upvote
Well there used to be fuckedcompany.com that served a similar purpose. Of course it was litigated into history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fucked_Company
reply
>The site was taken offline for two days in August 2002; Ford Motor Company law firm Howard Phillips & Andersen had threatened litigation against FC's upstream provider HostGator as a means of silencing a discussion of a series of layoffs entitled "Ford, where finding a job is job one." Ford claimed that it infringed a trademark slogan "Ford, where quality is job one," discontinued after widespread use from 1980 to 1997. The site eventually returned minus the news of the Ford layoffs.

Anybody remember that? How damaging were those threads to Ford, I wonder. Hurt executive pride the most?

reply
That's an awesome domain name, tbh.

Polite warning for anyone trying to Google the name. "Fucked company" results in porn listings (but I should have seen this coming tbh)

:')

reply
FC wasn't litigated into history, it just had its moment and then passed and pud moved on to do other things.
reply
I suppose court records can function as such a list.

If you also want 'alledged assholery' on that list, the list will just turn into a list of CEOs, due to false reports.

reply
It would be nice to aggregate all that and put it under a "profile". Kind of like facebook, but your entire profile feed is just the long list of court records, assholery and screw overs for other people. I actually saw a version that someone did for Jack (Twitter's ex founder) a few years ago and it was hilarious but cleverly informative. That's honestly where I got this idea from.
reply
Why stop at CEOs?? If you implement this for everybody then I will know who to sell my used car to and who is an unworthy jerk!
reply
Given the vast over representation of sociopathy and malignant narcissism in CEOs it’s going to be most CEOs even if you filter out false claims.

But if you’re gonna hate someone it’s good if you have a real reason to do so instead of bullshit and rumors.

reply
> false reports.

Are you sure they're false?

reply
Are we sure that some reports of every person are false? Of course we are.
reply
It won’t help. At my second job the president hired a VP with a white collar criminal record and told everyone not to bring it up
reply
The POTUS is well known for screwing over contractors and lenders. It clearly didn't damage his reputation enough.
reply
arguably is the reason why his business kept failing. you can only screw over suppliers a couple of times before the word gets out and no one wants to do business with you.

now they want the cash up front, and with sizable markups to CYA.

a reasonable person would try to unfuck that perception; instead Trump double-down on the grift

reply
The most insane part of that is all the generally "normal" businesses who signed contracts with him despite this well publicized history. People like law firms with long histories.

Trump has always preferred dragging out a court battle to actually signing a small check for services rendered, and outright brags about it. He explicitly believes stiffing your contractors is what "Good business" means. Because he is a selfish child and getting stuff for free is his worldview.

But utter morons still line up to get shafted. I just don't understand.

I couldn't get a car loan because I have no credit history even though I had enough cash in the bank to buy the car yet people will still line up to suck the toe of someone with a known history of successfully screwing all their business partners.

Same with how his administration is full of people who don't recognize he will happily throw them under the bus for any reason even though that's all he has done for the past decade.

There is just a shocking inability for the common person to connect people to their history in the USA. The guy who started a trade war and caused prices to increase was voted in because prices were too high.

The math don't math.

reply
I think it must be some form of "I'm special/better/smarter than that other person who got ripped off, I won't get taken advantage of!"
reply
At one of my previous jobs, we were acquired by a company whose CEO had been caught for something involving bank fraud and was under a gag order not to talk about it. As far as I know they're still in business.
reply
I never have thought about it but I guess if the gag order applies to everyone in the case it's kind of convenient.
reply
In your mind should people with criminal record be barred from holding jobs forever? At that point why not just exile them?
reply
I knew this response would come up. Would you be okay to give Sam Bankman-Fried a leadership position? How about Martin Shkreli? Elizabeth Holmes? It's one thing to give someone that made a few minor mistakes a 2nd chance. It's another let a convicted child molester work at a kindergarden. Executives that committed fraud shouldn't be executives again.
reply
I don’t agree because I’m somewhat left leaning and believe in reform (except for violent crime).
reply
I sympathize, and also tend to the left, but please, I beg of you, redefine violence to include long term, intentional creation and operation of fraudulent or harmful enterprise. It takes energy to keep doing things wrong to that degree, and without real signs of behavioral modification that stick, the safest damn thing to do is keep them the hell away.
reply
Violence has a specific meaning, and twisting yourself into knots in order to define things you don't like as violence is dishonest.
reply
> I’m somewhat left leaning [...]

Um, really? If I were to look at your comment history, what would I see?

EDIT: ok, yeah, I actually checked. The threads on page 1 include: 1) this one, 2) "National sales tax would be significantly better than income tax.", 3) "Meta has made more positive contributions to society and the world than every HN commenter combined". Can you feel the left leaning?

reply
How are any of those contradictory?
reply
plenty of jobs for them to hold.

they can drive uber, clean toilets, work at a starbucks, etc

reply
Sorry, as someone who believes in reform this is unconscionable to me. Someone reformed should be able to hold any job (exception for violent crimes of course).
reply
There is such wall. Usually published by Fortune.
reply
Not just CEOs, but we also need it for investors. For example when startups screw over employees on equity, the founders, board members, and their firms, should all be on a public blacklist.
reply
ITT we recreate public filing rules
reply
Same goes for prospective investors, too!

If someone is known to be a ghoster, a gaslighter, a bullshitter, or someone who isn't serious and wants to waste the time of founders, it should be known.

reply
As a bolshie type myself, very quick to moan at higher-ups, I think we need to be realistic that often we grunts don't have the big picture (especially the politics) and unfortunately that won't stop somebody lowdown move from merely internal letting off steam to anonymous public borderline slander.

There is Glassdoor etc though for people who want to have their say; that all these platforms will be gamed and manipulated is a given.

reply
Nah, nah, nah. Let me help you there. You don't have the big picture because you either haven't asked, or it hasn't been shared with you. If you ask, and you still don't have it, it's being intentionally hidden, or the person doesn't know/can't articulate the connection. One of these is a problem for the org. The other is potentially structurally beneficial for the org, but a massive problem for you. Feel free to guess which is which. I leave it as an exercise to the student.
reply
That only works for poor people because CEOs will sue immediately. Someone with a lot of money for legal insurance would have to run it.
reply
Well, this kind of data actually exists. The key is to maintain anonymity. Glassdoor does it. You will see a lot of employees actually complain about management and seniors by name on there.
reply
Glassdoor, as big as it is, allows for deleting bad reviews.
reply
I wish there would just be laws against this type of behaviour, but we all know who is in control of which laws are getting passed. So short of that social shaming will have to do. A CEO that treated humans and/or the planet like dirt, should for example be unable to go to a restaurant, a bar, a park, down a road, onto a beach without getting thrown out or ridiculed, heckled or just called out by others. Behave like scum? Get treated like scum. Fuck with the tribe? Get thrown out. It is one of the oldest correctives for shit behavior any society has ever used in the history of humanity. The problem is they have created a world in which they have too many spaces to avoid this type of consequences.

Now of course within the rules of our society everyone should get a fair process. But these people are the ones who ignore and bend the rules the most and even have them rewritten. At some point when you play a game and you constantly have the other guy break the rules and bribe the referee to make ever more elaborate exceptions for them, at some point you just have to cancel the game and ensure it is never again played with that person on the field. They can watch from the sideline, but playing? Nope.

Now this should not target the occasional ethically neutral or even ethically responsible CEO, but I am afraid by that point it will be hard to have people see that difference anymore. It will come crashing down one way or another.

reply