Three climate activists have been fined for attempting to spray political messages on Woodside boss Meg O'Neill's home, after a Perth magistrate told the trio they had crossed a line by targeting her personally.
I can’t think, off the top of my head, of examples where the actions of people in their professional lives impact others in the personal lives.
My entire industry (IT) does this. We build things that make work more efficient, which leads to entire job sectors going away.
I’ve helped build systems that led to work being so much easier that 80% of the workforce was redundant. Think of all the cashier’s that are gone, replaced by self service checkouts etc.
Lately AI has been disrupting people. I don’t work in this field, but you could call it sorta IT.
It’s happening soon™️: I can’t find the stats on how many people drive for work, but I’m pretty sure it’s in the double-digits. Self driving vehicles are close to reality - what happens to all those workers?
So, my point is a question about whether employees hiding behind the ‘corporate veil’ of legal protection who have taken actions to the detriment of others aren’t held to account the same way they should be, if they had taken those actions in their personal lives.
Workers who take positive actions, or what could loosely be described as not negative in the aggregate, in their professional lives are often, not always, recognised for their actions in the form of pay, bonuses, time off, promotions, public endorsements such as local business awards and more.
While the positive work they have performed for a company is retained and owned by the company, the reputation and rewards for that work go with them personally.
What i’m questioning is whether the protection of the corporate veil has gone so far that the approbium for negative actions isn’t attached to individuals personally. And whether that is a detriment to our society.
IT could work as an example, in the privacy space. There have been some questionable ethical actions there. Problem is, as you rightly say the massive changes, largely positive, to our society by IT has sort of swamped these negative actions for the majority of people.
My entire industry (IT) does this. We build things that make work more efficient, which leads to entire job sectors going away.
I’ve helped build systems that led to work being so much easier that 80% of the workforce was redundant. Think of all the cashier’s that are gone, replaced by self service checkouts etc.
Lately AI has been disrupting people. I don’t work in this field, but you could call it sorta IT.
It’s happening soon™️: I can’t find the stats on how many people drive for work, but I’m pretty sure it’s in the double-digits. Self driving vehicles are close to reality - what happens to all those workers?
Are IT workers evil for doing this sort of work?
So, my point is a question about whether employees hiding behind the ‘corporate veil’ of legal protection who have taken actions to the detriment of others aren’t held to account the same way they should be, if they had taken those actions in their personal lives.
Workers who take positive actions, or what could loosely be described as not negative in the aggregate, in their professional lives are often, not always, recognised for their actions in the form of pay, bonuses, time off, promotions, public endorsements such as local business awards and more.
While the positive work they have performed for a company is retained and owned by the company, the reputation and rewards for that work go with them personally.
What i’m questioning is whether the protection of the corporate veil has gone so far that the approbium for negative actions isn’t attached to individuals personally. And whether that is a detriment to our society.
IT could work as an example, in the privacy space. There have been some questionable ethical actions there. Problem is, as you rightly say the massive changes, largely positive, to our society by IT has sort of swamped these negative actions for the majority of people.