3 ms·

Ordering a hit is a pretty extreme example that probably would pierce the corporate veil But also the problem isn't that it becomes "magically legal",the probl

Ordering a hit is a pretty extreme example that probably would pierce the corporate veil But also the problem isn't that it becomes "magically legal",the problem is that the corporate veil means that if a company takes illegal actions then often only the company is held accountable, instead of the people responsible for directing the company to take illegal actions And it takes a high bar (like ordering a hit) to make the legal system try and hold individuals accountable for company actions I am arguing that is absurd. I think individuals inside companies take advantage of this often to get away with illegal shit to enrich themselves at the company's expense

fmajid 1y ago
Not as far-fetched as you'd think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBay_stalking_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBay_stalking_scandal Note that while minions went to jail, the CEO came out of this scot-free.
- gruez 1y ago
  >Note that while minions went to jail, the CEO came out of this scot-free. Because it was determined that the minions committed the crime and that the CEO didn't know about it? >The CEO Wenig's messages were deemed "inappropriate" by eBay, but eBay's internal investigation concluded that the CEO did not know about the stalking and harassment activities.
  - nkrisc 1y ago
    > but eBay's internal investigation concluded that the CEO did not know about the stalking and harassment activities. I can't imagine them concluding otherwise.
    - gruez 1y ago
      I'm not arguing he's been proven innocent, just that he hasn't been proven guilty. Therefore it shouldn't be outrageous that he got away "scott-free".
      - rendaw 1y ago
        The argument in this thread is that he's responsible for the actions of his subordinates and therefore deserves some of the punishment, not that he's directly culpable in the crime and therefore should receive punishment. There have been many situations where corporate incentives or structures, plus the innate power imbalance, pressure low level employees to commit crimes that benefit the corporation and the fact that employers are not responsible for the actions of their employees when not directly ordered means that those structures aren't fixed.
        gruez 1y ago
        >The argument in this thread is that he's responsible for the actions of his subordinates and therefore deserves some of the punishment Even if the subordinates went rogue and he wasn't aware? Where do you draw the line? Should UPS's CEO be responsible if one of the delivery drivers crashed into a pedestrian?
        nkrisc 1y ago
        It's a spectrum. If the CEO creates an environment that incentivizes unsafe driving practices among their delivery drivers, either directly or indirectly, then perhaps yes, they should shoulder some portion of the responsibility. It doesn't have to be only 100% or 0% responsibility. The amount can be modulated based on their own behavior or leadership of the company. For example, if they consistently drove the company towards a culture of safety, and incentivized subordinates to prioritize safety and disincentivized unsafe practices, then perhaps they would share no responsibility for such an incident. They did what they were supposed to do. If however they set ever more aggressive profit goals and other metrics, and incentivized those at all costs among their subordinates, and presided over a company culture that focused on profits above all else, then perhaps the should share some portion of the responsibility. What is a leader without responsibility? If they reap the rewards of the successes of their subordinates, then they must also reap the outcomes of the failures of their subordinates. By any other logic, a CEO should only be paid commensurately with the tangible benefit they directly provide to the company with their own two hands.
abduhl 1y ago
This isn’t what piercing the corporate veil is. Piercing the corporate veil is when shareholders (not employees) are made liable for the corporation’s actions. It is not when an individual is charged with a crime personally when there are also charges against the corporation.

fmajid 1y ago

Not as far-fetched as you'd think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBay_stalking_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBay_stalking_scandal Note that while minions went to jail, the CEO came out of this scot-free.

gruez 1y ago
>Note that while minions went to jail, the CEO came out of this scot-free. Because it was determined that the minions committed the crime and that the CEO didn't know about it? >The CEO Wenig's messages were deemed "inappropriate" by eBay, but eBay's internal investigation concluded that the CEO did not know about the stalking and harassment activities.
- nkrisc 1y ago
  > but eBay's internal investigation concluded that the CEO did not know about the stalking and harassment activities. I can't imagine them concluding otherwise.
  - gruez 1y ago
    I'm not arguing he's been proven innocent, just that he hasn't been proven guilty. Therefore it shouldn't be outrageous that he got away "scott-free".
    - rendaw 1y ago
      The argument in this thread is that he's responsible for the actions of his subordinates and therefore deserves some of the punishment, not that he's directly culpable in the crime and therefore should receive punishment. There have been many situations where corporate incentives or structures, plus the innate power imbalance, pressure low level employees to commit crimes that benefit the corporation and the fact that employers are not responsible for the actions of their employees when not directly ordered means that those structures aren't fixed.
      - gruez 1y ago
        >The argument in this thread is that he's responsible for the actions of his subordinates and therefore deserves some of the punishment Even if the subordinates went rogue and he wasn't aware? Where do you draw the line? Should UPS's CEO be responsible if one of the delivery drivers crashed into a pedestrian?
        nkrisc 1y ago
        It's a spectrum. If the CEO creates an environment that incentivizes unsafe driving practices among their delivery drivers, either directly or indirectly, then perhaps yes, they should shoulder some portion of the responsibility. It doesn't have to be only 100% or 0% responsibility. The amount can be modulated based on their own behavior or leadership of the company. For example, if they consistently drove the company towards a culture of safety, and incentivized subordinates to prioritize safety and disincentivized unsafe practices, then perhaps they would share no responsibility for such an incident. They did what they were supposed to do. If however they set ever more aggressive profit goals and other metrics, and incentivized those at all costs among their subordinates, and presided over a company culture that focused on profits above all else, then perhaps the should share some portion of the responsibility. What is a leader without responsibility? If they reap the rewards of the successes of their subordinates, then they must also reap the outcomes of the failures of their subordinates. By any other logic, a CEO should only be paid commensurately with the tangible benefit they directly provide to the company with their own two hands.

abduhl 1y ago

This isn’t what piercing the corporate veil is. Piercing the corporate veil is when shareholders (not employees) are made liable for the corporation’s actions. It is not when an individual is charged with a crime personally when there are also charges against the corporation.