zlacker

[parent] [thread] 2 comments
1. somena+(OP)[view] [source] 2026-02-05 14:28:05
You're granting an employee a special status that doesn't exist. Imagine a random person working to undermine a contract between the government and a business, motivated by an effort to obstruct law enforcement from enforcing the law. I'm sure you'd agree that this would obviously be illegal - that doesn't change simply because the person happens to be working for the business in question.
replies(2): >>donkey+91 >>donkey+RE
2. donkey+91[view] [source] 2026-02-05 14:33:32
>>somena+(OP)
It's still not clear to me, where did I anywhere imply it's any different if a single individual or company is in question. I said it's a matter between the company and the employee because a company may dislike the employees actions and choose to deal with it eg by firing them, the contracting party isn't involved here. It still seems to me at most a matter of contract whether it's directly a single person being contracted or a person as part of a company.
3. donkey+RE[view] [source] 2026-02-05 18:00:12
>>somena+(OP)
If it's still not clear, I am saying my understanding is unless it is very specifically part of an investigation and involves the party in question, the entity whether an individual or a company is irrelevant, they are just as far as it seems to me engaging in a business deal.
[go to top]