/executive position for the next 5 years
- ensignavenger 2y agoGM is nowhere near a monopoly in the automobile market, so that isn't an issue in this case.
- throwaway48476 2y agoGiven the recent demonstrative pricing power the auto industry appears to be an oligopoly.
- mike50 2y agoAided by fuel "economy" regulations, obsolete tariffs and refusal to harmonize regulatory requirements with the EU.
- canadianfella 2y ago[dead]
- EvanAnderson 2y ago> You want to hurt the company and it's owners... The owners of big companies include lots of pension plans, index funds, etc. Hurting those owners, who didn't have any say in the bad decisions, is probably not what we want. Jail for executives who approve or have knowledge of illegal activities sounds good to me.
- dontlikeyoueith 2y ago> Jail for executives who approve or have knowledge of illegal activities sounds good to me. But then who would write the campaign contribution checks on which our government depends to survive?
- tomrod 2y agoYou're getting it! This is what people want! I say this only half joking because I think you get it, so no /s required :)
- PROMISE_237 2y ago[dead]
- PROMISE_237 2y ago[dead]
- candiddevmike 2y ago> The owners of big companies include lots of pension plans, index funds, etc. Hurting those owners, who didn't have any say in the bad decisions, is probably not what we want. I mean... Shareholders are ultimately responsible for the company, they elect the board etc. If shareholders were impacted by this, maybe it would make more folks think twice about "passive investing"?
- beart 2y agoI don't see this doing much unless everyone stops at about the same time. The largest shareholders have a disproportionate amount of power to influence the direction of most companies.
- darby_nine 2y ago> but if you sue too hard, you're likely to just hurt it's workers and it's customers. Something tells me the concern is more about the current shareholders than either mentioned party.