Should Corporate persons resonsible for death, have their rights strip

[eyeball]

How then were you planning on foisting pubickly elected officials on boards, if not by government legislation?

By foisting constitutional changes on the government.

[ToadBrother]

Not in the way you're characterizing it. Corporations can do whatever they like to their own private property.

No they can't, any more than any property owner can do whatever they want. In pretty much every country I'm aware of, with the exception, I suppose, of failed states, there is an array of regulations from the federal to the local level.

We're all stakeholders however the minute their activities start impacting our common property. We shouldn't have to rely solely on the ability of distant governments to provide the oversight that's necessary to protect our stake. Native people where I live don't have to, why should I?

I'm not even sure what you're arguing for any more. I'm not even sure you're sure what you're arguing for. What is it exactly you don't have a say in? It's like your arguing for another level of government, but I can't be quite sure what its powers or role would be. You started all of this with the bizarre idea that the government should have seats on the boards of directors of private corporations, but you've wandered so far from that that it's hard to figure out where you're coming from, or where you're going.

[eyeball]

I'm not even sure what you're arguing for any more.

The same thing you and Morris seem to constantly rail against, transparency and accountability.

That's it in a nutshell.

[M.Dancer]

By foisting constitutional changes on the government.

Sounds good in theory but you'd have to be nuts to trust that governments will ever make a difference.

Around and around he goes, where his mind stops nobody knows...

[ToadBrother]

The same thing you and Morris seem to constantly rail against, transparency and accountability.

That's it in a nutshell.

I don't really see where either one of us said there shouldn't be transparency and accountability. I certainly didn't. But I fail to see how creating yet another layer of government is going to actually improve transparency and accountability. I mean, every time your car starts running rough, is your solution to add another wheel?

It's the great irony of the Left that every problem created by too many layers on the onion can only be solved by adding more layers.

Edited May 19, 2010 by ToadBrother

[eyeball]

I don't really see where either one of us said there shouldn't be transparency and accountability. I certainly didn't. But I fail to see how creating yet another layer of government is going to actually improve transparency and accountability.

That's why I suggest outsider representation on boards of directors.

It's interesting bouncing between you and Morris. His arguments against making changes to the way we govern our corporations resemble the one's you make on behalf of our government. You both seem possessed by the idea that we're both damned and doomed if we do.

I mean, every time your car starts running rough, is your solution to add another wheel?

No, I usually try to see what the problem is. That's the problem with both our governments and our corporations, we can't see much of what either are up to.

It's the great irony of the Left that every problem created by too many layers on the onion can only be solved by adding more layers.

Except that I'm suggesting we develop a better strain of onion.

Edited May 19, 2010 by eyeball

[ToadBrother]

That's why I suggest outsider representation on boards of directors.

And who exactly will this outsider interest be? How will it apply to corporations who extract resources in many jurisdictions? What will their powers be? What rules of confidentiality will they be bound by? Will the shareholders be able to vote them out? Or will shareholders be able to deal with them?

I mean, how is this any different than the old Communist notion of a Party member in each factory making sure management and workers behaved themselves? That made for a wildly successful economy.

It's interesting bouncing between you and Morris. His arguments against making changes to the way we govern our corporations resemble the one's you make on behalf of our government. You both seem possessed by the idea that we're both damned and doomed if we do.

I don't think we should govern our corporations. I think we should set up a regulatory framework. I do not think intruding the government into the board room is a productive enterprise at all. Quite the opposite, I think it's a recipe for disaster.

No, I usually try to see what the problem is. That's the problem with both our governments and our corporations, we can't see much of what either are up to.

The problem, in the case of the Gulf oil spill seems to have been in part malfeasance by the companies involved and, perhaps even more telling, too close a relationship between the regulatory bureaucracy and the oil companies.

My suggestions are as follows:

1. Remove all caps on corporate liability. If BP causes a trillion dollars worth of damage, then force it on pain of arrest and incarceration of its board and other executives, seizure of their personal assets as well as corporate assets to pay every nickel. In short, get rid of the legislative protections that limit liability and make the punishments much more severe for non-compliance.

2. Get government regulators and corporations out of each others' pockets (in fact, quite the inverse of what you seem to suggest). It ought to be a simple application of ethics to know that if you're responsible for licensing drilling operations that you shouldn't be receiving gifts from the companies that you're supposed to be overseeing the activities of, but, since some folks in every walk of life seem ethically challenged, make the punishments far more severe.

Edited May 19, 2010 by ToadBrother

[WIP]

I don't think we should govern our corporations. I think we should set up a regulatory framework. I do not think intruding the government into the board room is a productive enterprise at all. Quite the opposite, I think it's a recipe for disaster.

The problem, in the case of the Gulf oil spill seems to have been in part malfeasance by the companies involved and, perhaps even more telling, too close a relationship between the regulatory bureaucracy and the oil companies.

My suggestions are as follows:

1. Remove all caps on corporate liability. If BP causes a trillion dollars worth of damage, then force it on pain of arrest and incarceration of its board and other executives, seizure of their personal assets as well as corporate assets to pay every nickel. In short, get rid of the legislative protections that limit liability and make the punishments much more severe for non-compliance.

2. Get government regulators and corporations out of each others' pockets (in fact, quite the inverse of what you seem to suggest). It ought to be a simple application of ethics to know that if you're responsible for licensing drilling operations that you shouldn't be receiving gifts from the companies that you're supposed to be overseeing the activities of, but, since some folks in every walk of life seem ethically challenged, make the punishments far more severe.

Sounds like good suggestions, but I'm skeptical about keeping agencies like this Minerals Management Service from becoming pawns of the corporate lobbyists. Even if there is no direct quid pro quo, such as "gifts," there still is the problem of the end zone rewards that politicians cash in on after their service on behalf of corporate lobbyists. When a politician retires and ends up on the board of directors for five or six different corporations, or goes to work for one of these bogus conservative think tanks, a reward has been cashed in for services rendered; and there is very little that present system can do to combat this graft and corruption.

The corporate death penalty proposed here is still a good suggestion for dealing with corporations involved in risky, high profit businesses like oil. BP recently announced first quarter profits of six billion dollars. And the oil companies especially act like high stakes gamblers. When they gamble with other people's lives and lose big, they should die! And their assets should be re-organized under new ownership.

At one time (at least in the U.S.) corporations had finite life spans, and they had to prove that there was a public benefit to their operations or their charters could be revoked. Over the last hundred years, corporate citizens have become immortal and virtually omnipotent, adding every right that flesh and blood citizens possess. It's ironic that the corporate power that exists today was the catalyst for the American Revolution in the first place. Now that so called tea party patriots have reinvented their history so that they are trying to harness public outrage to support corporate power.

[eyeball]

And who exactly will this outsider interest be? How will it apply to corporations who extract resources in many jurisdictions? What will their powers be? What rules of confidentiality will they be bound by? Will the shareholders be able to vote them out? Or will shareholders be able to deal with them?

I mean, how is this any different than the old Communist notion of a Party member in each factory making sure management and workers behaved themselves? That made for a wildly successful economy.

Some boards have union representation. In my view corporations involved with resource extraction or whose activities result in degradation of the environment should include people elected from the public that speak for the local environment in the same way union representatives speak for their stakeholders.

I don't think we should govern our corporations. I think we should set up a regulatory framework. I do not think intruding the government into the board room is a productive enterprise at all. Quite the opposite, I think it's a recipe for disaster.

I agree. leaving my stake - the environment I live in - in the hands of some distant government appointee is the farthest from what I have in mind.

The problem, in the case of the Gulf oil spill seems to have been in part malfeasance by the companies involved and, perhaps even more telling, too close a relationship between the regulatory bureaucracy and the oil companies.

My suggestions are as follows:

1. Remove all caps on corporate liability. If BP causes a trillion dollars worth of damage, then force it on pain of arrest and incarceration of its board and other executives, seizure of their personal assets as well as corporate assets to pay every nickel. In short, get rid of the legislative protections that limit liability and make the punishments much more severe for non-compliance.

2. Get government regulators and corporations out of each others' pockets (in fact, quite the inverse of what you seem to suggest). It ought to be a simple application of ethics to know that if you're responsible for licensing drilling operations that you shouldn't be receiving gifts from the companies that you're supposed to be overseeing the activities of, but, since some folks in every walk of life seem ethically challenged, make the punishments far more severe.

Holy smokes...I thought I was idealistic.

I'd make changes to the way corporations are granted their charters, and in particular those that impact the environment. I'd go with bioregionalism and grant their charter from that basis.

It's not a new layer but a different onion.

[M.Dancer]

Some boards have union representation.

I'm not aware of any boards of listed companies that have union members...perhaps you would like to share some names.

[ToadBrother]

Some boards have union representation. In my view corporations involved with resource extraction or whose activities result in degradation of the environment should include people elected from the public that speak for the local environment in the same way union representatives speak for their stakeholders.

In other words, you want yet another layer of government. Do you think government intrusions become less onerous because the folks involved are elected?

[eyeball]

I'm not aware of any boards of listed companies that have union members...perhaps you would like to share some names.

You're not even aware of the concept. You need to get out of your momma's basement more often.

In the United States, worker representation on corporate boards of directors is a relatively recent development and has usually resulted from employee purchase of company stock or union concessions during collective bargaining (or both). In Europe, particularly in Scandinavia, West Germany, Luxembourg, and Austria, the representation of workers on corporate boards of directors is common, and has resulted from codetermination legislation.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-11061499.html

Co-determination is a practice whereby the employees have a role in management of a company.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-determination

I suspect many of the worker reperesentatives on these boards are elected from amongst workers as opposed to being elected or appointed by typical shareholders.

I think environmental representation on corporate boards is an even more natural evolution towards corporate social responsibilty. I think an arguiment can be made for regarding the people who live in a given ecosystem as being shareholders of it and elect representatives to boards of directors of companies that are allowed to operate in them.

There should, in my opinion, be an adjecency principle that goes farther than simply saying all Canadians own the fish in our coastal waters for example. This dilutes the stake that fishing communities have in the resources swimming around outside their harbors by making them the same as some dweeb in a T.O. C-suite. The same holds true for the waters these fish swim around in that big oil or logging multinationals set up shop in and around. No one is going to speak up for ensuring these companies don't ruin the environment better than the communities that rely on it.

Anyone who thinks some distant government located thousands of kilometers away from the action is going to effectively do that is either completely deluded or a vested shareholder or both.

Edited May 22, 2010 by eyeball

[eyeball]

In other words, you want yet another layer of government. Do you think government intrusions become less onerous because the folks involved are elected?

No. In no uncertain terms, no I do not want more layers of government. I said I want a whole new onion, remember? I'd like to scrap the Senate and even the Provinces one day.

Bioregionalism and Cascadia are where I'd like to go but in lieu of that and in the meantime I think making corporations (especially those into resource extracting or polluting things) more accountable and responsible is the only way to go, through legislated co-determination or something even more....constitutional.

I mean, we've pretty much ruled out any possibility of ever making governments honest so why not let them go the way of the dodo and let the corporations rule? After we get a proper handle on them that is.

I realize this is way outside your comfort zone but you need to get out of your momma's basement too.

Edited May 22, 2010 by eyeball

[M.Dancer]

You're not even aware of the concept. You need to get out of your momma's basement more often.

So you couldn't find any names either eh?

No surprises comrade bong hit....

[M.Dancer]

No. In no uncertain terms, no I do not want more layers of government. I said I want a whole new onion, remember? I'd like to scrap the Senate and even the Provinces one day.

Every day you sound more and more like the little birkenstock fascist you are ....

Edited May 23, 2010 by M.Dancer

[eyeball]

So you couldn't find any names either eh?

Allianz Worldwide

DaimlerChrysler

Deutsche Bank Group

Deutsche Telekom

E.ON

Siemens Group

Munich Re

RWE Group

Deutsche Post

BMW Group

Volkswagen Group

BASF Group

Commerzbank

Bayer Group

Metro AG

HVB Group

ThyssenKrupp Group

Eurohypo

SAP

Continental

EnBW-Energie Baden

Deutsche Lufthansa

Hypo Real Estate Holding

TUI Group

Celesio

Merck

AMB Generali Holding

Degussa

Vattenfall Europe

MAN Group

Schering Group

Hannover Re

Linde

Bankgesellschaft Berlin

BHW Holding

adidas-Salomon

Porsche

AXA Konzern

Beiersdorf

Altana

[M.Dancer]

Allianz Worldwide

DaimlerChrysler

Deutsche Bank Group

Deutsche Telekom

E.ON

Siemens Group

Munich Re

RWE Group

Deutsche Post

BMW Group

Volkswagen Group

BASF Group

Commerzbank

Bayer Group

Metro AG

HVB Group

ThyssenKrupp Group

Eurohypo

SAP

Continental

EnBW-Energie Baden

Deutsche Lufthansa

Hypo Real Estate Holding

TUI Group

Celesio

Merck

AMB Generali Holding

Degussa

Vattenfall Europe

MAN Group

Schering Group

Hannover Re

Linde

Bankgesellschaft Berlin

BHW Holding

adidas-Salomon

Porsche

AXA Konzern

Beiersdorf

Altana

The first one I picked at random, VW, doesn't seem to have any labour representation...but a few government officials...

http://www.volkswagenag.com/vwag/vwcorp/content/en/the_group/senior_management.html

The second one..

http://www.merck.com/about/leadership/board-of-directors/home.html

Doesn't either...

Nor did the 3rd...

http://www.altana.com/index.php?page=388

Or the 4th...

http://www.db.com/presse/en/content/management_board.htm

You would like another opportunity?

[eyeball]

Mitbestimmungsgesetz (in English, Codetermination Act) of 1976 is a German law which requires companies of over 2000 employees to have half the supervisory board of directors as representatives of workers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitbestimmungsgesetz

[M.Dancer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitbestimmungsgesetz

So when you said some boards...you meant German boards of companies over a certain size...

[eyeball]

What I mean is that the concept you're pretending to be unaware of does exist no matter how many fingers you stick in your ears or how loudly you sing la la la.

[M.Dancer]

What I mean is that the concept you're pretending to be unaware of does exist no matter how many fingers you stick in your ears or how loudly you sing la la la.

]I will concede it exists but it seems not in the way you pretend it does.

Please find the labour reps on the VW board.

[eyeball]

SUPERVISORY BOARD

The Supervisory Board is responsible for monitoring the Management and approving important corporate decisions. Moreover, it appoints the Members of the Board of Management.

The Supervisory Board of Volkswagen AG comprises 20 members and conforms to the German Co-determination Act. Dr. Ferdinand K. Piëch is the Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Volkswagen AG.

This board is comprised of a number of people from works councils.

A works council sounds an awful lot like a union to me. This article, a study of institutional frameworks certainly reinforces that impression.

[M.Dancer]

This board is comprised of a number of people from works councils.

A works council sounds an awful lot like a union to me.

Names....

[eyeball]

Have you ever used that little arrow thing on the right side of your screen? When you click on a link you should give it a try.

[M.Dancer]

Have you ever used that little arrow thing on the right side of your screen? When you click on a link you should give it a try.

I did but somehow I don't think a book written in 1995 will have the names of the Union reps on the Bof D at VW.