That’s where I will disagree a bit. “Owners” usually have a CEO or something similar to run the company in their stead. Imagine you employ someone, he fucks up big time and you go to prison, despite having done nothing wrong. That’s horrendous. That’s like hiring a tax accountant, he fucks up and you go to prison for it … oh wait, that’s how it works in many countries, but anyways, that’s fucking shit and shouldn’t be a thing.
If the owner has had any influence on the company that have led to this decision, he should absolutely get punished aswell. But if he had nothing to do with it, nah. I feel like that would be cruel and unjust.
These guys are killing people. It’s like employing a psychopathic security guard who shoots people at best, or playing dumb about hiring a hit man at worst. Insulating owners from the consequences of their choices has been horrendous.
The pic above is criminal negligence, and the CEO was hired to do it.
Yes, and the CEO is hired to keep an eye on everything that happens in the company. That’s his job. Not the owners at this point. The owner doesn’t tell the CEO to employ psychopathic people (unless he does excplicity, ofc). He tells the CEO: “Here’s your monthly salary, don’t fuck it up” and that’s it. Every further responsibility is with the CEO.
Insulating owners from the consequences of their choices
But hiring the wrong people isn’t the owners choice. The owner doesn’t make any choices anymore, otherwise he would be the CEO and not employ someone to run the business in their stead.
Hiring the CEO is the owners choice. They’re choosing to hire literal psychopaths. They have every resource to research this person first. It’s incredibly charitable to even call them criminally negligent because they are not sorry at all.
I see that you’re not trying to have a fair argument, you just want to hate. That’s fine, but there’s no point in having a genuine discussion with you about this topic. Have a nice day.
Don’t stop there, the CEOs just absorb blame for the owners.
That’s where I will disagree a bit. “Owners” usually have a CEO or something similar to run the company in their stead. Imagine you employ someone, he fucks up big time and you go to prison, despite having done nothing wrong. That’s horrendous. That’s like hiring a tax accountant, he fucks up and you go to prison for it … oh wait, that’s how it works in many countries, but anyways, that’s fucking shit and shouldn’t be a thing.
If the owner has had any influence on the company that have led to this decision, he should absolutely get punished aswell. But if he had nothing to do with it, nah. I feel like that would be cruel and unjust.
These guys are killing people. It’s like employing a psychopathic security guard who shoots people at best, or playing dumb about hiring a hit man at worst. Insulating owners from the consequences of their choices has been horrendous.
The pic above is criminal negligence, and the CEO was hired to do it.
Yes, and the CEO is hired to keep an eye on everything that happens in the company. That’s his job. Not the owners at this point. The owner doesn’t tell the CEO to employ psychopathic people (unless he does excplicity, ofc). He tells the CEO: “Here’s your monthly salary, don’t fuck it up” and that’s it. Every further responsibility is with the CEO.
But hiring the wrong people isn’t the owners choice. The owner doesn’t make any choices anymore, otherwise he would be the CEO and not employ someone to run the business in their stead.
Hiring the CEO is the owners choice. They’re choosing to hire literal psychopaths. They have every resource to research this person first. It’s incredibly charitable to even call them criminally negligent because they are not sorry at all.
I see that you’re not trying to have a fair argument, you just want to hate. That’s fine, but there’s no point in having a genuine discussion with you about this topic. Have a nice day.
If we’re hurling insults, then it appears you’re simping for your own oppressors.