7 ms·
I agree with what you're saying, however I think talking in absolutes is counter-productive: > No golden parachutes, no deferred bonuses, no pensions In my op
by coremoff 1y ago
I agree with what you're saying, however I think talking in absolutes is counter-productive:
> No golden parachutes, no deferred bonuses, no pensions
In my opinion, hard cutoffs like this create perverse incentives, but there definitely need to be consequences for actions.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 1y agoWhat do you think a good compromise would be?
- coremoff 1y agoI don't think I'm qualified to provide an answer - trying to detail how execs should not be able to profit from fail-cases like this is a mine-field of edge cases, I expect. I do think that you shouldn't be doing anything to destroy their lives "no pension" (outside of any judicial outcomes); but it should be sufficiently comprehensive such that you can declare both that no one profited from malfeasance/incompetance and that poeple in positions governed by these provisions are strongly encouraged to make sure that they don't fall foul of them.