8 ms·
The entire argument for high CEO renumeration is that they take on total responsibility for all actions of the company. The buck stops with them. So, why do w
by tristor 2y ago
The entire argument for high CEO renumeration is that they take on total responsibility for all actions of the company. The buck stops with them. So, why do we think it's acceptable for that not to be the case when the company does something bad?
- 3a2d29 2y agoThats a good argument in a vacuum. But the world has determined "I was just following orders" is not a good defense. We know the crimes against humanity are bad and subordinates are guilty if they do them. We don;t just let everyone off free except the head of state. Not to see that united healtcare (as bad as they are) are anywhere near that, but I am saying that its clear that we, as a society, already hold all people complicit in evil as guilty. Not just the person at the top.
- defrost 2y agoWith a good many exceptions. The US as a society allows its citizens actions that the US as a country has prosecuted others for. eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial_of_Henry_Kissinger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial_of_Henry_Kissinger