Why are corporations evil?

[Foxfyre]

They will lose and they should lose. The moment they locked her up after she was brutally gang raped as if she were a criminal they lost.

Okay, I read up on the case. IF the allegations she accuses her assailants of are true, then yes, the full brunt of whatever law applies should be brought to bear and the rapists and/or any accomplices should experience the full force of it. If the parent company or its susidiary was negligent, then they should be held accountable.

However, the fact that she pulled her case out of arbitration on the grounds that it had nothing to do with her employment in itself should absolve Halliburton of any legal responsibility. In work comp court in every state I know of, it would also absolve KBR of any responsibility. A corporation is not responsible for the actions of its employees outside the course and scope of their jobs unless it has rules and requirements that put an employee at risk. For instance, if an employer requires employees to be housed in a certain place or to take their meals in a certain place, then the employer is responsible for the employees' safety and welfare in that place even if they are off the clock at the time. It is reasonable for any company to not assume liability that they are not required to assume, especially when it opens the door wide open for every other grievance or personal issue with all employees to become the responsibility of the company.

So, as it appears this one did make into the courts, I'll wait for the court to decide and won't presume to judge.

All that is a totally separate issue from the point I was making, however, and you still don't seem to get the point I was making.

If your brother goes out and robs a bank or commits another crime, the place he works for is not evil or culpable because he did that. You and your family are not culpable because he did that. His friends and neighbors are not culpable because he did that. He is the one who did wrong and he is the one who must be held responsible for his actions.

If any of the rest of you knew he was going to do it and did nothing to prevent it, then you also share some guilt.

If Halliburton had no way of knowing that KBR's employees were capable of the terrible crime they are accused of committing, they are not in any way guilty or evil. And they are liable only if they put an employee at risk.

It is like I told you before I am not a debater. Defend or excuse KBR aka Halliburton if you like I will not. Corporations are fully liable for what they do and for what their employees do while they are working for them. As citizens of this country we are and will be held accountable for the actions of these corporations that have been running wild throughout the world creating mayhem and destruction.

If and when anyone cares more about pleasure and money than they do the people that were created in God's image then they are evil. Mega corps fit that to a tee.

I had an employee who was assaulted at knife point. The perp held the knife to her throat as he made her perform the act. He fully intended on slitting her throat and he would have had he not discovered she was not the person he thought she was when he initially attacked her. His motive and intent of the attack would be revealed later after the act was committed. She was on the job site when this happened. Therefore as an employer I was fully liable for what happened to her. If I had had her locked her up after that happened to her or even one of my other employees had locked her up after that happened I would still be liable and in fact I should be liable for the actions of my employees that did such an evil act. If I or one of my employees hid the matter to try to cover my ass or theirs I would still be held liable and rightfully so but I did not nor did any of my employees.

How anyone could possibly try to defend Halliburton and excuse them in this matter is beyond me. An employer is responsible when they know the possibility even the slightest or even a remote possibility exist that may or could endanger their employees as is any member of any body of people.

Corporations for profit are not people nor are they comparable with family members or neighbors.

Well you are entitled to your opinion. I prefer to blame those who commit an illegal or evil act rather than those who had no part in it. I am responsible to provide as safe an environment for my employees as is reasonable and yes, I would feel morally (but not necessarily legally) responsible to help an employee assaulted in the workplace as much as I could. If you want to assume legal responsibility for illegal or immoral acts committed by your employees unrelated to the workplace, that is your prerogative. You have no moral basis on which to require others to assume the same responsibility, however.

Again, this employee is basing her case on her assertion that the assault had nothing to do with her employment. Therefore, if she was in fact assaulted, those who assaulted her are the guilty ones and the ones who must be held accountable, and it is perfectly reasonable for the employer to not assume liability. To make the employer responsible for something that is not within the course or scope of the employee's duties and/or outside the scope of the employer's control or jurisdiction is not reasonable any more than it is reasonable for you to be responsible for every stupid or evil choice anybody who works for you or anybody related to you or associated with you does on his/her own time.

Again it is your choice to accept such responsibility. It is not your choice to make everybody else follow suit.

 

[RodISHI]

Okay, I read up on the case. IF the allegations she accuses her assailants of are true, then yes, the full brunt of whatever law applies should be brought to bear and the rapists and/or any accomplices should experience the full force of it. If the parent company or its susidiary was negligent, then they should be held accountable.

However, the fact that she pulled her case out of arbitration on the grounds that it had nothing to do with her employment in itself should absolve Halliburton of any legal responsibility. In work comp court in every state I know of, it would also absolve KBR of any responsibility. A corporation is not responsible for the actions of its employees outside the course and scope of their jobs unless it has rules and requirements that put an employee at risk. For instance, if an employer requires employees to be housed in a certain place or to take their meals in a certain place, then the employer is responsible for the employees' safety and welfare in that place even if they are off the clock at the time. It is reasonable for any company to not assume liability that they are not required to assume, especially when it opens the door wide open for every other grievance or personal issue with all employees to become the responsibility of the company.

So, as it appears this one did make into the courts, I'll wait for the court to decide and won't presume to judge.

All that is a totally separate issue from the point I was making, however, and you still don't seem to get the point I was making.

If your brother goes out and robs a bank or commits another crime, the place he works for is not evil or culpable because he did that. You and your family are not culpable because he did that. His friends and neighbors are not culpable because he did that. He is the one who did wrong and he is the one who must be held responsible for his actions.

If any of the rest of you knew he was going to do it and did nothing to prevent it, then you also share some guilt.

If Halliburton had no way of knowing that KBR's employees were capable of the terrible crime they are accused of committing, they are not in any way guilty or evil. And they are liable only if they put an employee at risk.

It is like I told you before I am not a debater. Defend or excuse KBR aka Halliburton if you like I will not. Corporations are fully liable for what they do and for what their employees do while they are working for them. As citizens of this country we are and will be held accountable for the actions of these corporations that have been running wild throughout the world creating mayhem and destruction.

If and when anyone cares more about pleasure and money than they do the people that were created in God's image then they are evil. Mega corps fit that to a tee.

I had an employee who was assaulted at knife point. The perp held the knife to her throat as he made her perform the act. He fully intended on slitting her throat and he would have had he not discovered she was not the person he thought she was when he initially attacked her. His motive and intent of the attack would be revealed later after the act was committed. She was on the job site when this happened. Therefore as an employer I was fully liable for what happened to her. If I had had her locked her up after that happened to her or even one of my other employees had locked her up after that happened I would still be liable and in fact I should be liable for the actions of my employees that did such an evil act. If I or one of my employees hid the matter to try to cover my ass or theirs I would still be held liable and rightfully so but I did not nor did any of my employees.

How anyone could possibly try to defend Halliburton and excuse them in this matter is beyond me. An employer is responsible when they know the possibility even the slightest or even a remote possibility exist that may or could endanger their employees as is any member of any body of people.

Corporations for profit are not people nor are they comparable with family members or neighbors.

Well you are entitled to your opinion. I prefer to blame those who commit an illegal or evil act rather than those who had no part in it. I am responsible to provide as safe an environment for my employees as is reasonable and yes, I would feel morally (but not necessarily legally) responsible to help an employee assaulted in the workplace as much as I could. If you want to assume legal responsibility for illegal or immoral acts committed by your employees unrelated to the workplace, that is your prerogative. You have no moral basis on which to require others to assume the same responsibility, however.

Again, this employee is basing her case on her assertion that the assault had nothing to do with her employment. Therefore, if she was in fact assaulted, those who assaulted her are the guilty ones and the ones who must be held accountable, and it is perfectly reasonable for the employer to not assume liability. To make the employer responsible for something that is not within the course or scope of the employee's duties and/or outside the scope of the employer's control or jurisdiction is not reasonable any more than it is reasonable for you to be responsible for every stupid or evil choice anybody who works for you or anybody related to you or associated with you does on his/her own time.

Again it is your choice to accept such responsibility. It is not your choice to make everybody else follow suit.

As it was KBR aka Halliburton's. They can be sued on the basis of what they assisted in doing to this woman after they employed her.

 

[beowolfe]

Corporations are neither good nor evil. They are inanimate objects, pretty much machines, that do not possess the capacity to choose good or evil. Now, the people who run the machines, that's a different story.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

With events the last few days it's very clear that some people thing corporations are the face of evil in the world. Why?

Because Corporations Like White People, Have No Soul!

What is it that makes corporations so much worse than LLCs, Partnerships, sole proprietorship?

Also, what's so evil about profits? Why is it wrong for companies of any size and shape actually producing a profit?

the above post is an excellent example of right wing lunacy...the poster makes a bogus statement (profits are said to be evil by some unknown entity)... and goes on to have an argument with themsleves....and they walk away actually thinkning they've won something.

the above lunacy happens all the time on FOX TV

 

[Foxfyre]

As it was KBR aka Halliburton's. They can be sued on the basis of what they assisted in doing to this woman after they employed her.

I prefer to judge based on what is done, not what is alleged, and what one is guilty of rather than who one is.

 

[uscitizen]

I am just amazed at Americans defending allowing foreigners having HUGE influence on our elections.

They have lost all their logical moorings

OUTRIGHT LIE. Foreign Corporations can not donate to US politicians or to PAC's. The Supreme Court did not change that law at all.

So Citgo owned by Hugo can't donate to a political campaign in the USA?

Nor can Glaxo?
Bayer?
Toyota?
Honda?
Subaru?

All are coprorations in America.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am just amazed at Americans defending allowing foreigners having HUGE influence on our elections.

They have lost all their logical moorings

OUTRIGHT LIE. Foreign Corporations can not donate to US politicians or to PAC's. The Supreme Court did not change that law at all.

So Citgo owned by Hugo can't donate to a political campaign in the USA?

Nor can Glaxo?
Bayer?
Toyota?
Honda?
Subaru?

All are coprorations in America.

The recent SCOTUS ruling did not affect the following in any way:

FOREIGN NATIONALS
Published in July 2003

Contents
Introduction
The Prohibition
Who is a Foreign National?
Individuals: The "Green Card" Exception
Domestic Subsidiaries and Foreign-Owned Corporations
PAC Contributions for Federal Activity
Corporate Contributions for Nonfederal Activity
Volunteer Activity
Non-election Activity by Foreign Nationals
Assisting Foreign National Contributions or Donations
Knowingly Soliciting, Accepting or Receiving Contributions and Donations from Foreign Nationals
Monitoring Prohibited Contributions

Introduction
The ban on political contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals was first enacted in 1966 as part of the amendments to the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), an "internal security" statute. The goal of the FARA was to minimize foreign intervention in U.S. elections by establishing a series of limitations on foreign nationals. These included registration requirements for the agents of foreign principals and a general prohibition on political contributions by foreign nationals. In 1974, the prohibition was incorporated into the Federal Election Campaign Act (the FECA),

 [PDF] giving the Federal Election Commission (FEC) jurisdiction over its enforcement and interpretation.

This brochure has been developed to help clarify the rules regarding the political activity of foreign nationals; however, it is not intended to provide an exhaustive discussion of the election law.  If you have any questions after reading this, please contact the FEC in Washington, D.C., at 1-800-424-9530 or 202-694-1100.  Members of the press should contact the FEC Press Office at 202-694-1220 or at the toll free number listed above.

Except where otherwise noted, all citations refer to the Act and FEC regulations.  Advisory Opinions (AOs) issued by the Commission are also cited.

[B]The Prohibition[/B]
The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly.  It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them.  Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment. 

[B]Who is a Foreign National?[/B]
The following groups and individuals are considered "foreign nationals" and are, therefore, subject to the prohibition:

Foreign governments; 
Foreign political parties; 
Foreign corporations; 
Foreign associations;                                    
Foreign partnerships; 
Individuals with foreign citizenship; and 
Immigrants who do not have a "green card." 
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml[/quote]

 

[beowolfe]

I am just amazed at Americans defending allowing foreigners having HUGE influence on our elections.

They have lost all their logical moorings

OUTRIGHT LIE. Foreign Corporations can not donate to US politicians or to PAC's. The Supreme Court did not change that law at all.

So Citgo owned by Hugo can't donate to a political campaign in the USA?

Nor can Glaxo?
Bayer?
Toyota?
Honda?
Subaru?

All are coprorations in America.

According to Alito, they can. Read the decision, I believe one article said it was page 75. Alito said that congress can distinguish between and American corporation and a foreign owned one. As I read it, it says to me that Alito is anticipating the need for some sort of congressional action to limit the Supremes decision to American owned corporations. So, he's basically saying in the ruling that they were issuing a ruling that required congressional action to maintain the 'American' flavor of our elections.

All corporations in American are not American owned. Which is only the 'tip of the iceberg' of my problem with the ruling. Even American owned corporations are not all fully american owned. There is nothing prohibitiing an any foreigner, or group of foreigners, from buyinig the majority shares in any american company. That is why IMO that only individuals should be allowed financial and voting participating in our elections.

 

[Jay Canuck]

Yeah, well the White House has told us a whole bunch of crap that has proved to be untrue, and rather than correct their story, they just change it or pretend that they really meant something else.

I trust Justice Alito to know his stuff a whole bunch more than I trust them.

Alito’s protest came when the president said: “With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) … And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.”



so is it false that last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in U.S elections?

Current federal law -- legal eagles can find it at 2 U.S.C. 441e(b)(3) -- prevents "a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country" from making "directly or indirectly" a donation or expenditure "in connection with a Federal, State, or local election," to a political party committee or "for an electioneering communication."

Indeed, the legal experts we spoke to after Obama's radio address said that the president was overstating the immediate impact of the opinion. They said Obama was correct that the ruling could open the door to foreign companies spending on American campaigns, given the general direction of the majority's opinion. But because the majority justices didn't actually strike down the existing barriers on foreign companies -- in fact, they explicitly wrote that it fell beyond the boundaries of their decision -- our experts agreed that Obama erred by suggesting that the issue is settled law. Until test cases proceed and further rulings are handed down, Obama's claim about foreign campaign spending is a reasonable interpretation, and nothing more.

so true then ....thanx.