They should really get a minimum settlement (10 years pay or something similar), because it's completely unreasonable to think that it would be tenable for them to continue their employment without severe strain.
Not just that, but the exposure hurts their chances of getting a new job with another organization as they become branded 'disloyal,' which is a quality managers don't like even if they're not explicitly breaking the law.
I wonder whether MBA students learn about the Coase theorem, for which there's abundant empirical evidence. It seems to me that deliberate attempts to shirk the costs of externalities are little more than the 'conspiracy to defraud the publick' that Adam Smith famously mentioned.
He resigned shortly after his employment was restored. This is totally expected given the amount of ostracization he would have faced, but I think it's still a better outcome for him in the long term than if he had just gotten a large settlement.
He's close to retirement age anyway, so by resigning voluntarily instead of being terminated for cause, he gets to keep his pension and other benefits. (South Korea has a public pension system, but large corporations often add a lot on top of that.) Hyundai also agreed to drop all other complaints against him in exchange for his resignation, which would not have happened had the court just ordered them to pay him a bunch of money. This man deserves a peaceful retirement.
I hope he moves to another town and runs an auto shop or something :)
Could this have promote an interesting incentive?
-> notice safety breach/design defect
-> don't speak up
-> manufacture and distribute
-> highlight defects to management
-> whistleblow if they don't recall
-> profit???
Or similar?
Just interested to see if anyone could elaborate or dispel this notion for me.
I guess it comes down to the character of the person?
