Re:Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes
by icelancer on Friday June 21, 2019 @02:47AM
(#20240436)
>> So then the CEO had to know this behavior was occurring.
Why does this naturally follow?
Re:Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes
by Nasrudith on Friday June 21, 2019 @08:28AM
(#20241879)
Because it is their responsibility and constructed ignorance is not an excuse for "mere mortals" it is reasonable to demand the same standard apply to them.
A bartender can't claim they didn't know the cient they served from behind a screened conveyor belt was too drunk. Thus the law should either allow the same sort of bullshit loopholes for all (a real headache) or they should be held to the same standard.
So then the CEO had to know this behavior was occurring. Did the CEO and management attempt to do anything about it or did they just maintain plausible deniability, knowing that not having a guilty mind was sufficient to prevent management from being liable?
If the NYT, an external organization, was able to uncover this behavior, why couldn't Walmart have had its own internal investigators tasked with maintaining ethical behavior?
We're not asking for the CEO's heads because they broke the strict letter of the law. We're saying that not breaking he law is the bare minimum the CEO should be responsible for.
Your defense of Walmart's CEO rings hollow for me because it's exactly the argument I'd expect from a lawyer.
Not every company behaves this way, even others with millions of employees. Feel free to call me naive and tell me the others just haven't been caught yet.